A Modest Proposal

[BillP]

Do you really want to be in communion with people who advocate legalized murder? Or don’t you really believe your Church’s teaching on the subject?

EXACTLY! We should shun those people, just like Jesus did when he shunned the prostitutes and the tax collectors and the adultress…

Oh wait…

 

[romanholiday]

Your definition below could apply to a whole lot of people- and not just in the area of social teachings. Many Catholics are quite good at following teachings regarding abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality, but when it comes to other teachings of Christ they’re a bit less enthusiastic.

And what, pray tell, whould some examples be? I don’t personally know any Catholics and would be surprised that any who enthusiastically support Church teaching on abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality would be in open/public dissent from other settled teachings.

On the other hand, I know many of the “social justice” crowd (as just one general example) who openly dissent not only from those teachings you cite, but others such as the ordination of men only and the hierarchichal nature of the Church as given by Christ.

 

[praise_Jesus_1]

The Catholic college on our Public University campus here has also been known to lessen the “severity” of sin. To make everyone… well… “happy”.

Apparently to some priests it is almost impossible to commit a mortal sin, because if we had ‘full knowledge’ then we wouldn’t do it because we’d see just how bad it would separate us from God… so to some of these priests a sane person is probably incapable of mortal sin, which leaves only the insane… but they weren’t in the right mind in the first place so they can’t be culpable… bah!

Sorry for my rant, when I originally heard this my jaw dropped.

Anyways I’m all for speaking the truth. I don’t understand the emphasis in some places to make it sound like heaven is easy to get to… I thought the road was narrow?

 

[JRKH]

It’s easy for the Church to go after public figures, but what method are they going to use with private citizens?

Will there be some kind of loyalty oath that includes the social teachings that are not contained in the Creed?

If the policy cannot be enforced uniformly, perhaps that has something to do with the hesitation. If you can excommunicate Nancy Pelosi for disagreeing with Church teaching, but you can’t excommunicate Nancy Jones for holding the same opinion and sharing it with those around her-it would seem inconsistent.

Actually, while we are talking about “High Profile” politicians here, the policy should be applied uniformly where possible.
It is one thing for a person to hold heretical beliefs privately, God will deal with the privately. It is quite another to espouse those views to others for then you will incur the punishment for leading others astray. Whether it is in the parish or in the congress it is the duty of the Priests and Bishops to tell these people that they are risking their eternal souls by holding such views. To fail in this, and then to fail to take the necessary steps then the person refuses to recant, is tantamount to disserting the flock.

I spent many years away from the Church. I questioned and rejected many Church beliefs and practices. I even held “pro-choice” views, though I was never personally pro-choice. However, while I held these positions, I did not refer to myself as Catholic and, at those times I did attend mass, I never took communion. To do so would have been dishonest both to myself and to the Church. If you want to be catholic, then Be Catholic!! Do not discrace yourself and the Church by claiming to be something you are not.

As far as the people in office are concerned, if they will not recant, they should be exposed to their constuants as Liars for claiming to be Catholic while refusing to hold Catholic beliefs. Don’t get me wrong, there is absolutely NO reason that these people should not hold public office, but those who vote whould be aware that they do not give a hang about honor or about promises.
They claim Catholicism, yet break their baptismal vows. They Claim Catholicism yet dishonor God and the Church by their duplicity.

May God help us all to rebuild His Church - Smaller perhaps - but Stronger.

Peace
James

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Actually, while we are talking about “High Profile” politicians here, the policy should be applied uniformly where possible.
It is one thing for a person to hold heretical beliefs privately, God will deal with the privately. It is quite another to espouse those views to others for then you will incur the punishment for leading others astray. Whether it is in the parish or in the congress it is the duty of the Priests and Bishops to tell these people that they are risking their eternal souls by holding such views. To fail in this, and then to fail to take the necessary steps then the person refuses to recant, is tantamount to disserting the flock.

I spent many years away from the Church. I questioned and rejected many Church beliefs and practices. I even held “pro-choice” views, though I was never personally pro-choice. However, while I held these positions, I did not refer to myself as Catholic and, at those times I did attend mass, I never took communion. To do so would have been dishonest both to myself and to the Church. If you want to be catholic, then Be Catholic!! Do not discrace yourself and the Church by claiming to be something you are not.

As far as the people in office are concerned, if they will not recant, they should be exposed to their constuants as Liars for claiming to be Catholic while refusing to hold Catholic beliefs. Don’t get me wrong, there is absolutely NO reason that these people should not hold public office, but those who vote whould be aware that they do not give a hang about honor or about promises.
They claim Catholicism, yet break their baptismal vows. They Claim Catholicism yet dishonor God and the Church by their duplicity.

May God help us all to rebuild His Church - Smaller perhaps - but Stronger.

Peace
James

Actually, I agree with you-which is why I refer to myself as being “raised Catholic”. I no longer feel that I can call myself Catholic because I’m gay.

I miss the Church and I have nothing but fond feelings about the Good Sisters that taught me over the years and the wonderful Priests that have helped me. However, when push came to shove, the idea that by my very existence I was considered in need of repair, and that my family-who love me unconditionally-would be considered abusive or deficient because of my very existence as a homosexual has become more than I can bear.

I don’t expect the Church to change for me, and I doubt that most people who disagree with Church teaching on abortion, euthanasia and other social issues really expect Her to either. We don’t want to leave the Church that raised us, and that has been a source of comfort to us-but you’re right. If we can’t accept the teaching 100%, we should not expect to be welcomed there.

 

[Kay_Cee]

If the Bishops are going to kick out the public figures, they’re going to have to make it very clear that everyone who believes as those public figures do are no longer welcome.

I think that this sentiment goes to the heart of the matter being discussed here.

No one, but *no one, *is unwelcome in the Catholic Church. Sinners, in fact, are the most welcome. The Church is a hospital for sinners. As Jesus said, He did not come for the righteous but for sinners. It is the sick, not the healthy, who need the Divine Physician.

However, it’s one thing to welcome the sick into the hospital. It’s another thing when they refuse all the treatment and medicine offered them. It’s even worse when they insist on taking medicine that’s good for other patients but deadly for them.

I refer here to the Eucharist. Frankly, I can’t think of a better medicine for the soul, except perhaps the confessional. But we’re told quite clearly that those who take the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin eat and drink condemnation unto themselves.

Don’t we have an obligation to tell such persons that they are endangering their spiritual health? That they could die from what they’re doing?

Perhaps a lot of confusion stems from a lack of understanding what an excommunication is. (You might want to check the Catholic Encyclopedia here: newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm ) Excommunication does not tell someone he is not welcome. We are Catholic by means of our Baptism, and excommunication does not “undo” the sacrament. But it does tell them they are not in line with Church teaching. They are not availing themselves of the medicine the Church offers (I mean here the confessional) and are instead making their condition worse by taking the medicine they shouldn’t (I mean here the Eucharist).

 

[JRKH]

I think that this sentiment goes to the heart of the matter being discussed here.

No one, but *no one, *is unwelcome in the Catholic Church. Sinners, in fact, are the most welcome. The Church is a hospital for sinners. As Jesus said, He did not come for the righteous but for sinners. It is the sick, not the healthy, who need the Divine Physician.

However, it’s one thing to welcome the sick into the hospital. It’s another thing when they refuse all the treatment and medicine offered them. It’s even worse when they insist on taking medicine that’s good for other patients but deadly for them.

I refer here to the Eucharist. Frankly, I can’t think of a better medicine for the soul, except perhaps the confessional. But we’re told quite clearly that those who take the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin eat and drink condemnation unto themselves.

Don’t we have an obligation to tell such persons that they are endangering their spiritual health? That they could die from what they’re doing?

Perhaps a lot of confusion stems from a lack of understanding what an excommunication is. (You might want to check the Catholic Encyclopedia here: newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm ) Excommunication does not tell someone he is not welcome. We are Catholic by means of our Baptism, and excommunication does not “undo” the sacrament. But it does tell them they are not in line with Church teaching. They are not availing themselves of the medicine the Church offers (I mean here the confessional) and are instead making their condition worse by taking the medicine they shouldn’t (I mean here the Eucharist).

Indeed The Church is a hospital for sinners, but it cannot help those who refuse help just as a hospital cannot help the lung cancer patient who refuses to stop smoking.

I think of the old Joke:
How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
Only One - But the light bulb has to want to change.

Same with the Church - Welcome the sinners - Teach them the truth - if they refuse the truth then they must remain outside of full communion.

Peace
James

 

[Don_Schneider]

Dear Bill,

When Jesus intervened to stop the crowd from stoning the adulteress to death, He admonished: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Bravo! That is the only part of the account of the incident that people who apparently think like yourself hear and applaud.

But what then did Jesus admonish the woman?:

“Go and sin no more.”

Bravo! That is the part that people who apparently think like yourself conveniently don’t hear or else easily forget.

Look, you are obviously intelligent enough to follow the train of this thread. So would you (and others) please stop pretending that you do not recognize the distinction between sinning (murdering) and denying the teachings of the Church (there is nothing immoral or sinful in supporting legalized abortion because it is not murder, even though the Church teaches that it is); the distinction between sinning and living in sin?

Now, would you care to address the issue at hand?

 

[JRKH]

Actually, I agree with you-which is why I refer to myself as being “raised Catholic”. I no longer feel that I can call myself Catholic because I’m gay.

I miss the Church and I have nothing but fond feelings about the Good Sisters that taught me over the years and the wonderful Priests that have helped me. **However, when push came to shove, the idea that by my very existence I was considered in need of repair, and that my family-who love me unconditionally-would be considered abusive or deficient because of my very existence as a homosexual has become more than I can bear. **

I don’t expect the Church to change for me, and I doubt that most people who disagree with Church teaching on abortion, euthanasia and other social issues really expect Her to either. We don’t want to leave the Church that raised us, and that has been a source of comfort to us-but you’re right. If we can’t accept the teaching 100%, we should not expect to be welcomed there.

While I recognize the difficulty of your situation, I am saddened that you chose to leave the Church.
I bolded the above section only to make the point that we all are considered, by our very existance, in need of repair. What specific repairs are required varies, but the repairs are necessary none the less.

May God guide you.

Peace
James

 

[AndyF]

JRKH;5365483:

I would need to know where your line is drawn? How do we approach this question in the context of the various ways of showing disloyalty.? Who is qualified to send the letter?

AndyF

 

[mkingdomlvr]

While I recognize the difficulty of your situation, I am saddened that you chose to leave the Church.
I bolded the above section only to make the point that we all are considered, by our very existance, in need of repair. What specific repairs are required varies, but the repairs are necessary none the less.

May God guide you.

Peace
James

I agree, yet there is a massive difference between the kind of repair and sacrifice required of heterosexuals and that which is required of us. We are expected to live celibate lives and are encouraged to change our orientation-which if you can imagine being asked to do that as a heterosexual I think you can understand why we feel it’s a little more than what is asked of most people.

 

[chain]

So would you (and others) please stop pretending that you do not recognize the distinction between sinning (murdering) and denying the teachings of the Church (there is nothing immoral or sinful in supporting legalized abortion because it is not murder, even though the Church teaches that it is); the distinction between sinning and living in sin?

If in denying the teachings of the church you cause others to sin - then you have sinned. You are responsible for the consequence of your actions. Sometimes those actions are direct, sometimes they are indirect. If you tell someone that murder is ok, and they go out and murder (because they relied on your advise) - you are responsible.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

If in denying the teachings of the church you cause others to sin - then you have sinned. You are responsible for the consequence of your actions. Sometimes those actions are direct, sometimes they are indirect. If you tell someone that murder is ok, and they go out and murder (because they relied on your advise) - you are responsible.

And it doesn’t matter if you are a public figure or not-if someone knows you as a Catholic and you tell them something is Catholic teaching and it isn’t-then you are responsible for what you did.

 

[SonofMonica]

I agree, yet there is a massive difference between the kind of repair and sacrifice required of heterosexuals and that which is required of us. We are expected to live celibate lives and are encouraged to change our orientation-which if you can imagine being asked to do that as a heterosexual I think you can understand why we feel it’s a little more than what is asked of most people.

I respectfully but sincerely disagree. All non-married folks are called to live chaste lives and suppress urges and attempt to steer our orientation toward the holy and not the profane. Some married folks are called to live chastely as well, for a variety of reasons. Please do not imagine that you, as one who is attracted to someone of the same sex, wants to have sex with someone you’re not supposed to any more than a heterosexual, even a married one, does. That’s just dead wrong, as lust is a problem for all of us, and I will be the first to say it’s extremely hard to deal with. But we’re all asked to change our orientation. All of us. That’s the gospel. Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand. That’s the message. That’s the repair and sacrifice asked of each and every one of us. I regard you with the utmost love, empathy and affection in Christ, and I will be praying for you today. May God bless you.

 

[JRKH]

JRKH;5365483:

I would need to know where your line is drawn? How do we approach this question in the context of the various ways of showing disloyalty.? Who is qualified to send the letter?

AndyF

It appears you were refering to anearlier post, I assume where I was talking about people who espouse views that directly contradict Church teaching.

I would imagine that Canon Law probaly has specific steps outlined so anything I might say is just my opinion - Please bear that in mind.

Simply put I would look at Matthew 18:15-18 and say there is the blueprint.
If a person espouses error to you and others, you should gently but firmly correct them. If tehy refuse to listen, then others (parish priest) should be brought in. If they still refuse, the matter should be refered to the Bishop. If they refuse to listen to the Bishop they should, at least, be barred from the sacraments as an unrepentant sinner. Since it is the Parish Priest who would be most closely aware of whether the person has repented, it would be the Parish priest who is in best position to bar the person, in writing, from the sacraments as an unrepentant sinner.

Again I emphasize that this is just my opinion of a logical way for it to work.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I agree, yet there is a massive difference between the kind of repair and sacrifice required of heterosexuals and that which is required of us. We are expected to live celibate lives and are encouraged to change our orientation-which if you can imagine being asked to do that as a heterosexual I think you can understand why we feel it’s a little more than what is asked of most people.

I do not wish to derail this thread by going too far into this, but I will say that -
No one can know what the others burdens are. Is it any easier for a person who is a pedophile to change than Homosexual? Is it easier for a “womanizer” to be faithful? How about a person who is addicted to Porn or Gambling, or Gluttony?
Each requires some form of mortal and “Character changing” combat against their very nature.
Yes, you are called to live a celibate life for the good of your soul. Just as a pedophile is called to not abuse children. Just as a priest is called to celibacy. Just as I am called to be monogomous. These things are not easy.

Is one more difficult than another? I don’t know.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

And it doesn’t matter if you are a public figure or not-if someone knows you as a Catholic and you tell them something is Catholic teaching and it isn’t-then you are responsible for what you did.

Well and succintly put.

Peace
James

 

[CentralFLJames]

I agree, yet there is a massive difference between the kind of repair and sacrifice required of heterosexuals and that which is required of us. We are expected to live celibate lives and are encouraged to change our orientation-which if you can imagine being asked to do that as a heterosexual I think you can understand why we feel it’s a little more than what is asked of most people.

I’d like to please request that we not turn this into another “woe is me the poor victim of my own sexuality thread”? We are all victims of our fallen humanity and are ALL called to live chaste in our stations in life. You are not made “a homosexual” - you have elected to be that with perhaps a slight proclivity in that direction. Let’s not debate that here. Start a new thread if you must - but please don’t derail this one into another narrow personal interest topic.

PAX,
James

 

[mkingdomlvr]

I’d like to please request that we not turn this into another “woe is me the poor victim of my own sexuality thread”? We are all victims of our fallen humanity and are ALL called to live chaste in our stations in life. Start a new thread if you must - but please don’t derail this one into a narrow personal interest topic.

PAX,
James

Point taken. I used it as an example of what I feel a person who disagrees with Church teaching should do. I did not intend to derail.

I will take my leave.

 

[JRKH]

Point taken. I used it as an example of what I feel a person who disagrees with Church teaching should do. I did not intend to derail.

I will take my leave.

May God go with you and aid you in your struggles.

Peace
James