As Church Shifts, a Cardinal Welcomes Gays; They Embrace a ‘Miracle’

[Peter_J]

What aspects of his Catholicism or views causes you to describe his as a “traditionalist” Catholic?

My answer will probably be rather meager, partly because these threads have been taking up a bit more time than I’d like.

But also partly because I’m rather rusty on traditionalist Catholicism, which is a result of my own choice over the last few years not to keep up with it: it just hasn’t seemed very relevant to me, because most Catholics on this forum are not traditionalist Catholics per se, but rather Catholics who embrace some aspect of traditionalist Catholicism but not others. (To be fair, I think there is some sense in which I actually prefer dialogue with traditionalist Catholics.)

But to try to make this into a proper answer to your question, I think that Peter Miller’s article “A Brief Defense of Traditionalism”, gives a good picture of traditionalist Catholicism.

 

[Rau]

…But to try to make this into a proper answer to your question, I think that Peter Miller’s article “A Brief Defense of Traditionalism”, gives a good picture of traditionalist Catholicism.

Well that not what I was asking for in post #329. I was asking what about reggieM (gleaned from his views/posts) prompted you to identify reggieM as a “traditionalist” catholic.

 

[Peter_J]

Fair enough. I guess my “try to make this into a proper answer” wasn’t entirely successful.

Well, so much to do and so little time.

 

[Rau]

It seems to me that accepting the church’s teachings on the socially contentious issues, such as abortion, homosexuality, a male priesthood, contraception etc has become the basis for describing a Catholic as “traditional” or “conservative”. That is simply wrong. And while in many cases it is an innocent mistake to misuse those terms, it risks giving the appearance that there are multiple brands of the faith, split along lines of which moral tenets are accepted, that can properly be called “Catholic”.

 

[Peter_J]

I’d like to ask a question of my own. (Granted I haven’t fully answered all questions put to me … so to fair I’ll add a caveat that I’ll try not to complain if you don’t answer this. Although I did at least answer a lot of the questions. ) ReggieM, does this post bother you:

Mainstream “Catholicism”? No. My words are, thankfully, not in line with that. Traditional Catholic understanding? Absolutely.

Sexual temptation and lust are afflictions to which all men and women must to some degree bear and resist. Homosexual “lusts” are a particularly dangerous affliction because they are intrinsically disordered (wrong in all cases) and are commonly accepted and/or endorsed by the “Christian” and secular world. Sodomy is a mortal sin and is one of the absolute worst ones. It demands retribution from God and for this sin He destroyed cities and slew many thousands. It is probably the most dangerous sin right now, because of how prevalent it is and because weak-willed and cowardly voices within our own communities (who should all have been cast out a long time ago) have been silent on it or even (and this should carry a death sentence) publicly endorsed it.

I would rather learn my child had been burnt alive in a fire than learn they had engaged in this sin.

(I’m asking this quite seriously because I couldn’t tell if that death-penalty proposal goes against your traditional[ist] thinking or not.)

 

[reggieM]

The reason I’ve reacted to the repeated references to “traditional Catholics” (not just by you) is they give the appearance that it’s only a certain kind of Catholicism that holds to the relevant moral teachings of the Church. That’s wrong. Some (many) people may pick and choose elements of Catholicism, but that is essentially an issue of faithfulness, not traditionalism. I agree that some of what you’ve identified as “traditional” may well add to the difficulty that a “gay couple” would face in fitting into a particular community.

Ok, thank you for understanding. There are aspects of the faith which can be adopted for various reasons or they can be ignored if that is best. It is left up to a community or even individual person. Some parishes are more liberal, others more conservative.
I’m not talking about the fundamentals of the Faith - that which is required for belief. The Catholic Faith is one and unified. There is no traditionalist, liberal or conservative Catholicism in that sense.
Most importantly, as you rightly said, there is fidelity to the teachings of the Church and there is various forms of rejection and infidelity to those teachings.

I don’t think we need to pursue this further - but we can if you’d like.
I identity myself as a Catholic. I’m liberal in some ways, conservative in others.
I introduced this topic merely through an anecdote and in describing my parish as traditional.

 

[reggieM]

(I’m asking this quite seriously because I couldn’t tell if that death-penalty proposal goes against your traditional[ist] thinking or not.)

Hi Peter,
You want to know if I support the death penalty?

There is all sorts of controversy around that issue. Here’s an article from EWTN. I’m not prepared to discuss it though or how various political or social climates affect how the teaching is applied. Again, I think a higher level of expertise than I have is needed for that:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/capital_punishment.htm

Wouldn’t that be a more appropriate comment in it’s own discussion thread?

Beyond that, you can call me whatever label you want if you think that will help you have a better understanding and enable you to communicate with me and others better.
In my experience, labeling people in ways they themselves reject is not the best way to gain understanding of what the person is saying, or who the person really is.
But that’s up to you.

I’d just conclude with a follow up question: How do you define a “traditional Catholic” precisely? And another: How does that label help you understand what a person is saying?

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter,
You want to know if I support the death penalty?

I quoted a specific post, with the idea that you would read or re-read it. Even better, I’ll narrow it down to one sentence. Please read this:

It is probably the most dangerous sin right now, because of how prevalent it is and because weak-willed and cowardly voices within our own communities (who should all have been cast out a long time ago) have been silent on it or even (and this should carry a death sentence) publicly endorsed it.

 

[reggieM]

I quoted a specific post, with the idea that you would read or re-read it. Even better, I’ll narrow it down to one sentence. Please read this:

Ok, I read it. Is the death penalty justified in that situation?

I don’t know. I’d have to ask a canon lawyer and/or theologian.
If it is justified, then anyone who supports is it merely a “faithful Catholic”.
If it is not justified, then anyone who supports it is in violation of Canon Law and/or the teachings of the Church.
That’s the way it works.

You’re looking for some kind of gotcha, but I don’t think you’re going to find it here.

 

[at9009]

Ok, I read it. Is the death penalty justified in that situation?

I don’t know. I’d have to ask a canon lawyer and/or theologian.
If it is justified, then anyone who supports is it merely a “faithful Catholic”.
If it is not justified, then anyone who supports it is in violation of Canon Law and/or the teachings of the Church.
That’s the way it works.

You’re looking for some kind of gotcha, but I don’t think you’re going to find it here.

It’s not a gotcha question. It is clear and concrete example of a person not showing any charity or compassion. And you response is let me consult a canon lawyer. THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES.

 

[Peter_J]

Ok, I read it. Is the death penalty justified in that situation?

I don’t know.

Thanks, that tells me what I wanted to know about you. Wow.

 

[reggieM]

If it is justified, then anyone who supports is it merely a “faithful Catholic”.
If it is not justified, then anyone who supports it is in violation of Canon Law and/or the teachings of the Church.

 

[reggieM]

It’s not a gotcha question. It is clear and concrete example of a person not showing any charity or compassion. And you response is let me consult a canon lawyer. THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES.

That’s the definition of a loaded question and entrapment. You’re speaking about charity and compassion?
An ambiguous point is raised and I’m supposed to agree or disagree - and from that you render a judgement against me without telling me that my reply will form the basis of your judgement.

Yes, we look to canonists and theologians to explain teachings.
The death penalty is permitted in some cases. Is the church lacking charity?
In that particular case, allowing the death penalty for people who publicly promote vice or sexual immorality could be justified, depending on the social situation.
If it was justified, and I did support it – you would not be free to label me anything but a faithful Catholic.
If it was not justified, then I wouldn’t be free to support it.

For myself, I wouldn’t support the death penalty in that case, but if it was permitted by Catholic teaching I would not be free to say it was immoral.

 

[reggieM]

Thanks, that tells me what I wanted to know about you. Wow.

The question was with regard to what a supposed traditional Catholic is,

I answered with that in mind.

I asked you directly if you wanted my view on Capital Punishment. You refused to answer.

I asked you directly about what you meant by the term “traditional Catholic”. You refused to answer.

I had no reason to play your game with a loaded question, but I assumed some charity from those who read it.

I think your reply says more about you than what you think you’ve learned about me.
A discussion board is about discussion. If you want to learn about another person, you don’t set up little games to entrap them, and then render negative judgements on that basis.

But if you think you’ve won something here, or if this makes you feel better about yourself – then good for you. Apparently that’s what you think you needed to do, at the expense of another person.

 

[reggieM]

“Label, ignore, ridicule and exclude”

That’s a common process.

“Creationist” - labelled, ridiculed and anything said by the person is ignored.
“Integrist” or “Traditionalist” - same thing.
Bigot
Racist
Homophobe

It’s pretty standard stuff. Simplistic and basically childish.

 

[reggieM]

Just to reassert …

The question of capital punishment is open to debate. It is not necessarily a signifier of who is a “traditionalist” or not. Tell me first if capital punishment is permitted in certain instances.

Capital punishment debate: Dr. Feser and Msgr. Swetland
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1058463

 

[Peter_J]

ReggieM, sorry I didn’t respond earlier about the word “traditionalist”. Just a couple things … Naturally I’m not going to try to convince you that you’re a traditionalist Catholic if you don’t see yourself that way. But FWIW, some comments are less troubling coming from a traditionalist Catholic than coming from someone who isn’t IMO. (I don’t mean the comment about the death sentence for people who publicly endorse gay sex. That, to my mind, is troubling regardless of who it comes from.)

 

[Peter_J]

I asked you directly about what you meant by the term “traditional Catholic”. You refused to answer.

I don’t think I refused, but okay I’ll refuse.

Not really sure why you would care how I would define it. I honestly don’t even remember using the word “traditional” on this thread.

Anyhow, I will bow out of this thread for the time being.

 

[reggieM]

ReggieM, sorry I didn’t respond earlier about the word “traditionalist”. Just a couple things … Naturally I’m not going to try to convince you that you’re a traditionalist Catholic if you don’t see yourself that way. But FWIW, some comments are less troubling coming from a traditionalist Catholic than coming from someone who isn’t IMO. (I don’t mean the comment about the death sentence for people who publicly endorse gay sex. That, to my mind, is troubling regardless of who it comes from.)

Ok, that appears a more reasonable response whereas the other seems a rash judgement.

On the death sentence for those who publicly endorse gay sex - I would be open to arguments either way. But I follow the mind of the Church. The death sentence is final and irrevocable. For that reason, I don’t like it for any crime.
I do think the promotion of sexual immorality is a very serious crime in society - it damages many lives. Gay-sex is a very serious sin against marriage, and marriage is the most sacred bond we have after holy orders and religious vows. So, it’s a serious sin with an additional dimension of evil that other sins against marriage do not have.
I noted also, it’s not a death penalty for those who sin in that vice, but for promotion - which is a more conscious thing with more widespread damage as a result.
But what kind of discussion would have to take place in order for that kind of death penalty to be established? I haven’t seen any arguments - just a statement that someone wants it.
If there was a society somewhere, that had already a deep understanding and commitment to Catholic values – and they proposed a penalty like that? And it included severe penalties for pornography, abortion and other things? I don’t know but I wouldn’t have a knee-jerk reaction against such people, thinking they are some kind of monsters.
People should be free to vote for the kind of society they want and if the death penalty for that action was consistent with Catholic teaching, then it would mean that the Church wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Now would I be expected to have to say “the Church is wrong” on that point?
That’s the kind of problem you guys were pushing me into.

But no, I’m not going to take a subjective position on that. I don’t favor the Death Penalty in any cases. But I will defend it if it is consistent with Catholic teaching. It’s the same with a Just War. I may not like the war. But if it meets the criteria for Just War, then I can’t condemn it as being against the Catholic Faith.