Australian “Liberal Catholics” Seek Vatican Approval for Dissent from Church Doctrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter WanderAimlessly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WanderAimlessly

Guest
I know what they should get, excommunication:
Australian “Liberal Catholics” Seek Vatican Approval for Dissent from Church Doctrine
Letter says Cardinal Pell misrepresents teaching on “primacy of conscience”
by Hilary White

SYDNEY, February 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A group of prominent Australians is petitioning the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) to uphold their dissent from Church teaching. The group has sent a letter to the CDF demanding that the Vatican’s doctrinal watchdog correct George Cardinal Pell for what they say are his misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine.

They complain that the Cardinal’s emphasis on the Church’s teaching on issues like contraception, abortion and euthanasia, leaves no room for what they call the “primacy of conscience” which they claim was established by the Second Vatican Council. The group upholds the popular myth that Vatican II established the “right” of Catholics to make moral judgments opposed to Catholic moral teaching.

Full Story
Click to expand...
PF
 
Primacy of conscience doesn’t make a person above the Church’s teachings. It just encourages people to do what they discern (note, this is more than “feel”) is right- on matters that the Church has not made any ruling.
 
They conveniently ignore the most important aspect of conscience, that it must be properly formed.
 
God bless Cardinal Pell, he’s a truly awesome leader. We need more like him shepherding the Church.
 
Articles by Cardinal Pell

a Catholic conscience cannot accept a settled position against the Church, at least on a central moral teaching. Any difficulty with Church teaching should be not the end of the matter but the beginning of a process of conversion, education, and quite possibly repentance. Where a Catholic disagrees with the Church on some serious matter, the response should not be “that’s that—I can’t follow the Church here.” Instead we should kneel and pray that God will lead our weak steps and enlighten our fragile minds, as Newman recommends in his Sermon 17, “The Testimony of Conscience.”

see: firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0505/articles/pell.html

sydney.catholic.org.au/Archbishop/Addresses/2005920_1841.shtml

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/ZPELLNEW.HTM
 
They are very mistaken, please leave the church if you are against the church.
 
God bless Cardinal Pell!

I’m amazed they even think they have a chance with this request to Rome!
 
40.png
malcolm_davies:
Articles by Cardinal Pell

a Catholic conscience cannot accept a settled position against the Church, at least on a central moral teaching. Any difficulty with Church teaching should be not the end of the matter but the beginning of a process of conversion, education, and quite possibly repentance. Where a Catholic disagrees with the Church on some serious matter, the response should not be “that’s that—I can’t follow the Church here.” Instead we should kneel and pray that God will lead our weak steps and enlighten our fragile minds, as Newman recommends in his Sermon 17, “The Testimony of Conscience.”

see: firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0505/articles/pell.html

sydney.catholic.org.au/Archbishop/Addresses/2005920_1841.shtml

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/ZPELLNEW.HTM
Click to expand...
A great cardinal. As he has said it is about primacy of truth, not primacy of conscience.
 
To ask a blessing from the Church on their dissent . . . !!! What chutzpah!!.

I’m afraid I had never heard of the Winnipeg Statement, but I think it was a great point of the article that the Bishops were undermining their own authority in their statement of dissent.
 
This just show how very ignorant they are of the faith. It’s like…where have they been all this time ???
 
I hope the Vatican takes this up. It would create a great opportunity to explain once and for all that “primacy of conscience,” if it exists at all, does not mean “I can do what I want if I think it’s OK.”

-Illini
 
Just more people wishing to conform the Church to their views rather than conforming their views with the Church.

But then we have the same issue with those at the other end of the spectrum, the ultra-traditionalists, who think that every word from the Vatican is a dogma.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Just more people wishing to conform the Church to their views rather than conforming their views with the Church.

But then we have the same issue with those at the other end of the spectrum, the ultra-traditionalists, who think that every word from the Vatican is a dogma.
Click to expand...
Tell me, exactly how is thinking every word from the Vatican is dogma conforming the Church to their views. They might be wrong in assigning too rigid an orthodoxy to every word but I cannot see following the guidance of Rome as conforming the Church but rather conforming ourselves to the Church. I think this is just trying to tar with the same brush. Extreme traditionalists have issues with Rome too but they are not the same issues as these liberals. I also think that frankly you just used the topic as an excuse to have a swipe at traditionalists. The thread was about a specific instance involving known dissenters ( and yes I do know them and have heard them speak several times) from the Magisterium not fre for all about the rights and wrongs of liberal vs traditional disputes with Rome.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Just more people wishing to conform the Church to their views rather than conforming their views with the Church.
Click to expand...
That reminds me of one of my favorite verses, Romans 12:2

“Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.”

You’re right. The modernists are wrong because they conform themselves to this age, and the ultra-traditionalists are wrong because they refuse to renew their minds. (notice that I did not say all traditionalists, only the extreme ones 👍 )
 
40.png
InnocentIII:
Tell me, exactly how is thinking every word from the Vatican is dogma conforming the Church to their views. They might be wrong in assigning too rigid an orthodoxy to every word but I cannot see following the guidance of Rome as conforming the Church but rather conforming ourselves to the Church.
Click to expand...
It becomes so when they demand that everyone else follows these “dogmas” as they seem them.

There is much in the Church were faithful Catholics may disagree. Such as capitial punishment and clerical celibacy.

Of the matter of the Mass. Some of those I speak go even farther and deny (either in words or actions) that the current Mass of the Church is vaild.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
There is much in the Church were faithful Catholics may disagree. Such as capitial punishment and clerical celibacy.
Click to expand...
Capital punishment is not up for debate. The Church has always taught that it is sometimes justifiable and can never teach otherwise. The only debate is over when it is justifiable and when it isn’t. Clerical celibacy will never be changed (thank God) in the Latin Rite even though it theoretically could be.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Capital punishment is not up for debate. The Church has always taught that it is sometimes justifiable and can never teach otherwise. The only debate is over when it is justifiable and when it isn’t. Clerical celibacy will never be changed (thank God) in the Latin Rite even though it theoretically could be.
Click to expand...
You are wrong, both topics are debatable.

While the Church teaches that captial punishment is justifiable in some cases, we can debate what those cases are.

As for clerical celibacy. You are wrong, as the Latin Church does allow for the ordination of married men to the priesthood but limits that to converting clergy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top