Catholic polarization reached new peak

[jim_orr]

Catholic2003:

What is this, Protestant Answers? Since when is the Bible the only source for authentic Church teaching?

Jesus is the sourse for the Church teachings. Where did Jesus ever say he came to get us to get government to do His will?

Catholic2003:

If you have a specific teaching of Pope John Paul II in mind, please indicate which one. I’m not aware of any of his teachings that directly address the issue of citizens voting for political candidates.

There are many recent Vatican teachings about the duties of legislators to support the rights of the unborn in the laws they pass, but this is a different issue than that of voting for a political candidate.

What does “maximum determination” mean to you? Pope John Paul II said in The Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World (Christifidelis Laici): “The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture - is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination (emphasis added)…”

The above quote is reprinted in the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Living the Gospel of Life; A Challenge to American Catholics.

The above quote was followed by"

“We believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a ‘Gospel of life.’ It invites all persons and societies to a new life lived abundantly in respect for human dignity. We believe that this Gospel is not only a complement to American political principles, but also the cure for the spiritual sickness now infecting our society. As Scripture says, no house can stand divided against itself (Lk 11:17). We cannot simultaneously commit ourselves to human rights and progress while eliminating or marginalizing the weakest among us. Nor can we practice the Gospel of life only as a private piety. American Catholics must live it vigorously and publicaly, as a matter of national leadership and witness, or we will not live it at all.”
"We

 

[jim_orr]

Catholic2003:

If you have a specific teaching of Pope John Paul II in mind, please indicate which one. I’m not aware of any of his teachings that directly address the issue of citizens voting for political candidates.

There are many recent Vatican teachings about the duties of legislators to support the rights of the unborn in the laws they pass, but this is a different issue than that of voting for a political candidate.

Do you realize what you profess to believe at church on Sundays? Do you know what you pray for when you pray the Lord’s Prayer? Or are those just meaningness words to you?

In the Profession of Faith, you stand and profess to believe “In the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life…”

In the Lord’s Prayer you pray for God’s will to be done on earth… and to be delievered from evil."

Do you think God is in contradiction with himself? Does he create life so that it can be aborted? Or are there Catholics that are spiritually schizophrenic?

What does your Profession of Faith mean to you?

What does praying the Lord’s Prayer standing before Jesus in the Eucharist mean to you?

What does “maximum determination” mean to you?

 

[katherine2]

jim orr:

Catholic2003. please show us in the bible where Jesus taught it was the responsibiltiy of the* government* to feed the poor.

The same place where He taught it was the responsibility of the government to limit abortion.

But more to the point, Jim, my dear friend, I am going to have to call you on your rank hypocracy. You posted elsewher regarding Terri:

I voted to not let her husband, the creep, remove her feeding tube.

Hmmm. While we are in a great contravery over the right of her husband to remove the feeding tube, it should also be noted it is the government who is paying for the feeding as well as the health care.

If their is no moral obligation of the government to feed the poor, then their is no obligation for the government to continue feeding Terri. Now, you fallback might be that yes, the taxpayers should not be forced by big government to pay for Terri’s feeding and medical care but the government should force her family to to do. But of course, after 15 years of very expensive medical care, her family would have been bankrupt long ago.

As a “seamless garment” Catholic, I am proud that I support Terri’s right to live – a right that can ONLY exist with TWO things 1) restraining her husband from cutting off the goverment welfare (food and medical care) she is receving, AND 2) continuting the government welfare programs that are paying for her needs.

To my friends on both sides who support only one or the other of these, well, its Lent, so I can’t really tell you what I think of you.

 

[4_marks]

Catholics, like the Apostles of Jesus, come in all different stripes.What bound these men together was Jesus. Just imagine how boring life would be if we were all the same.

Now, this does not mean that I believe anything goes. But I do believe that some are hands, some feet, some eyes, some ears, some blood, some skin, etc…together, we are the Body of Christ.

 

[fix]

sbcoral:

And the black-and-white moral crowd often seems to want wiggle room with social justice issues, yet claim to be orthodox.

I do not know any orthodox Catholic that assents to all that the Church teaches on faith and morals, yet rejects Her authentic teachings on social concerns.

 

[katherine2]

I do know of self-described “orthodox” Catholics that assent to all that the Church teaches on faith and morals, yet reject Her authentic teachings on social concerns.

 

[jim_orr]

katherine2:

To my friends on both sides who support only one or the other of these, well, its Lent, so I can’t really tell you what I think of you.

Well, now we know ONE of the sacrifices Katherine has offered up for Lent -name calling.:clapping: That’s a blessing to a lot of readers. Thank you, Katherine. May I suggest you make it a permanent sacrifice. You really are an articulate advocate for your cause, as misguided as it is , and do not need the hyperbole.

I also want to thank you for your opinion on one of my postings. I think this is the first time you have engaged me, and I welcome the dialog. :tiphat:

 

[katherine2]

But Jim, let’s cut to the point. Is it the obligation of the government to feed the poor like Terri or may good Catholics have different opinions to if the government has the right to take our money through taxation and give it to her?

 

[fix]

katherine2:

I do know of self-described “orthodox” Catholics that assent to all that the Church teaches on faith and morals, yet reject Her authentic teachings on social concerns.

Authentic should mean as the Church intends them to mean, not as an interpretation by those who use agit prop in place of obedience.

 

[Catholic2003]

StJeanneDArc:

We went over the Minnesota bishops’ calling for a tax increase in another thread, and I recall you changing your reasoning on that.

I don’t recall changing my reasoning in that thread.

StJeanneDArc:

But I guess you are claiming that we are always bound by the political pronouncements of our bishops. You’re really reinforcing the stereotype that Catholics can’t exercise their consciences in voting to support the ways they best believe will achieve Christian goals.

I find it interesting that among all the people who self-identified in the “black & white”
category with respect to the Church’s magisterium, you single me out as an example of this stereotype. But even though I personally don’t see any “wiggle room” in either magisteral teaching, I can understand the thinking of a Catholic who, in exercising their good conscience, sees “wiggle room” in both magisteral teachings.

What I find to be extremely hypocritical are those Catholics who claim that we are selectively bound by the political pronouncements of our bishops, while “coincidentally” those pronouncements which are binding are exactly the ones which support the political goals of their favored party.

StJeanneDArc:

Once again…we went over this in the other thread. Your claiming that mercury levels is a matter of faith and morals just doesn’t cut it with me.

I don’t remember anything about mercury levels. This must have been after that thread disintegrated into a bacchanalia of second-guessing the Minnesota bishops, as though the participants were equals to the Church’s magisterium.

As for the teaching of the Minnesota bishops on taxes, it was the bishops themselves who stated that it was a matter of morality. Does that “cut it” with you?

StJeanneDArc:

Are you implying that I’m not?

Not at all. I’m pointing out the similarities between the two teachings. They are both teachings on matters of morality involving the application of prudential judgments built on top of universal magisterial teachings.

StJeanneDArc:

I just know that higher taxes don’t solve that problem–experience has shown that again and again.

Voting for President Bush didn’t solve the abortion problem either. Experience has shown that five million unborn babies were killed during Bush’s first term. And the only difference with Bush’s second term is that we now have a rabid pro-abortion senator in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

It is very frustrating to follow a magisterial teaching based on the morality of the desired results, when it is clear that those results will probably not be achieved. But those who fail to follow one such teaching have no business judging the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of those who fail to follow another such teaching.

The idea that one can pick and choose among magisterial teachings based on one’s personal evaluation of the bishop’s reasoning is cafeteria Catholicism, pure and simple. However, this only becomes hypocritical when that person goes on to labels another cafeteria Catholic who makes a different selection as heterodox. You know, pots and kettles.

StJeanneDArc:

So only those Catholics in the St. Louis archdiocese were bound by that? I guess those in the Orange, Calif. diocese are free to support same-sex civil unions since that bishop is supportive of that. Does the concept of universality mean anything?

So I’m guessing the way Jesus set up His Church, with each bishop in charge of his own diocese, doesn’t “cut it” with you either.

 

[Catholic2003]

jim orr:

Jesus is the sourse for the Church teachings. Where did Jesus ever say he came to get us to get government to do His will?

Where did Jesus ever say that married couples couldn’t use condoms? Nowhere in the New Testament. I guess that makes it okay to throw Humanae Vitae out the window as well.
jim orr:

What does “maximum determination” mean to you? Pope John Paul II said in …

I do understand that abortion is an intrinsic evil.

You seem to blurring the concept of directly participating in an abortion with the concept of voting for a (sinful) politican who supports abortion.

It is the teaching that universal Church that remote material cooperation in evil, even the evil of abortion, is permitted when there are proportionate reasons. For example, the Vatican has stated that it is allowed for a legislator to vote for a budget bill that has (as one small part) some funding for abortions, provided that it is not possible to negotiate a bill without such funding.

A handful of U.S. bishops, including Archbishop Burke, have taught that proportionate reasons which would justify voting for a pro-abortion politician do not exist in present-day U.S. politics. However, Pope John Paul II has never confirmed this prudential judgment about U.S. politics. (Not that he needs to do so in order for it to be binding in the dioceses of the particular bishops.)

 

[jim_orr]

katherine2:

But more to the point, Jim, my dear friend, I am going to have to call you on your rank hypocracy. You posted elsewher regarding Terri: “I voted to not let her husband, the creep, remove her feeding tube.”

If their is no moral obligation of the government to feed the poor, then their is no obligation for the government to continue feeding Terri.

As a “seamless garment” Catholic, I am proud that I support Terri’s right to live – a right that can ONLY exist with TWO things 1) restraining her husband from cutting off the goverment welfare (food and medical care) she is receving, AND 2) continuting the government welfare programs that are paying for her needs.

“As a ‘seamless garment’ Catholic…”(Katherine2)

Katherine, I would like you to show me, please, where the mission of Jesus’ life on earth was to get us to get government to feed the poor, visit the imprisoned, care for the sick. If you could do that, that would remove a major stumbling block between us in our approach to bringing about the “culture of life” that our Church and Pope John Paul II calls us to effect.

As for Terri, I don’t know of any “non-Seamless Garment” Catholic that is opposed to the taxpayer assistance that Terri has been receiving these past years. I would think that most of us would agree that that is how some of our tax money should be used. To make this woman die to save our tax money would be an immoral act not unlike anything that the NAZI government would favor. Whether that moral decision is based on mere humanism or Christ’s teachings is debatable. But if there were no government program to finance her care, then I contend the teachings of Jesus would oversee the caring for this women and Christians would take it upon themselves through prayer and donations of time and money to provide for her needs. This would not be, as you said, something “the government (would be) forcing her family to do.” Rather, it would be what Jesus taught his followers how to think and act towards their fellow man through love, of themselves first, and through that love, their neighbor. And this would be the THIRD “thing” to exist that would enable Terri’s right to live.

Where we differ is you think the Seamless Garment is the government. This the error and, I think, the falsehood of Cardinal Bernardin’s invention and teaching. I believe he invented this teaching, not for God, or the Church, but for the protection and preservation of the political power of the Democrat Party back in the early1980s. The foundation of his invention is based on Christ’s teaching of Christine love for one another but only able to be cared out through governments, not the Church. And that, I believe, is a worldly corruption of the teachings of Jesus. And has lead to the corruption in the thinking of many Catholics, who through their votes, have enabled abortion-on-demand to remain the law of the land by continuing to remain and vote for the Democrat Party. Many of these Catholics are even priests and religious. But this may a topic for another thread if you, and others, wish.

 

[kmktexas]

The “seamless garment” theory is a failed theology for two reasons:

1. K2 gives us a great example of the absolutism that is often used.

I am proud that I support Terri’s right to live – a right that can ONLY exist with TWO things 1) restraining her husband from cutting off the goverment welfare (food and medical care) she is receving, AND 2) continuting the government welfare programs that are paying for her needs.

emphasis hers

To a seamless garment person, Terri’s right to life ONLY exists IF we are committed to funding government welfare programs. To the rest of us, the right to life (for Terri, the unborn, the elderly, the disabled) is a right that exists INDEPENDANT of and in spite of, any government program.

We heard a lot of this rhetoric during the election season. Those same “seamless garment” Catholics wanted an end to abortion but ONLY IF there was an accomanying guarantee of World Peace and an end to World Hunger.

1. To seamless garment people, there is plenty of “wiggle room” for moral issues and they want no “wiggle room” at all for moral issues. These are the folks who are ok with Medicaide funded abortions as long as Medicaide funding overall is increased. They are ok with distributing condoms in school as long as the school is also beefing up it’s free lunch program. This just doesn’t match up to Church teachings where it is the moral issues that are absolute and the methods for social action are areas where there can be different legitimate approaches.

 

[shockerfan]

katherine2:

But Jim, let’s cut to the point. Is it the obligation of the government to feed the poor like Terri or may good Catholics have different opinions to if the government has the right to take our money through taxation and give it to her?

The Church teaches us to “feed the hungry”, “cloth the naked”, “give drink to the thirsty”, “harbour the harbourless”, “visit the sick”, “ransom the captive”, and “bury the dead”.

The Church has never said the best way to do this is to give tax dollars to the government and have it fund a program to do this. We have charities that do this more effeciently and effectively.
While some Bishops may feel this way, it is their opinion, and not infallible teaching.

This is the source much of the “Orthodox Catholic” vs. “Social Catholic” debate. As an Orthodox Catholic, or just as a plain Catholic, I have a moral obligation to do the corporal works of mercy. As a conservative, I absolutely believe that the government is one of the most inefficient ways to accomplish the works of mercy.

 

[jim_orr]

Catholic2003:

Where did Jesus ever say that married couples couldn’t use condoms? Nowhere in the New Testament. I guess that makes it okay to throw Humanae Vitae out the window as well.

Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. Jesus fulfilled some of the Law and such laws were no longer valid and necessary. Others were not changed by Jesus’ life on earth (see wcg.org/lit/law/otl/otl10.htm ) and one of them was marriage and its purpose.

Humanae Vitae is the outgrowth of the entire Word of God. But nowhere has God said his word’s purpose is to get people to get governments to fulfill it. The purpose of God’s Word and Jesus are not to get governments to do what is right, but individuals. It is a corruption of that goal to transfer the responsibility God gives to us, as individuals, onto a soulless creation, government, which then forces us to contribute to some government politicians’ worldly political objective and falsely pass it off as our moral, Christian duty. It is especially blasphemous, when most of the politicians who are guilty of that tactic are opposed to outlawing partial birth abortions and abortions in general, and will do anything to keep nominations off the Supreme Court that may threaten abortion-on-demand remaining the law-of-land.

 

[jim_orr]

Catholic2003:

I do understand that abortion is an intrinsic evil.
You seem to blurring the concept of directly participating in an abortion with the concept of voting for a (sinful) politican who supports abortion.

It is the teaching that universal Church that remote material cooperation in evil, even the evil of abortion, is permitted when there are proportionate reasons. For example, the Vatican has stated that it is allowed for a legislator to vote for a budget bill that has (as one small part) some funding for abortions, provided that it is not possible to negotiate a bill without such funding.

First, I am not “blurring the concept of directly participating in an abortion with the concept of voting for a politician who supports abortion.”

But I am calling attention to church-going Catholics who profess to believe that God is “the giver of life” and pray for God’s “will to be done on earth,” and then go out and continue to give their name identification and votes to a political party that is diabolically opposed to what that Catholic stands in church on Sundays professing to believe and pray for.

Second, I think you have misinterpreted the teaching of “proportionate reasons.” I would like to see evidence of the teaching as you describe.

"Proportionate reasons’ are valid in voting for a person who is not 100% prolife, i.e., against all abortions, as in the case of President Bush, when the probable alternative would result in electing a person who was more supportive of abortions, such as Senator Kerry and V.P. Al Gore. I have never seen where it has been approved for use as you presented it.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Catholic2003:

I don’t recall changing my reasoning in that thread.

I reviewed the thread and stand corrected on that statement. Please forgive me.

Catholic2003:

II find it interesting that among all the people who self-identified in the “black & white”
category with respect to the Church’s magisterium, you single me out as an example of this stereotype. But even though I personally don’t see any “wiggle room” in either magisteral teaching, I can understand the thinking of a Catholic who, in exercising their good conscience, sees “wiggle room” in both magisteral teachings.

I think we’re talking around each other a little bit. I don’t agree with either bishop in the examples you gave.

Catholic2003:

I What I find to be extremely hypocritical are those Catholics who claim that we are selectively bound by the political pronouncements of our bishops, while “coincidentally” those pronouncements which are binding are exactly the ones which support the political goals of their favored party.

I don’t feel this way and I don’t believe that I’ve ever claimed this. I do know there is a difference between prudence and principle. It is a principle that abortion is always evil. Poverty is not intrinsically evil, although we should strive for meeting the human needs of all people. The means to do so is a prudential judgement, and we are free to disagree on this.

Catholic2003:

I I don’t remember anything about mercury levels. This must have been after that thread disintegrated into a bacchanalia of second-guessing the Minnesota bishops, as though the participants were equals to the Church’s magisterium.

I just threw that out there as another example of the so-called moral teachings of the bishops. There’s a whole legislative wish list from the US Catholic Bishops, some of which have no discernible connection to faith or morals.

Catholic2003:

I As for the teaching of the Minnesota bishops on taxes, it was the bishops themselves who stated that it was a matter of morality. Does that “cut it” with you?

No, because once again they are imposing their own fallible prudential judgement on how to achieve an *improvement *in the lives of the poor.

Catholic2003:

I Not at all. I’m pointing out the similarities between the two teachings. They are both teachings on matters of morality involving the application of prudential judgments built on top of universal magisterial teachings.

I covered this above.

Catholic2003:

IVoting for President Bush didn’t solve the abortion problem either. Experience has shown that five million unborn babies were killed during Bush’s first term. And the only difference with Bush’s second term is that we now have a rabid pro-abortion senator in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Well I’m disappointed with the appointment of Arlen Specter as well. If the President had absolute power he could outlaw abortion. As it stands, he has to work through the processes we have in place. There’s plenty of evidence that he’s doing so.

Catholic2003:

I It is very frustrating to follow a magisterial teaching based on the morality of the desired results, when it is clear that those results will probably not be achieved. But those who fail to follow one such teaching have no business judging the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of those who fail to follow another such teaching.
The idea that one can pick and choose among magisterial teachings based on one’s personal evaluation of the bishop’s reasoning is cafeteria Catholicism, pure and simple. However, this only becomes hypocritical when that person goes on to labels another cafeteria Catholic who makes a different selection as heterodox. You know, pots and kettles.

I don’t think I have made a judgement on another person, but on whether the teaching was a matter of principle or prudence.

Catholic2003:

I So I’m guessing the way Jesus set up His Church, with each bishop in charge of his own diocese, doesn’t “cut it” with you either.

It cuts it with me for the bishops to instruct us on faith and morals. The problem lies when they step beyond those boundaries or when those instructions conflict with other teachings, which I think you can admit has happened frequently over the centuries.

 

[jim_orr]

katherine2:

But Jim, let’s cut to the point. Is it the obligation of the government to feed the poor like Terri or may good Catholics have different opinions to if the government has the right to take our money through taxation and give it to her?

I think my second reply to you, above, and my reply to Catholic2003 cover your question here, more fully.

But a quick answer is that I think the goverment has the right to tax the people, and people are free to decide if that taxation is proper or not. What I do not agree with is that taxing people to help the poor is fulfilling the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Catholic2003]

StJeanneDArc:

I think we’re talking around each other a little bit.

I’m beginning to think so as well.

StJeanneDArc:

I don’t feel this way and I don’t believe that I’ve ever claimed this.

Now it’s my turn to apologize. I misread your post #11 in this thread.

StJeanneDArc:

No, because once again they are imposing their own fallible prudential judgement on how to achieve an *improvement *in the lives of the poor.

Individual bishops have no infallibility whatsoever. This doesn’t mean they have no authority.

StJeanneDArc:

Well I’m disappointed with the appointment of Arlen Specter as well.

“Betrayed” would be a better word. Or perhaps “hornswaggled”.

StJeanneDArc:

The problem lies when they step beyond those boundaries or when those instructions conflict with other teachings, which I think you can admit has happened frequently over the centuries.

It certainly does happen. But if each person is going to interpret the Bible and papal and conciliar documents for themselves, what’s the point of having a bishop at all? Each person becomes their own bishop, with their own magisterium.

There needs to be a reasonable point in between.

 

[Catholic2003]

jim orr:

What I do not agree with is that taxing people to help the poor is fulfilling the teachings of Jesus.

Romans 13:6 says:

This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

I’m thinking that the Minnesota bishops have a better handle on the teachings of Jesus than you do. And that’s not just because of their doctorates in Sacred Theology.