Canadian Bishops: “Catholics for Choice” is Not Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Soutane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CANADIAN BISHOPS: Water is “still wet”
CANADIAN BISHOPS: Pope Benedict XVI “is Catholic”
CANADIAN BISHOPS: Smoking causes cancer!
CANADIAN BISHOPS: Generalissimo Francisco Franco “still dead”
CANADIAN BISHOPS: “Trix are for kids!”
CANADIAN BISHOPS: Canada: “America’s hat”

I’m sorry. It’s been a long day.
 
Soutane said:
Canadian Bishops: “Catholics for Choice” is Not Catholic

And here we are again back in college arguing definitions - here, what is Catholic? Is a person who has been baptized and confirmed and goes to Mass Catholic or does such a person cease to be Catholic if he or she does not adhere to all Church teaching? If the group referred to is made up of Catholics, it can still be called “Catholics for Choice” even if the teachings are not what the bishops say is Catholic, can’t it??? Ah, I recall those late, night, dorm-room arguments that went round, and round, and round. . . . .
Click to expand...
 
OriginalJS said:
Soutane;6551630:
Canadian Bishops: “Catholics for Choice” is Not Catholic

And here we are again back in college arguing definitions - here, what is Catholic? Is a person who has been baptized and confirmed and goes to Mass Catholic or does such a person cease to be Catholic if he or she does not adhere to all Church teaching? If the group referred to is made up of Catholics, it can still be called “Catholics for Choice” even if the teachings are not what the bishops say is Catholic, can’t it??? Ah, I recall those late, night, dorm-room arguments that went round, and round, and round. . . . .
Click to expand...
Well the Bishops here clearly meant someone who is both baptized and adheres to Catholic teachings.
Click to expand...
 
OriginalJS said:
And here we are again back in college arguing definitions - here, what is Catholic? Is a person who has been baptized and confirmed and goes to Mass Catholic or does such a person cease to be Catholic if he or she does not adhere to all Church teaching? If the group referred to is made up of Catholics, it can still be called “Catholics for Choice” even if the teachings are not what the bishops say is Catholic, can’t it??? Ah, I recall those late, night, dorm-room arguments that went round, and round, and round. . . . .
Click to expand...
Sawl said:
Well the Bishops here clearly meant someone who is both baptized and adheres to Catholic teachings.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for the Bishops, they also say that anyone who is baptized a Catholic is aways a Catholic, thus capable of using the term “Catholic” to describe themselves.

The Bishops can talk about what they believe and teach Catholics “should” be, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that Catholics “are” a whole lot more than that. They can’t have their cake and eat it too, by switching definitions when it suits them.

Or they can find a loophole in the theology that lets people cease being Catholic. 😉
 
Non_Serviam said:
Unfortunately for the Bishops, they also say that anyone who is baptized a Catholic is aways a Catholic, thus capable of using the term “Catholic” to describe themselves.

The Bishops can talk about what they believe and teach Catholics “should” be, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that Catholics “are” a whole lot more than that. They can’t have their cake and eat it too, by switching definitions when it suits them.

Or they can find a loophole in the theology that lets people cease being Catholic. 😉
Click to expand...
They don’t need to find a loophole. The mechanism for someone to cease being Catholic is called excommunication–which for some reason they haven’t applied to this group of so called Catholics that are advocating the legal murder of the unborn.

There is nothing new in the idea that actively providing direct formal and material support for murder is incompatible with being a Catholic.

Nevertheless, the Bishop’s statement wasn’t to say the people that made up this organization aren’t Catholic. Rather, they were stating that the organization was not an official Catholic organization. The members of that organization have hijacked the Catholic name and applied it to their heretical club.
 
Religion_Ninja said:
They don’t need to find a loophole. The mechanism for someone to cease being Catholic is called excommunication–which for some reason they haven’t applied to this group of so called Catholics that are advocating the legal murder of the unborn.

There is nothing new in the idea that actively providing direct formal and material support for murder is incompatible with being a Catholic.

Nevertheless, the Bishop’s statement wasn’t to say the people that made up this organization aren’t Catholic. Rather, they were stating that the organization was not an official Catholic organization. The members of that organization have hijacked the Catholic name and applied it to their heretical club.
Click to expand...
Actually, excommunication doesn’t get you removed from the church, just barred from the sacraments as stated here. You don’t lose your membership, just the “benefits”.

Thus, these “Catholics” are still Catholics, albeit not in good standing if the appropriate penalites have been applied, but still Catholic and thus still able to descibe their group using the name they have chosen.

Likewise, the Bishops have every right to explain to the public that this group is not an official branch of the College, nor is is sanctioned by them. To the best of my knowledge, the group has made no claim of official status or sanction, but it is good to clarify such things.
 
OriginalJS said:
Soutane;6551630:
Canadian Bishops: “Catholics for Choice” is Not Catholic

And here we are again back in college arguing definitions - here, what is Catholic? Is a person who has been baptized and confirmed and goes to Mass Catholic or does such a person cease to be Catholic if he or she does not adhere to all Church teaching? If the group referred to is made up of Catholics, it can still be called “Catholics for Choice” even if the teachings are not what the bishops say is Catholic, can’t it??? Ah, I recall those late, night, dorm-room arguments that went round, and round, and round. . . . .
Click to expand...
The bishops didn’t say that the members aren’t Catholic but that the organization is not Catholic, IOW it doesn’t represent the Catholic Church.

While the members of “Catholics for Choice” may be Catholic, they are certainly not behaving as Catholics should and by calling themselves that they are slapping the face of every faithful Catholic out there.
Click to expand...
 
Non_Serviam said:
Actually, excommunication doesn’t get you removed from the church, just barred from the sacraments as stated here. You don’t lose your membership, just the “benefits”.

Thus, these “Catholics” are still Catholics, albeit not in good standing if the appropriate penalites have been applied, but still Catholic and thus still able to descibe their group using the name they have chosen.

Likewise, the Bishops have every right to explain to the public that this group is not an official branch of the College, nor is is sanctioned by them. To the best of my knowledge, the group has made no claim of official status or sanction, but it is good to clarify such things.
Click to expand...
No, not really.

The bishop has authority to allow or disallow use of the word catholic for organizations to use. So if, as in this case, the bishop says you are not catholic and stop using the word catholic, then they are the final word.
 
zz912 said:
No, not really.

The bishop has authority to allow or disallow use of the word catholic for organizations to use. So if, as in this case, the bishop says you are not catholic and stop using the word catholic, then they are the final word.
Click to expand...
So the Bishops can say people are “once Catholic, always Catholic”, but if those people refer to themselves as Catholics he can tell them they can’t do that?😃

The Bishops quite obviously can’t disallow the use of the word or they would have done that rather than send out a press release to inform people that the group is affiliated with the College of Bishops in any way. If they could disallow it, they would simply take the group to court, just as Coca-Cola would if you started to sell a beverage you made with its name on it.

Again, it would be better to simply “find” a loophole in the “once Catholic, always Catholic” doctrine, the same way as was done for “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” so that salvation was possible outside the church, so that people could leave the church and also be declared to be no longer Catholic.

As long as the Bishops keep holding onto that “once Catholic, always Catholic” nut, they can’t get their fist out of the “Catholics for choice” knothole. 😉
 
Non_Serviam said:
Actually, excommunication doesn’t get you removed from the church, just barred from the sacraments as stated here. You don’t lose your membership, just the “benefits”.

Thus, these “Catholics” are still Catholics, albeit not in good standing if the appropriate penalites have been applied, but still Catholic and thus still able to descibe their group using the name they have chosen.

Likewise, the Bishops have every right to explain to the public that this group is not an official branch of the College, nor is is sanctioned by them. To the best of my knowledge, the group has made no claim of official status or sanction, but it is good to clarify such things.
Click to expand...
Regarding excommunication in your link, Fr. Hardon states excommunication is “An ecclesiastical censure by which one is more or less excluded from communion with the faithful” (emphasis added).

Sounds to me like excommunication removes you from the Church (which by definition is the “communion of the faithful”). The practical penalties include barring the sacraments and catholic funerals etc.

Also, I have never heard a bishop teach “once a Catholic always a Catholic” nor have I ever seen any Church document or Catechism reference that says that. I have only heard ex-Catholics say that. I would say that Bishops may be overly concerned with keeping Catholic membership up so they might say something “nice and inclusive” like that–but that doesn’t mean that it is de fide.
 
Religion_Ninja said:
Regarding excommunication in your link, Fr. Hardon states excommunication is “An ecclesiastical censure by which one is more or less excluded from communion with the faithful” (emphasis added).

Sounds to me like excommunication removes you from the Church (which by definition is the “communion of the faithful”). The practical penalties include barring the sacraments and catholic funerals etc.

Also, I have never heard a bishop teach “once a Catholic always a Catholic” nor have I ever seen any Church document or Catechism reference that says that. I have only heard ex-Catholics say that. I would say that Bishops may be overly concerned with keeping Catholic membership up so they might say something “nice and inclusive” like that–but that doesn’t mean that it is de fide.
Click to expand...
It’s funny that you would ask for something de fide from me and quote Fr. Hardon to me who quite obviously wasn’t making a de fide statement at the time. Please provide the same level of evidence that you request.

That said, I can offer you this:
  1. It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.
Click to expand...
Taken from actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica which stated that both the CDF and the Pontifical Council have signed off on it. In addition, Benedict XVI amended it in the last year to further reinforce the permanent nature of the bond to the church. So he is quite comfortable with it.

Note the distinction in the document between being in communion with the church and the sacramental bond of belonging to the church-you can lose the former, but not the latter. (i.e. once Catholic, always Catholic)

Hence the validity of the group’s name.
 
If baptism is how one enters the Church and is Catholic then everyone who is baptized in a rite that is recognized by the Church can then claim to be Catholic.

So those baptized in the Baptist Church can claim to be Catholic.
 
Non_Serviam said:
It’s funny that you would ask for something de fide from me and quote Fr. Hardon to me who quite obviously wasn’t making a de fide statement at the time. Please provide the same level of evidence that you request.

That said, I can offer you this:

Taken from actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica which stated that both the CDF and the Pontifical Council have signed off on it. In addition, Benedict XVI amended it in the last year to further reinforce the permanent nature of the bond to the church. So he is quite comfortable with it.

Note the distinction in the document between being in communion with the church and the sacramental bond of belonging to the church-you can lose the former, but not the latter. (i.e. once Catholic, always Catholic)

Hence the validity of the group’s name.
Click to expand...
  1. Why would it be funny to provide a quote from your link, which you provided as evidence of your claim? Its *your *source.
  2. Secondly the CDF document in speaking of the permanent sacramental bond to the Church:
We all know that baptism imparts an indelible mark. This is an argument about semantics between who can properly bear the title Catholic: those who are in full communion with the Church or those who simply have the indelible character imparted by the sacrament of baptism.

If I were to be disavowed from my earthly family, of course I am still the son of my father and I still, strictly speaking, may have brothers in sisters by blood. In one sense I am still a member of the family. In another sense, I am not. It certainly would not be appropriate for me to go around presenting myself to as someone who is still a member of the household by saying “yes I am Billy Smith and I speak on behalf of the Smith family”.

I don’t think the CDF wrote that to say “once a Catholic always a Catholic” or “if you have been Baptized you have the right to go around calling yourself Catholic for the rest of your life after you have formally defected from the Catholic Church”. If that’s true, then it would have been just dandy of Hitler to start up his own organization called “Catholic Nazi’s for the choice to gas Jews” simply because he had a Catholic baptism when he was an infant. No the title for that group is not appropriate–and it is misleading.

Rather, the CDF are just reiterating that, of course, the indelible character of Baptism is not removed by a formal act of leaving the Church (so a person would not have to be baptized again if they returned). Its true that a sacramental bond is going to remain but the document is, after all, about how a person can go about leaving the Church (i.e. no longer “Catholic”).
 
ByzCath said:
If baptism is how one enters the Church and is Catholic then everyone who is baptized in a rite that is recognized by the Church can then claim to be Catholic.

So those baptized in the Baptist Church can claim to be Catholic.
Click to expand...
If they accept what the church says about them-but then they wouldn’t be Baptist would they? 😉

The Catholic church has never lacked in chutzpah and to claim that the baptism of a rabidly anti-catholic fundamentalist makes him part of the Catholic church (albeit “imperfectly joined”) is yet another example of this. 😃
 
Religion_Ninja said:
  1. Why would it be funny to provide a quote from your link, which you provided as evidence of your claim? Its *your *source.
  2. Secondly the CDF document in speaking of the permanent sacramental bond to the Church:
We all know that baptism imparts an indelible mark. This is an argument about semantics between who can properly bear the title Catholic: those who are in full communion with the Church or those who simply have the indelible character imparted by the sacrament of baptism.

If I were to be disavowed from my earthly family, of course I am still the son of my father and I still, strictly speaking, may have brothers in sisters by blood. In one sense I am still a member of the family. In another sense, I am not. It certainly would not be appropriate for me to go around presenting myself to as someone who is still a member of the household by saying “yes I am Billy Smith and I speak on behalf of the Smith family”.

I don’t think the CDF wrote that to say “once a Catholic always a Catholic” or “if you have been Baptized you have the right to go around calling yourself Catholic for the rest of your life after you have formally defected from the Catholic Church”. If that’s true, then it would have been just dandy of Hitler to start up his own organization called “Catholic Nazi’s for the choice to gas Jews” simply because he had a Catholic baptism when he was an infant. No the title for that group is not appropriate–and it is misleading.

Rather, the CDF are just reiterating that, of course, the indelible character of Baptism is not removed by a formal act of leaving the Church (so a person would not have to be baptized again if they returned). Its true that a sacramental bond is going to remain but the document is, after all, about how a person can go about leaving the Church (i.e. no longer “Catholic”).
Click to expand...
Note that the document doesn’t say “mark” but rather “bond” and of what sort? A sacramental bond of belonging to the church. Not having belonged, but belonging.

Your comparison to the family is apt. But even the justice system permits an individual to formally sever his relationship with his family, ending all obligations (I’m speaking of emanicpation of a minor here, not divorce). The church isn’t even that reasonable, instead claiming that canon law applies to the individual in perpetuity. That was the point Benedict XVI clarified in his letter.

It is only appropriate that if the church continues to claim jurisdiction over individuals as catholics that these individuals be permitted to refer to themselves as catholics. Other catholics may not like it and may disagree with their beliefs and/or actions, but it is reasonable.
 
zz912 said:
No, not really.

The bishop has authority to allow or disallow use of the word catholic for organizations to use. So if, as in this case, the bishop says you are not catholic and stop using the word catholic, then they are the final word.
Click to expand...
If you baptized and confirmed Catholic, how can a Bishop declare that your no longer a Catholic?
 
Non_Serviam said:
Actually, excommunication doesn’t get you removed from the church, just barred from the sacraments as stated here. You don’t lose your membership, just the “benefits”…
Click to expand...
And one of the the benefits is being able to publically call yourself a Catholic.

Look at what happens when a priest is defrocked. He is still a priest, but he cannot call himself a priest, wear the roman collar, be addressed as “Father” or “Reverend”
 
Brendan said:
And one of the the benefits is being able to publically call yourself a Catholic.

Look at what happens when a priest is defrocked. He is still a priest, but he cannot call himself a priest, wear the roman collar, be addressed as “Father” or “Reverend”
Click to expand...
The information you cited about priests is in canon law, please show me where in canon law it says these people cannot call themselves catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top