Catholics disagreeing with Catholics (Part 1)

[AlanFromWichita]

Catholic2003:

If you don’t see any moral clarity in Bishop Botean’s statement condemning the Iraqi war, just what would it take to meet your standard of “moral clarity”?

There’s plenty of moral clarity there. Also presumptuousness. The war is not against “the people” of Iraq.

Have we forgotten the applause of the Iraqi people as the U.S. tanks rolled by?

I’m glad the President of the United States doesn’t take his orders from this bishop.

Alan

 

[Antonio_B]

Catholic2003:

If you don’t see any moral clarity in Bishop Botean’s statement condemning the Iraqi war, just what would it take to meet your standard of “moral clarity”?

If the bishop was so correct, why wasn’t he joined by all the American bishops or at least the majority of them and the Holy See? Now, were the vast majority of the world bishops and the Holy Father against the war? Absolutely! Did they go as far as Bishop Botean? No, because they knew better!

Antonio

 

[Antonio_B]

AlanFromWichita:

There’s plenty of moral clarity there. Also presumptuousness. The war is not against “the people” of Iraq.

Have we forgotten the applause of the Iraqi people as the U.S. tanks rolled by?

I’m glad the President of the United States doesn’t take his orders from this bishop.

Alan

And I wonder if the good bishop ever said anything about the horrors going on in Iraq, rape rooms, mass graves, torture, intimidation, poverty while Saddam lived in palaces, etc.

Antonio

 

[edwinG]

Antonio B:

I will not answer the political party of your message. I shall concentrate on the “obedience” issue.

Cardinal George banned Holy Communion in his cathedral to a bunch of homosexual activits. Cardinal Mahony welcomed the same group of people to receive Holy Communion in his cathedral. In Lincoln Nebraska a pro-abortion Catholic politician may not take Holy Communion. In Los Angeles such a politician would be welcomed at the cathedral and can indeed take Holy Communion. Six or more bishops in this country have issued pastoral letters stating that Catholics should not vote for a pro-abortion candidate. The rest of the American bishops are, at best, ambiguous on the matter. Which bishops should we obey? Since they hold opposite positions, which ones would you obey?

Now, I would love for you to actually wrestle with the church statements I quoted from rather than just simply telling us we must obey the bishops, period. It should be obvious by now to you and any serious reader, that church teaching on these moral areas is a bit more complex and that it requires from us Catholics deeper reflection before adopting a personal position.

Antonio

Hi,
As I am not a catholic I see your dilemna this way. As you have to submit to the authority of the church, then it is the church’s responsibility to make a statement on every issue affecting every member of the church, and all members have to abide by that decision. Otherwise you have dissention in the church.A house divided won’t stand.
For myself, I just follow the Holy Spirit. Each person has his own path, always but always in obedience to Scripture, as the Holy Spirit only ever leads us to Christ. I dont know your path, I can not condemn you. We know that God has at His disposal all of mankind. Now if I assume that the war against Afganistan was just because God loves the people of Afganistan and He used the USA to free the people ( and I do believe this) some people may have different opinions and we can both be right, at ease with our conscience. As you believe. However there was a warning for me in the Afganistan issue. I used to like watching the Taliban being beaten and I payed for this. I cried out to God about this, my personal suffering, and I was told it was wrong for me to enjoy seeing their suffering, so even though He wanted the Afgan people freed, He took no pleasure in seeing the Taliban being killed and the general carnage which followed. Remember it is love which moves God’s hand.
Christ be with you
walk in love,http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
edwinG

 

[Terry_from_Ypsi]

The dangers of “becoming dis-respectful” and easily sinful in regards to the bishops versus “dialogue” is extreme.

I am a “loose cannon” and I have lost a lot of respect and confidence in our Bishops.

I bet for a number of us, if a Bishop makes a statement and someone at Catholic Answers disagrees then I bet a number of us would say the Bishop is wrong.

So where does that leave us as Roman Catholics in believing that a Bishop is the successor to the Apostles.

There were a number of occassiions where even in dis-agreement, St. Francis and St Clair submitted to the Bishops and spent time in prayer until hearts were changed or Bishops changed.

There is such a danger of “schism” and in division nothing is gained except more spiritual pride by all sides.

Also, there is a great danger in “not listening”.and not being charitable and becoming “too dogmatic” instead of respecting the other position.

All of the above are areas I battle and need to pray a lot more about, after all, this is God’s show, and He is in charge, I hope.

I also see to many conservative Catholics who are supporters of the war that use the teachings of the Church against the Pope and what he says.

To tell you the truth, I sometimes think supporters of the war may not have had prayerful patience in letting God act.

The biggest problem I feel is that all sides can quote things the Holy Father has said that support the war and condem the war, but did the Holy Father declare the war as “just or un-just” and that is where the problem stems from.

It has become too “gray”.

A bigger issue is that the “just war supporters” of the war, of which sometimes I am one, make it seem that it is not right to criticize the actions of this President.

Vietnam is still there and still was this a just or un-just war ?

Sometimes mixing religion and politics is extremely volatile, but there needs to be unity of mind and heart in support of what the Holy Father says.

And that is no longer present, especially since Vatican II.

I am worried about “pre-emptive wars”.

I am still concerned about a government that goes to war and in looking for public support “bends the truth” in justifying its actions.

In the case of Iraq, it is weapons of mass destruction and taking the war to the terrorists.

I do not believe either of these reasons is true.
Thus for me, growing-up during the VietNam war,
and shortly after Korea, with the Gulf of Tonkin as the justification, Congress brought us more and more into Vietnam.

So, I must state I was in opposition to this war when it began and sadly, only history and God
will let it be known if it was a “just war.”

Our response after 9-11 was supported by the Holy Father, but even a recent statement about war even against terrorists solves nothing can be used to say the war against Al-Quida or Russia taking action against Chechyen rebels is wrong.

Now what do I believe and who do I agree with ?

I need to become more like Christ in my thinking
and listening and learn to ask for clarification and then make sure what I am thinking is correct.

Sorry about spelling errors and typos.

Regards,

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Terry_from_Ypsi:

So where does that leave us as Roman Catholics in believing that a Bishop is the successor to the Apostles.

Dear Terry,

We can believe they are successors to the apostles without believing that every word they utter is straight from the Almighty and is to be literally obeyed.

That would be like saying that anything a president or cabinet member of the U.S. says is automatically Constitutional and “what the founding fathers intended.” I’m sure some will be shouting NO at this, because the U.S. isn’t protected from error by God the way the U.S. is. To those people, they may assume for the moment I’m talking about what certain bishops say about the war and not about what the Pope says ex cathedra.

My point is that just because successors may not say things the original founders would have supported doesn’t mean the whole institution comes crashing down or loses its purpose.

There is such a danger of “schism” and in division nothing is gained except more spiritual pride by all sides.

Gold is tested in fire. Spiritual pride can be a problem for religious as well as the laity, and the knowledge that everything they say will be blindly followed without question surely feeds such pride. Just like in any bureaucracy, leaders need the people to be eyes and ears that see from many angles so they can make informed decisions, and not just to be “yes-men.”

Also, there is a great danger in “not listening”.and not being charitable and becoming “too dogmatic” instead of respecting the other position.

All of the above are areas I battle and need to pray a lot more about, after all, this is God’s show, and He is in charge, I hope.

God is in charge, but we are given minds and spirits to adapt what we know from our unique points of view, to our unique situations, and apply Church teachings as we consciensciously believe it should be done. Too many wish so much that every question that ever comes up in the present or future can be precisely answered and/or logically ascertained by what the Church has said in the past, that they do become dogmatic and lose the whole concept of love and the spirit.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Terry_from_Ypsi:

Sometimes mixing religion and politics is extremely volatile, but there needs to be unity of mind and heart in support of what the Holy Father says.

Dear Terry,

I think religion and politics can complement each other very well, but it is just as dangerous for the Church to try to dominate the state as it is the other way around.

The state should be concerned with our physical protection, and preventing enemies from without and within to undermine our civil rights. The Church should be there to feed her sheep spiritual food to condition their hearts. I think the Church making public statements on specific acts by politicians such as going to war can be instructive, or downright dangerous depending on the way it is done. In Vietnam war, the war protesters provided materials to the enemy for their use in torturing our POWs, and otherwise gave them confidence. How is that different than bishops joining the partisan political Bush-hating bandwagon and denouncing the war when they have not walked a mile in the president’s shoes?

We talk about how dangerous it is to the Church to have dissent, but what about dissent in time of war? We have our children in harm’s way, and Bush-bashers and now certain bishops are publicly proclaiming the “unjustness” of the war. How can that not be giving confidence to the terrorists, who believe this war is entirely justified by their religion and who are undoubtedly encoured to continue their battle when they see they are causing dissent?

So, I must state I was in opposition to this war when it began and sadly, only history and God
will let it be known if it was a “just war.”

You are right, and maybe not even in our lifetimes. That’s the problem with hindsight and experience. You don’t get it until after you needed it.

Our response after 9-11 was supported by the Holy Father, but even a recent statement about war even against terrorists solves nothing can be used to say the war against Al-Quida or Russia taking action against Chechyen rebels is wrong.

The Catechism is clear that governments in charge of people have a responsibility for their safety. Only the most naive actually think that negotiating with terrorists whose religious quest is to use their lives to take as many American lives as is possible is going to have any positive results. In the U.S., you can be sure that if we did get a president who refused to act against terrorists on moral grounds until 9/11-like attacks became commonplace, that president would not be in charge long.

I need to become more like Christ in my thinking
and listening and learn to ask for clarification and then make sure what I am thinking is correct.

Christ would turn the other cheek and let himself be killed. The apostles would have called down fire from heaven and struck the evildoers dead in some cases, and let themselves be martyred in other cases. I think we’re on our own to use our own wisdom in conjunction with a conscience clear of a desire for lustful revenge.

Alan

 

[Joanna]

AlanFromWichita:

.
Christ would turn the other cheek and let himself be killed… I think we’re on our own to use our own wisdom in conjunction with a conscience clear of a desire for lustful revenge.

Alan

WWJD? Actually when Jesus was before Annas, he was struck. Jesus did more than merely turn the other cheek. What did He do?

John 18: 19-23:

"The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.
Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said.”
When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?”
Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?”

Jesus stood up for the truth, and yes, they did kill Him.

My point being, we do have to make an honest effort to learn the truth and apply it thoughtfully (" I think we’re on our own to use our own wisdom in conjunction with a conscience clear of a desire for lustful revenge."), speaking it as clearly as we know how, even to those in authority. They (those in authority, be they bishop, or politician) bear the greater burden of responsibility for they act on behalf of millions. We must never cease praying for them to act with integrity and the grace of God. Thank God, too, that He can bring good out of evil and even out of our mistakes. Finally, what a grace is a clear conscience!

 

[Antonio_B]

edwinG:

Hi,
As I am not a catholic I see your dilemna this way. As you have to submit to the authority of the church, then it is the church’s responsibility to make a statement on every issue affecting every member of the church, and all members have to abide by that decision. Otherwise you have dissention in the church.A house divided won’t stand.
For myself, I just follow the Holy Spirit. Each person has his own path, always but always in obedience to Scripture, as the Holy Spirit only ever leads us to Christ. I dont know your path, I can not condemn you. We know that God has at His disposal all of mankind. Now if I assume that the war against Afganistan was just because God loves the people of Afganistan and He used the USA to free the people ( and I do believe this) some people may have different opinions and we can both be right, at ease with our conscience. As you believe. However there was a warning for me in the Afganistan issue. I used to like watching the Taliban being beaten and I payed for this. I cried out to God about this, my personal suffering, and I was told it was wrong for me to enjoy seeing their suffering, so even though He wanted the Afgan people freed, He took no pleasure in seeing the Taliban being killed and the general carnage which followed. Remember it is love which moves God’s hand.
Christ be with you
walk in love,http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
edwinG

It is good that you see my dilemma but you still didn’t not reply “which” bishop I should be obedient to?

Antonio :crying: