Conscience

[Janet_S]

**I simply applied the same rules you applied to my offerings. the second argument is even more compelling I believe. I guess the CCC wasn’t aware that LG was to be used thusly. **

**Look, I know what you believe. I find it impossible given what I’ve read and submitted to agree with you. It’s so obviously wrong in my opinion. What more is there to say? **

Your claim about LG25 (only intended for Hierarchy) is wrong, and it’s not the same as what I wrote about Dignitatis Humanae. Unless you have problems with reading comprehension, you must know this. It is very clear what *Lumen Gentium * 25 is saying. It’s also very clear what *Dignitatis Humanae *is saying.

I’m not aware that anything written in the Catechism about conscience is to be understood as a Catholics’s freedom or right to dissent from any Church teaching. The Catechism never claims that, and if it did, then it contradicts LG25. Our consciences give us duties as well as rights. The Catechism may not have included LG25 in the section on conscience because it’s not the purpose of our conscience to put each Church teaching on trial. Our consciences should be used to uphold and apply Church teachings in our daily lives; not to reject Church teachings when they become too hard to follow.

In the OP, I challenged anyone to show me a Church document that claimed it is acceptable for Catholics to form their consciences against Magisterial teaching. No one on this thread has done this.

Janet: We Catholics really are supposed to accept all the Magisterial teachings according to LG25. No Catholic can dismiss any teaching with the excuse “primacy of conscience.” That is my point.

**I understand, its just that, well this seems to be a minority opinion you have within the Church. In fact, I’ve read elsewhere that it is a position noted for here on this forum particularly. It is not the opinion as I have been told by most Catholics, insofar as they have thought about it. I admit, I was so personally shocked that anyone would claim this that I went not only to my parish priest, but went online to our diocese where they have a Q and A, and got the same answer. I surely was strongly warned that indeed, this is not some kind of do what you think best, but a very serious and long process, and not to undertaken lightly or frivously. Bottom line, I’m still correct in the end. Now of course you may believe what you desire to based on what you see the material saying. **

You’re correct about what? That Catholics have a right to reject Magisterial teachings and remain in good standing? That they have a right to form their consciences in opposition to Church teachings? No Church documents back you up on that belief.

I’m not making anything up, and it’s not just my opinion. It’s what the Church teaches. It’s too bad if many Catholics are unaware that they have a duty to follow Magisterial teachings, but it doesn’t change anything. It would make my life easier too if I could just make up my own rules and decide which teachings of the Church I wanted to live by and which ones I wanted to reject. But if I wanted to do that, I would just be honest about it and start my own church.

 

[catharina]

I know who you refer to. You are missing my point. It is not that A Catholic runs and is elected on a pro-life platform. I doubt seriously whether he went around saying that he would check with the Church before EVERY vote to determine if they had a positon which he would adopt. My point is that given the publicity of certain bishops claiming to do at a distance refusal of communion to Catholics who don’t follow the church, added with folks here who promote that Catholics are required to adher to Church teachings even as elected officials, creates a very bad situation in place. If the American electorate becomes convinced that any elected Catholic will ignore the the electorate and follow Rome in all matters Rome chooses to address, no one will vote for Catholics to be in public office, for obvious reasons. They essentially cannot take the oath of office. That is the dangerous road you would take us.

I’m not sure given the age of communication we are in why you thought it pertinent to tell me his state was next to mine…lol…that would hardly make it more likely I was aware of him. But it was cute

Yes, you may join Jayne is thinking I should leave you to your Church, but I am a firm believer in Catholic teaching as a whole, think She has theologically the most defensible position, and is due both my love and respect. I question some of her members from time to time and am unsure if they are correct. I do actually believe that the Spirit, in its own time, makes all right. We also are required to be aware and question. One of the things I find that has not been inculcated well in the average member’s mind, is that the Spirit of God is within them as well, and the Spirit can use and does use all of its resources to protect the Church. I cannot imagine that the Spirit would ever use me alone that way, but I can certainly see where it has used other singular people in the past to accomplish great things.

My questions are my questions, not meant to antagonize, but to open the discussion to new ways of looking at old issues. Obviously it upsets some folks mightily. Perhaps that is good, I don’t know, but I am sorry it strikes such fear in some. I guess I do fear that the charge made to fundamentalists that they have forsook God for a book as their idol, could also be asserted against Catholics, should we be caught in worshiping the Church more than God. Some see that as impossible and a horrible thing to say, but others might suggest that it is already here in small measure.

I admit that I find it very difficult to follow your attempts at reason. Perhaps I’m mistaken but I recall your saying that you had no idea that Nancy Pelosi considers herself to be Catholic and since in this “age of communication” that fact is way beyond common knowledge, I wondered if the name of HH of Illinois would mean a thing to you. If the celebrations of and for Nancy Pelosi by Trinity College in Wash DC missed your radar screen, I had to wonder what else is unnoticed by you. In no way was I attempting to be “cute.”

HH ran (always) as a faithful Roman Catholic. Since you object to the notion that “Catholics are required to adher to Church teachings even as elected officials” then what is your expectation for RCs who are elected officials? Come as you are? Pick a number? Anyone’s guess? Why you would prefer unfaithful RCs to no RCs in office is beyond my imagining - and also beyond comprehension.

I don’t recall Janet ever saying you should go away; neither did I say so. Your rhetoric is so far flung it has to miss its intended targets.

While you are wondering what the Holy Spirit might or might not do (“I do actually believe that the Spirit, in its own time, makes all right. We also are required to be aware and question. One of the things I find that has not been inculcated well in the average member’s mind, is that the Spirit of God is within them as well, and the Spirit can use and does use all of its resources to protect the Church”) you might re-align your thinking to the personal use of the pronoun His, not “its.” Do you make similar adjustments when you pray? I must suggest that the only notion of fear you suggest to me is my fear for your soul.

 

[catharina]

You totally confuse me. You quote from remarks about criminals and judges and appeals, and then make the above statement? What is the give and take? Why do you make such a statement at all? Wherein have I said, I’m expecting that with God? What statement is incomprehensible? If you are referring to the last sentence, please go back and see what it was in reference to! The poster asked if I thought exercising the right to remain silent would work against God, and I said no…geesh…

Again, this is what you said:

"Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow
Good! I am a firm believer that those who don’t want to serve shouldn’t. I have handled oh goodness, probably in the vicinity of 10,000 cases probably more in those years. I can think of maybe 5 times in all that time that I even witnessed a judge overturning a jury verdict. It does, I admit, occur with a greater frequency at the appellate level, but that is usually due to judicial or attorney error.

I would imagine that remaining quiet before God would not be a good idea."

So ... What did you mean - if not the future proposition of your having a give-and-take with God at your judgment???  Do explain your idea.

 

[Janet_S]

Statement on the Formation of Conscience
Canadian Catholic Conference, 1 December, 1973
consciencelaws.org/Examining-Conscience-Ethical/Ethical40.html

GUIDES FOR CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE

–Human Balance
–Presence of Christ
–Scripture and Tradition
–The Magisterium
36. It is in this context that the teaching of the Church finds its full force. We have seen through sad historical example, the kind of confusion that can arise from an unguided and overly subjective reading of the Scriptures and interpretation of tradition. The Church has been give to us to make sure that the Word of God contained in the Scripture and illustrated to us in the Spirit can be authenticated in the community of believers.

1. In this one Spirit of which we speak, we have the service of the apostles and of their successors, the College of Bishops, united with their head, the Pope. The role of the apostles and their successors was and is to bear witness to Christ, the revealer of the Father’s Will. It was and is their duty to transmit the testimony of the original apostles concerning Christ, to celebrate the new covenant and to guide the people of God in the living of the new creation of Christ (Mt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16). Guided by the Spirit, the Church has sought to do precisely this in the past and continues to do so in the present world while turned toward the second coming o f Christ. The doctrinal service of the successors of the apostles includes the Scriptures and tradition as described above. In the fulfilment of this task, they do not seek to suppress the other gifts of the Spirit but encourage all to test the gifts according to the criteria found in Scripture and tradition.
2. For a believer, this teaching of the magisterium as outlined above cannot be just one element among others in the formation of his conscience. It is the definitive cornerstone upon which the whole edifice of conscientious judgement must be built. “You are built upon the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets, and Christ Jesus himself is the foundation stone” (Eph. 2:20). “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Mt. 16:18). What must be kept in mind is that we are in the dimension of faith. And we should be encouraged and hopeful because we can count on the continued assistance of the Holy Spirit in a manner which pure reason could never give.
3. The responsible person, as defined above, must weigh the facts before acting. This is far removed from saying that he may act in accordance with his whims and wishes. **A believer has the absolute obligation of conforming his conduct first and foremost to what the Church teaches, because first and foremost for the believer is that Christ, through his Spirit, is ever present in his Church, in the whole Church to be sure, but particularly with those who exercise services within the Church and for the Church, the first of which services is that of the apostles. **
4. Furthermore, even in matters which have not been defined ex cathedra, i.e., infallibly, the believer has the obligation to give full priority to the teaching of the Church in favour of a given position, to pray for the light of the Spirit, to refer to Scripture and tradition and to maintain a dialogue with the whole Church, which he can do only through the source of unity which is the collectivity of the bishops. The reality itself, for example, sex, marriage, economics, politics, war, must be studied in detail. In this study, he should make an effort to become aware of his own inevitable presuppositions as well as his cultural background which leads him to act for or react against any given position. If his ultimate practical judgement to do this or avoid that does not take into full account the teaching of the Church, an account based not only on reason but on the faith dimension, he is deceiving himself in pretending that he is acting as a true Catholic must.
5. For a Catholic “to follow one’s conscience” is not, then, simply to act as his unguided reason dictates. “To follow one’s conscience” and remain a Catholic, one must take into account first and foremost the teaching of the magisterium. When doubt arises due to a conflict of “my” views and those of the magisterium, the presumption of truth lies on the part of the magisterium. "In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent of soul. This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra (Lumen Gentium, #25). And this must be carefully distinguished from the teaching of individual theologians or individual priests, however intelligent or persuasive.

 

[Janet_S]

archdiocese-no.org/archbishop/ah_archives/081005.html

Moral Conscience
by Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes

Clarion Herald Column August 10, 2005 Edition
In an age of theological sound bites, the teaching of Cardinal John Henry Newman on conscience is usually reduced to his words, uttered after the declaration on papal infallibility: "I toast the pope; but I toast conscience first."Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia, has helped to uncover the true meaning of Newman’s teaching in a recent article, “The Inconvenient Conscience,” in First Things.

What is conscience? There are two functions in the human intellect. The first is an intuitive attraction to the truth. The second involves a judgment about truth. Conscience is the inner witness to moral truth. It also involves a practical judgment, applying moral truths to concrete human dilemmas. In his letter to the Duke of Norfolk, Cardinal Newman testified: “Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor desire to be consistent with oneself; but it is a messenger from Him, who, both in nature and grace, speaks to us behind a veil, teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.”

Notice that conscience presumes objective moral truth. This is often disputed today. Many have lost confidence that the human mind can reach true objectivity.

But we cannot ground a free human society except on objective moral truth. Is racism wrong? Is the exploitation of the poor wrong? Is the killing of an innocent human being wrong? There have to be objective moral truths to which we conform or a free society dissolves into chaos.

This was the conviction of the founders of our country. In the Declaration of Independence they expressed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” When President George Washington was leaving office, he cautioned the citizens of the United States that the American experiment would fail if we did not recognize the role of religion in nurturing those virtues which enable us to embrace common moral truths.

Tolerance is often misinterpreted today. True tolerance leads us to respect for each person, no matter what he or she may think. But, tolerance does not require us to accept the thinking of others. Academic and political freedoms are to provide an atmosphere wherein the genuine exchange of ideas can lead to an acknowledgment of objective truth.

The recent stem cell and cloning debates bring this home. What is the truth about “somatic nuclear cell transfer”? Is it the creation of human life or not? Some scientists refer to it as a nuclear transfer unit. A unit? It is human life! If we recognize the truth, then it is important for us to ban all cloning of human beings, even for good purposes. We cannot kill one human life to save another except in self-defense!

This example brings home to us why the Church has always been concerned to foster a true formation of conscience. Christ has given to his Church the charge to ensure fidelity to revealed truth. The Church’s role in conscience formation is not, as some suppose, akin to ideological brainwashing. It is an educational role. Education means to draw forth from within. The Church points to a truth that is written in human creation.

When we experience difficulty in understanding what the Church is teaching, we should not rush to disagreement, but rather to humble prayer, study and openness to conversion. So often the conflict we experience is rooted in a reluctance to give up something that is wrong. The conflict, then, is within us, not between us and the Church. Conscience can make erroneous judgments about moral behavior. As responsible adults, we have the obligation genuinely to seek the truth, guided by the Church’s magisterial teaching.

The right formation of conscience has profound implications for the sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation, as well as the Eucharist. If, for instance, we begin to redefine what is sin, we become less inclined to seek this sacrament in our lives. Vagueness about what is right and wrong begins to diminish our personal consciousness of sin.

Similarly, we can claim an entitlement to receive Holy Communion. The Church urges full participation in the Eucharist, but teaches that it is necessary for us to be in communion with the Church’s faith and free from mortal sin in our lives to receive Holy Communion worthily. St. Paul cautioned the early Corinthian community not to profane the Body and Blood of the Lord.

A good conscience, then, is a witness to moral truth and a guide to right judgment for our behavior. God grant us all the grace of a good conscience.

 

[Janet_S]

Catholics complain to Vatican about Cardinal Pell
americanpapist.com/2006/02/catholics-complain-to-vatican-about.html

Check out this blog and the comments at the end. This is so ridiculous it’s almost funny.

Spokesman Frank Purcell went further, accusing the cardinal of fostering an “Eichmann mentality” whereby people in the church did not think for themselves but simply obeyed orders. (Adolf Eichmann was the Nazi in charge of exterminating Jews in World War II.)

theage.com.au/news/national/catholics-complain-to-vatican-over-pell/2006/02/19/1140283950676.html

Hmmm. Nazi comparison. This sounds familiar. Where did I hear this before?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You dodged the question again, and this time accused me of insulting your intelligence.

**I’ve not dodged the issue, but stated my position quite clearly on numerous occasions. Some do not of course agree. And you did insult me by suggesting that I had confused “gut feelings” with primacy of conscience. That is simply absurd IMO. **

You got the answer from your priest, and of course he’s right, that everyone has to follow their conscience. However if your conscience tells you not to agree with the magesterium, you still have to follow it, but if the positions it tells you to take are heretical, then you are no longer catholic.

**No of course my priest is not “of course right”. I note a lot of priest basing on this forum oddly enough, mostly claiming they are badly taught, that they give bad or weak sermons, that they don’t understand scripture, etc. I find it interesting, but I do think I understand it as well. What I meant, is that I was seriously shaken by the view of some here, and really wondered whether i was in in error in my thinking. I went to sources I consider better than my own personal beliefs, in my case my priest and at least one one in my diocese. Since you don’t know my priest or what his background is, I guess you can’t really speak to his abilities in this. If there comes a time when I feel I cannot follow a Church teaching, I will do what I think is appropriate. I am determining an issue or two now, but have yet to reach a formal conclusion. Perhaps my questions are part of my quest. **

And yes, it is our duty as catholics, to follow our conscience, even if that means changing religion.

Yes, I see that for some here they wish that those who don’t agree with them would simply leave the Church to them. That’s at least 3 now who have pretty much asked me to leave. But of course I have no such intention. Not a particularly good evangelistic method I would say

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I admit that I find it very difficult to follow your attempts at reason. Perhaps I’m mistaken but I recall your saying that you had no idea that Nancy Pelosi considers herself to be Catholic and since in this “age of communication” that fact is way beyond common knowledge, I wondered if the name of HH of Illinois would mean a thing to you. If the celebrations of and for Nancy Pelosi by Trinity College in Wash DC missed your radar screen, I had to wonder what else is unnoticed by you. In no way was I attempting to be “cute.”

I am sorry you find my arguments hard to follow. Perhaps we should start over and you should ask instead of assume. What have I missed about Pelosi you think is important? I keep up on politics fairly well, but not as much as my husband who really watches all the 24-hour stuff. And no doubt a good deal misses my radar, unlike I guess you who miss nothing. I’m just a tad too busy. As I said, what of such importance did I miss about Pelosi?

HH ran (always) as a faithful Roman Catholic. Since you object to the notion that “Catholics are required to adher to Church teachings even as elected officials” then what is your expectation for RCs who are elected officials? Come as you are? Pick a number? Anyone’s guess? Why you would prefer unfaithful RCs to no RCs in office is beyond my imagining - and also beyond comprehension.

**I’m not sure what you are asking. I do not object to any Catholic adhering to church teaching. I object to people suggesting that all Catholics must do this, when it leads to the assumption that they will follow Church teachings BEFORE consideration of what the electorate may wish, or would otherwise be appropriate. i’ve said this over and over and it still gets twisted into my saying I don’t want faithful Catholics to run. I guess given I’m very familiar with what JFK had to contend with I am fearful of folks who would destroy all that, and we would be back to the problem faced by other candidates who are of faiths that are not well received. I have zero understanding of what "come as you are, take a number means.

Since you have so badly understood so far, it is not unexpected that you would erroneously conclude that I prefer "unfaithful Catholics. Such a notion is not at all true. **

I don’t recall Janet ever saying you should go away; neither did I say so. Your rhetoric is so far flung it has to miss its intended targets.

The constant statement of why “someone who doesn’t agree with church teachings is even a Catholic” might suggest it. That has become the new refrain to me…I guess you don’t see that as a covert statement of "please leave"

While you are wondering what the Holy Spirit might or might not do (“I do actually believe that the Spirit, in its own time, makes all right. We also are required to be aware and question. One of the things I find that has not been inculcated well in the average member’s mind, is that the Spirit of God is within them as well, and the Spirit can use and does use all of its resources to protect the Church”) you might re-align your thinking to the personal use of the pronoun His, not “its.”

**I was unaware that the Holy Spirit was male. Sometimes when someone says something you have to agree with, I guess you can always find something right? **

Do you make similar adjustments when you pray? I must suggest that the only notion of fear you suggest to me is my fear for your soul.

**What adjustments are you referring to? And I thank you for your concern. I will pray for you too. **

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Again, this is what you said:

"Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow
Good! I am a firm believer that those who don’t want to serve shouldn’t. I have handled oh goodness, probably in the vicinity of 10,000 cases probably more in those years. I can think of maybe 5 times in all that time that I even witnessed a judge overturning a jury verdict. It does, I admit, occur with a greater frequency at the appellate level, but that is usually due to judicial or attorney error.

I would imagine that remaining quiet before God would not be a good idea."

So ... What did you mean - if not the future proposition of your having a give-and-take with God at your judgment???  Do explain your idea.

That comment was an ANSWER to ANOTHER question. I have replied and told you that. You are making nothing out of less than nothing. Read the context please.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

archdiocese-no.org/archbishop/ah_archives/081005.html

Moral Conscience
by Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes

Clarion Herald Column August 10, 2005 Edition
In an age of theological sound bites, the teaching of Cardinal John Henry Newman on conscience is usually reduced to his words, uttered after the declaration on papal infallibility: "I toast the pope; but I toast conscience first."Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia, has helped to uncover the true meaning of Newman’s teaching in a recent article, “The Inconvenient Conscience,” in First Things.

What is conscience? There are two functions in the human intellect. The first is an intuitive attraction to the truth. The second involves a judgment about truth. Conscience is the inner witness to moral truth. It also involves a practical judgment, applying moral truths to concrete human dilemmas. In his letter to the Duke of Norfolk, Cardinal Newman testified: “Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor desire to be consistent with oneself; but it is a messenger from Him, who, both in nature and grace, speaks to us behind a veil, teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.”

Notice that conscience presumes objective moral truth. This is often disputed today. Many have lost confidence that the human mind can reach true objectivity.

But we cannot ground a free human society except on objective moral truth. Is racism wrong? Is the exploitation of the poor wrong? Is the killing of an innocent human being wrong? There have to be objective moral truths to which we conform or a free society dissolves into chaos.

This was the conviction of the founders of our country. In the Declaration of Independence they expressed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” When President George Washington was leaving office, he cautioned the citizens of the United States that the American experiment would fail if we did not recognize the role of religion in nurturing those virtues which enable us to embrace common moral truths.

Tolerance is often misinterpreted today. True tolerance leads us to respect for each person, no matter what he or she may think. But, tolerance does not require us to accept the thinking of others. Academic and political freedoms are to provide an atmosphere wherein the genuine exchange of ideas can lead to an acknowledgment of objective truth.

The recent stem cell and cloning debates bring this home. What is the truth about “somatic nuclear cell transfer”? Is it the creation of human life or not? Some scientists refer to it as a nuclear transfer unit. A unit? It is human life! If we recognize the truth, then it is important for us to ban all cloning of human beings, even for good purposes. We cannot kill one human life to save another except in self-defense!

This example brings home to us why the Church has always been concerned to foster a true formation of conscience. Christ has given to his Church the charge to ensure fidelity to revealed truth. The Church’s role in conscience formation is not, as some suppose, akin to ideological brainwashing. It is an educational role. Education means to draw forth from within. The Church points to a truth that is written in human creation.

When we experience difficulty in understanding what the Church is teaching, we should not rush to disagreement, but rather to humble prayer, study and openness to conversion. So often the conflict we experience is rooted in a reluctance to give up something that is wrong. The conflict, then, is within us, not between us and the Church. Conscience can make erroneous judgments about moral behavior. As responsible adults, we have the obligation genuinely to seek the truth, guided by the Church’s magisterial teaching.

The right formation of conscience has profound implications for the sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation, as well as the Eucharist. If, for instance, we begin to redefine what is sin, we become less inclined to seek this sacrament in our lives. Vagueness about what is right and wrong begins to diminish our personal consciousness of sin.

Similarly, we can claim an entitlement to receive Holy Communion. The Church urges full participation in the Eucharist, but teaches that it is necessary for us to be in communion with the Church’s faith and free from mortal sin in our lives to receive Holy Communion worthily. St. Paul cautioned the early Corinthian community not to profane the Body and Blood of the Lord.

A good conscience, then, is a witness to moral truth and a guide to right judgment for our behavior. God grant us all the grace of a good conscience.

No problem, perfectly fine statement. I am always guilded by the Church’s magisterium, and I agree, all adult Catholics have such a duty to actively sincerely and thoroughly search for objective moral truth.

 

[catharina]

No problem, perfectly fine statement. I am always guilded by the Church’s magisterium, and I agree, all adult Catholics have such a duty to actively sincerely and thoroughly search for objective moral truth.

If you are always guided by the Magisterium, then no doubt you want to correct your reference to the Holy Spirit as “it” since we know that the Holy Spirit is referenced only as “He.”

e.g., in John 16:

"12 “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.
14 He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
15 Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.”

 

[Janet_S]

No problem, perfectly fine statement. I am always guilded by the Church’s magisterium, and I agree, all adult Catholics have such a duty to actively sincerely and thoroughly search for objective moral truth.

I’m glad to see you’ve had this change of heart.

 

[catharina]

Yes, I see that for some here they wish that those who don’t agree with them would simply leave the Church to them. That’s at least 3 now who have pretty much asked me to leave. But of course I have no such intention. Not a particularly good evangelistic method I would say

Keeping score, you’ve come up with three posters who’ve “suggested” you leave the Church???

None have suggested that, so what an odd conclusion you’ve drawn (assumption you’ve made).

As for your repeated insistence that “the public” needn’t (shouldn’t) have to assume that any RC running for office is a faithful RC, I can only say “staggering!” Before you refer agin to the JFK history and race, let me say that I was five yrs older than you then as I am now. JFK had brains enough to rely on his Irish American quirkiness, assuring the American public that the Pope would not have a direct phone line to the Oval Office. Oh yes, and JFK was elected; I’m sure you recall that too? Maybe?

As for Pelosi, she was elected as a “Catholic pro-choice” candidate. Talk about a contradiction in terms but I guess from your statements, you approve of such a category.

Am I too busy to fight error in Catholic teaching? Not yet.

Pray for me? Yes do, and I’ll continue to pray for you as long as God allows it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Catholics complain to Vatican about Cardinal Pell
americanpapist.com/2006/02/catholics-complain-to-vatican-about.html

Check out this blog and the comments at the end. This is so ridiculous it’s almost funny.

theage.com.au/news/national/catholics-complain-to-vatican-over-pell/2006/02/19/1140283950676.html

Hmmm. Nazi comparison. This sounds familiar. Where did I hear this before?

Hmmmm, it was me. Did you forget that? or just trying for some more drama? The article from The Age does not of course make any resolution of the problem, simply reporting both sides opinion in the matter. So it have zero help in explaining anything. I have no idea why it was included, except to point out that Pell’s argument is finding find opposition. Why would you think this helps you.?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’m glad to see you’ve had this change of heart.

I don’t know what change of heart you believe has occurred. I think we are having a very bad problem here of not reading carefully. I’ve certainly double checked a number of things again.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

If you are always guided by the Magisterium, then no doubt you want to correct your reference to the Holy Spirit as “it” since we know that the Holy Spirit is referenced only as “He.”

e.g., in John 16:

"12 “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.
14 He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
15 Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.”

Ma’am…

1. YOu have a very bad habit of attaching responses to other statements to new material and then attempting to argue from it.I t is called cherry picking without reference to context and is not fair argument. I will not respond to such blatant attempts to deceive.
2. This is a seriously tangential issue. If you seriously want to argue that the HOLY SPIRIT is a male then do so by starting another thread. Such discussion is inappropriate on this thread.

 

[catharina]

Hmmmm, it was me. Did you forget that? or just trying for some more drama? The article from The Age does not of course make any resolution of the problem, simply reporting both sides opinion in the matter. So it have zero help in explaining anything. I have no idea why it was included, except to point out that Pell’s argument is finding find opposition. Why would you think this helps you.?

If you truly uphold the notion (belief???) that the teaching of the Church can be evenly compared to the dictates of the Nazi government, then you might want to check in with a mental health specialist. That’s the most charitable advice I can offer you.

PS - it’s free, if unrequested, advice.

 

[catharina]

Ma’am…

1. YOu have a very bad habit of attaching responses to other statements to new material and then attempting to argue from it.I t is called cherry picking without reference to context and is not fair argument. I will not respond to such blatant attempts to deceive.
2. This is a seriously tangential issue. If you seriously want to argue that the HOLY SPIRIT is a male then do so by starting another thread. Such discussion is inappropriate on this thread.

Sorry if you take offense, madame, but I am not arguing that the Holy Spirit is male. I’m stating that we in the Church have always referred to the Holy Spirit using masculine pronouns. But you know that, right? As I said (and meant): “Am I too busy to fight error in Catholic teaching? Not yet.” As for what is/isn’t appropriate to this thread, why do you imagine you’re qualified to make that determination?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Keeping score, you’ve come up with three posters who’ve “suggested” you leave the Church???

None have suggested that, so what an odd conclusion you’ve drawn (assumption you’ve made).

**Well thanks, I’m so glad I was wrong and you don’t want me to leave…'Thanks a lot Catharina, Now can we be civil from now on? **

As for your repeated insistence that “the public” needn’t (shouldn’t) have to assume that any RC running for office is a faithful RC, I can only say “staggering!” Before you refer agin to the JFK history and race, let me say that I was five yrs older than you then as I am now. JFK had brains enough to rely on his Irish American quirkiness, assuring the American public that the Pope would not have a direct phone line to the Oval Office. Oh yes, and JFK was elected; I’m sure you recall that too? Maybe?

**Why are you being so nasty again? You correctly got what JFK was doing. Why on earth are you therefore trying to undo it by making it as public as possible that all Catholics are required to follow the Church? Can you not see that you are turning the clock backward? **

As for Pelosi, she was elected as a “Catholic pro-choice” candidate. Talk about a contradiction in terms but I guess from your statements, you approve of such a category.

**Fine, thanks for the information. You’re attempts to continue to be denigrating are sad. Are you ever polite to those you disagree with? **

Pray for me? Yes do, and I’ll continue to pray for you as long as God allows it.

**You’re mean spiritedness is sad. Do you prefer I not pray for you? I will do as you wish ma’am. **

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Sorry if you take offense, madame, but I am not arguing that the Holy Spirit is male. I’m stating that we in the Church have always referred to the Holy Spirit using masculine pronouns. But you know that, right? As I said (and meant): “Am I too busy to fight error in Catholic teaching? Not yet.” As for what is/isn’t appropriate to this thread, why do you imagine you’re qualified to make that determination?

What is wrong? I’m glad your not arguing it. Good idea. I’m not a madame really…lol…I am becoming more formal only because your sarcasm is so very intense. I see no need for it. Apparently you think this is a good method of debate.