Are Catholics who support abortions,contraception ect, guilty of dissent?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lisa4Catholics
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
Katherine just so you do not misunderstand or overlook the rest of Roberts post.He NEVER said he didn’t discern and reflect and take action over the social issues.He said that he may disagree on how to help.But, help and action was never taken out of the equation.God Bless
Thanks Lisa 👍 . I just caught up on the posts. I do work for social justice, so Katherine’s post upset me a little. I’ve noticed she likes to belittle those who don’t agree with her, so I guess I shouldn’t take it personally.

Good Catholics can disagree on government policy and still work toward the same ends. I guess I could pose the converse to Katherine - “Lord, I worked really hard on the difficult social justice issues, but I gave all of my liberal Catholic friends a pass on the clear cut life issues.”

God Bless,

Robert.
 
40.png
rlg94086:
Thanks Lisa 👍 . I just caught up on the posts. I do work for social justice, so Katherine’s post upset me a little. I’ve noticed she likes to belittle those who don’t agree with her, so I guess I shouldn’t take it personally.

Good Catholics can disagree on government policy and still work toward the same ends. I guess I could pose the converse to Katherine - “Lord, I worked really hard on the difficult social justice issues, but I gave all of my liberal Catholic friends a pass on the clear cut life issues.”

God Bless,

Robert.
It is my pleasure:) God Bless
 
IMHO and I could be wrong…but a person that has somewhat a questionable view on marriage is not nearly as troubled as a person that supports abortion on demand…so why should a person who is divorced, but living a Chaste life be punished while a single person who supports a “woman’s right to choose”, a.k.a “a woman’s right to murder” be allowed to be confirmed? It just doesn’t make sense to me.
40.png
Pug:
Is confirmation normally a don’t ask don’t tell policy so that this situation doesn’t come up? RCIA is like that, except for being sure about a person’s marriage.
 
40.png
dumspirospero:
IMHO and I could be wrong…but a person that has somewhat a questionable view on marriage is not nearly as troubled as a person that supports abortion on demand…so why should a person who is divorced, but living a Chaste life be punished while a single person who supports a “woman’s right to choose”, a.k.a “a woman’s right to murder” be allowed to be confirmed? It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Dumspirospero, in my parish it seems they try to be sure the people who need it do work through the annulment process. Someone living chastely, there is not an issue with that. In RCIA it seems to occassionally come up that the person is divorced and now currently remarried (they are a person who needs to investigate the validity of their previous marriage or possibly their current spouse’s previous marriage).

I did not intend the person who has concerns about marriage in general. There seems to be little direct questioning of the catechumens/candidates during RCIA if they hold to everything the Church teaches. Of course, when the catechumens are baptized they are asked the standard stuff. Honestly though, that wouldn’t have phased me in the least back when I was, well, when I wasn’t very truthful. It might well have phased me if someone set me down for a good talking to. But that is not their approach, it seems.
 
40.png
jlw:
All decent points to which I can’t disagree. AND…

The issue of life is VERY CLEAR.

The way to help the poor, and to *what degree *government should be involved IS NOT so clear cut, is it??
And God does not ask us just to do the simple and clear things; He also expects us to do that which is hard and difficult.

Are you saying that because I would prefer to be taxed less, and therefore have more money in my pocket FOR TYTHING, FOR CHARITY etc, I have somehow disobeyed Chruch teaching???
You’ve certainly disobeyed common sense. Tithes and charitable contributions are tax deductable, sweetheart.
 
“But, Jesus, I got the right answer to all the easy questions. Shouldn’t I get an ‘A’?”:banghead:
 
katherine2 said:
“But, Jesus, I got the right answer to all the easy questions. Shouldn’t I get an ‘A’?”:banghead:

No you shouldn’t. You should get a ‘C’ for leading others to sin via the Democratic Party 🙂 . IMHO the liberal understanding of Social Justice is misguided. It is one acceptable reaction to the teaching of the Church, but I believe it perpetuates poverty and discrimination. In the meantime, all other sin is accepted in the blessed name of “tolerance”.

I have prayed. I have discerned. Forgive my lack of charity, but I tire of having social justice thrown in my face. I would rather focus on teaching people to fish instead of living on government cheese. Everyone has opportunity to improve their lot in this country, regardless of race. I started with nothing and have made a decent living. I work to help others do the same. You’d rather give them welfare.

The Lord will judge us all in the end.

God Bless,

Robert.
 
40.png
rlg94086:
. Everyone has opportunity to improve their lot in this country, regardless of race.
Robert.
To the degree this opportunity exists, it exists because of liberals and the traditional Catholic Social Justice vision. The possibility of this opportunity his entirely depended on the social initiative of liberals and Catholics engaged in Social Action, most commendabley through organizations like the National Catholic Council for Interracial Justice (NCCIJ) along with Martin Luther King, Walter Reuther, Whitney Young, A. Philip Randolph, Eugene Carson Blake, Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle and many others.

You should hug a liberal. 😉
 
You should hug a liberal. 😉
Well, thanks for the offer. My arms can’t reach to PA, but I hug my Mom all the time. 🙂

Civil rights was and is a bi-partisan concern. Unfortunately, there are racist liberals despite what you might think. Some of them are part of “civil rights” organizations.

God Bless,

Robert.
 
40.png
rlg94086:
Well, thanks for the offer. My arms can’t reach to PA, but I hug my Mom all the time. 🙂

Civil rights was and is a bi-partisan concern. Unfortunately, there are racist liberals despite what you might think. Some of them are part of “civil rights” organizations.

God Bless,

Robert.
In fact,planned parenthood who the dem’s seem to be so concerned about have been quite successul in making abortion the number one killer of African Americans. As far as I am concerned the freeby’s in one hand and dismembered babies in the other does not strike me as compassionate.God Bless
 
40.png
rlg94086:
Civil rights was and is a bi-partisan concern. God Bless,

Robert.
As is pro-life. Your reading from a pro-life Democratic Party official right now.
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
I think they are in dissent,but I would like to hear your take on it.If you have any documents from the Magestarium they would be appreciated.God Bless
Yes, they are. Abortion, encouragement of the homosexual lifestyle, artificial contraception, fornication, etc… are all tools of the devil and are therefore to be rejected by the Catholic Christian.
 
40.png
katherine2:
An athiest can support “pro-life” issues, too.
A protestant can believe in the Holy Trinity and support “pro-life”, but accept or promote racism, and they aren’t “dissenting” because they DON’T or CAN’T rely on 2000 years of Magesterial AUTHORITY on the matter. Those who reject the churches social teachings should, but don’t. What is the difference between that protestant and a Catholic racist??
If someone is a racist, then they dissent. Faithful Catholics accept all the Church teachings. “Social justice” has come to be defined as liberal, modern politics. A broad term like “social justice” must be defined. Once defined as the Church defines it,you will see all orthodox Catholics accept it. The reverse may not be true. Those who embrace a vague cry of “social justice” often reject much of the moral law.
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
I think they are in dissent,but I would like to hear your take on it.If you have any documents from the Magestarium they would be appreciated.God Bless
I would say they are guilty of dissent, disobedience or heresy depending on a few other factors.

Even if they were raised with the faulty teaching that was passed off by some as “spirit of Vatican II”, they would be guilty of disobedience if they did not form their conscience according to the Church’s teaching. This is a basic duty of Catholics.

IF they did understand Church teaching and still persisted in taking a contrary position, they would then be guilty of dissent. We owe affirmative assent to all Church teaching even if we don’t understand it perfectly.

IF they also spoke publically against Church teaching or (worse) attempted to teach others in a way that is contrary to the Church, they would be guilty of heresy.
 
40.png
fix:
“Social justice” has come to be defined as liberal, modern politics.
Those who dissent from the Church’s social teaching have come to define her teachings as “liberal, modern politics”
 
40.png
katherine2:
Those who dissent from the Church’s social teaching have come to define her teachings as “liberal, modern politics”
Untrue, as usual. I accept every teaching of the church. I reject false interpretations of social justice by some Catholics who attempt to redefine Church teachings in favor of marxist ideas.
 
40.png
fix:
Untrue, as usual. I accept every teaching of the church. I reject false interpretations of social justice by some Catholics who attempt to redefine Church teachings in favor of marxist ideas.
I too, accept every teaching of the Church. I reject false interpretations of church teachings by some Catholics who attempt to redefine Church teachings in favor of jright wing ideas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top