Differences of Opinion

[drpmjhess]

SpiritMeadow,

I think that it depends a lot on what you mean by “progressive”.

However, if you mean that you disagree with dogma or doctrine, or moral law rulings like: 1) you want the Church to allow abortion and contraception, 2) you want women “priests”, 3) you want the Church to endorse socialist economics etc., then NO.

The Church can never change on these issues without ceasing to be Christ’s Church. Any disagreement is dissent and possibly heresy, if obstinate.

I really urge you to study the Doctors of the Church and the Church Fathers.

God Bless

It’s ironic that you mention opposition to contraception and “Church Fathers” in the same posting. If women had been proportionally represented in doctrinal and moral theological discussions since the early church – or if the venerable “fathers” had been at risk to get pregnant – I suspect we would be singing a different tune on contraception now!.

 

[adrift]

I’ve read all the posts. You wonder why so much private messaging goes on. This is obviously why. Such meanness. Such intolerance. If one more person warns me about Liberation theology I’m gonna be sick. Where do you get off thinking you have the moral high ground? Thank God Thank God you guys are a serious minority in the Church.

NO OTHER REPLIES ARE NECESSARY. THERE IS OBVIOUSLY NO OPENMINDEDNESS TO BE FOUND ON ANY LEVEL.

Interesting that you say there is no open mindedness to be found on any level

That must especially apply to you. What meanness? I see polite disagreement with you. Was I mean because I asked to provide fact to your charges? I must assume that you do not have any. I suspected that because quite frankly I thought it was not true when you stated it. However, I was open to being proven wrong. I guess that proves you wrong twice. Have you taken a poll to prove what the minority is? Or are you making that up too?
Jesus was a minority also. He said that the road to heaven was narrow. I guess I prefer the narrow way.

 

[Hellisreal]

Hello again Spirit Meadow, I guess I am one of those you had a encounter with that did not go well with you. (I did apologize for asking you one thing though, and I am still feeling no closure there - to use psycho-babble terms I dont normally- as you never “validated” my feelings.)

I am sorry to disagree with you Spirit Meadow.

I have no problem with someone studying these issues.

My objection lies in your “bandwagon” sales technique. You claim you have a large PM following.

We dont know this for a fact, we must take your word on it.

You, like many other advertising specialists, seem to think you can sell your propoganda by route of “everyone is doing it”

I say, gather up the chaff!

You won’t find me objecting to you gaining followers of like mind.

I may object to foolish statements, or innacurate statements.

But not to your “work” here.

Pull in your “harvest”.
May the most High, most Just God be with you, and bless you accordingly to your efforts in His Holy Name.

 

[po18guy]

I’ve read all the posts. You wonder why so much private messaging goes on. This is obviously why. Such meanness. Such intolerance. If one more person warns me about Liberation theology I’m gonna be sick. Where do you get off thinking you have the moral high ground? Thank God Thank God you guys are a serious minority in the Church.

NO OTHER REPLIES ARE NECESSARY. THERE IS OBVIOUSLY NO OPENMINDEDNESS TO BE FOUND ON ANY LEVEL.

I am seriously beginning to believe that there is anti-Catholic spam software in use!

A real minority: hundreds of millions and the Pope against SpiritMeadow. Talk about unfair!!!

 

[Orogeny]

It’s ironic that you mention opposition to contraception and “Church Fathers” in the same posting. If women had been proportionally represented in doctrinal and moral theological discussions since the early church – or if the venerable “fathers” had been at risk to get pregnant – I suspect we would be singing a different tune on contraception now!.

You may suspect that but it is only your opinion based on, well, your opinion.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I’ve read all the posts. You wonder why so much private messaging goes on. This is obviously why. Such meanness. Such intolerance. If one more person warns me about Liberation theology I’m gonna be sick. Where do you get off thinking you have the moral high ground? Thank God Thank God you guys are a serious minority in the Church.

NO OTHER REPLIES ARE NECESSARY. THERE IS OBVIOUSLY NO OPENMINDEDNESS TO BE FOUND ON ANY LEVEL.

I’m sorry, SpiritMeadow, but I must say that there aren’t any mean posts on this thread that I can see. Disagreeing with you is not mean, it is having a discussion. You started this thread, so I suspect that you realized that there would be posters who disagree with you. You got that. How is that mean?

And by the way, I consider the use of the term “intolerance” to be akin to crying “racism” or “homophobia” to stifle discussion. If you only want people who agree with everything you believe, a public forum is a bad place to be. Perhaps the PM is the best for you.

And, I must say, the way you ended your post is very close-minded.

Peace

Tim

 

[SemperFidelis]

THERE IS OBVIOUSLY NO OPENMINDEDNESS TO BE FOUND ON ANY LEVEL.

A really smart man once said this:

Don’t open your mind so much that your brain falls out.
G.K. Chesterton

and

The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.
G.K. Chesterton

and

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
You know who…

He was the Apostle of Common Sense after all…

 

[jmcrae]

I’ve read all the posts. You wonder why so much private messaging goes on. This is obviously why. Such meanness. Such intolerance. If one more person warns me about Liberation theology I’m gonna be sick.

I invite you to read the theories of Marx. They are on-line, and available in every public library. Learn where Liberation Theology comes from, and what it’s core values are. Don’t just skim the surface; don’t just listen to the happy slogans. Find out what it’s really all about.

Read the history of the movement itself - not just the cereal box synopses, but the actual newspaper clippings and radio transcripts.

I’m not “warning you off” - I’m saying study it. Open your mind and pour the information in - let the ideas flow. Read everything you can get your hands on, and think, think, think!!

Use both inductive and deductive logic in your thinking - don’t just go with what “feels good.”

I’m inviting you to ask the questions - ask all the questions - and seek out the answers until they make sense.

 

[drpmjhess]

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.

“There is divine beauty in learning, just as there is human beauty in tolerance.” - Elie Wiesel

 

[Corki]

Quote:
Originally Posted by drpmjhess

It’s ironic that you mention opposition to contraception and “Church Fathers” in the same posting. If women had been proportionally represented in doctrinal and moral theological discussions since the early church – or if the venerable “fathers” had been at risk to get pregnant – I suspect we would be singing a different tune on contraception now!.

This position has always been curious to me. All of the people I have ever met in my life who are strongly anti-contraception defenders of the Church’s position have been women. The vast majority of those who advocate a more liberal interpretation of Church teaching regarding contraception, and the only pro-choice Catholics in my own aquaintance, have been men. Yet somehow the Church’s position is always blamed on the fact that men are “in charge”.

 

[wildleafblower]

I am a progressive Catholic . . .
[snip]
There is a rather lively private messaging that goes on, and many here say in message, what they admittedly won’t say publically here.

In any case, you continually act appalled and tell me the Magisterium has spoken. I’ve been warned countless times not to read any number of things about liberation and feminist theology.

Hi SpiritMeadow

I’m a Catholic too. I’d say I was the best I can be so wouldn’t wish to label myself as progressive, blah, blah, blah, etc.

I turned my PM off long ago after thinking to myself if people can’t publically say what they have to me then why hide behind a door. Most likely those people wouldn’t then acknowledge me in public anyway which would be very sad in deed.

I did find some information about liberation theology. Here is a quote that I do agree with:

• The magisterium of the church in Latin America has expressed itself primarily through the documents of two conferences. The second general conference of the episcopate of Latin America, held at Medellin, Colombia, in 1968, spoke of the church “listening to the cry of the poor and becoming the interpreter of their anguish”; this was the first flowering of the theme of liberation, which began to be worked out systematically only after Medellin. The third general conference, held at Puebla, Mexico, in 1979, shows the theme of liberation running right through its final document. The liberation dimension is seen a an “integral put” (§§355, 1254, 1283) of the mission of the church, “indispensable” (§§562, 1270), “essential” (§1302). A large put of the document (§§470-506) is devoted to evangelization, liberation, and human promotion, and a whole chapter (§§1134-56) to the “preferential option for the poor,” a central axis of liberation theology.

The general tenor of the pronouncements of the magisterium, whether papal or coming from the Synod of Bishops, has been to recognize the positive aspects of liberation theology, especially with reference to the poor and the need for their liberation, as forming put of the universal heritage of Christian commitment to history. Criticisms of certain tendencies within liberation theology, which have to be taken into account, do not negate the vigorous and healthy nucleus of this form of Christian thinking, which has done so much to bring the message of the historical Jesus to the world of today.* (A Concise History of Liberation Theology
By Leonardo and Clodovis Boff. From the book Introducing Liberation Theology published by Orbis Books.)
landreform.org/boff2.htm
landreform.org/boff2.htm

I’ve worked for many years with the Sisters of Charity and other Catholic organizations. Most of my time as a volunteer was spent with the precious, poor children of South America.

 

[drpmjhess]

This position has always been curious to me. All of the people I have ever met in my life who are strongly anti-contraception defenders of the Church’s position have been women. The vast majority of those who advocate a more liberal interpretation of Church teaching regarding contraception, and the only pro-choice Catholics in my own aquaintance, have been men. Yet somehow the Church’s position is always blamed on the fact that men are “in charge”.

Did I blame? I only mentioned the fact that dogma has been written by men, and that perhaps dogma would be different if women had been given a voice in the discussion. I don’t personally know any pro-abortion Catholics, male or female.

 

[montanaman]

Did I blame? I only mentioned the fact that dogma has been written by men, and that perhaps dogma would be different if women had been given a voice in the discussion. I don’t personally know any pro-abortion Catholics, male or female.

That seems to assume there is a different morality for men and a different morality for women which, of course, the Church rejects.

 

[manualman]

Liberation Theology, like most leftist thinking, does a great job of identifying a problem, then proposing solutions that will inevitably make the problem WORSE.

LT correctly notes that the great majority of the people of Latin and South America live in unjust poverty, with little to no opportunity to gain for themselves a better life via hard work, ingenuity and good living. This is to the credit of the LT people. They further note that the people who ARE wealthy in this culture appear to be manipulating the policies of government, education and even, shamefully, the church at times for their own benefit.

However, where LT goes off the rails is by making a subtle jump to the assumption that evil in the world originates from an external source, namely, the rich and powerful (though it neglects to say how THEY got to be evil). From this assumption, comes two highly dangerous outcomes:

1. People are encouraged to forget that ALL humans are sinful and in desperate need of forgiveness, Grace and sanctification, not just the rich and powerful. Thus, people are encouraged to participate in an external struggle for justice INSTEAD of seeking to grow in personal holiness. Thus, their struggle is doomed to failure since even if they achieve the revolution they seek the replacement leaders have no better moral formation than those they overthrew and wind up repeating the cycle (can you say Hugo?).
2. This emphasis on evil as being sourced in the OTHERS (the rich and powerful) magnifies the resentment already present in the people from their legitimate grievances. This magnification tends to transform righteous indignation into unrighteous rage, the result of which is the violence so endemic to that region.

Thus, LT as it exists today, is not a net helpful force in that region of the world, in spite of the true observations it makes. It implicitly denies the catholic principle of Original Sin and leads people to the believe that the ills of the world are the result of only others, not our own sinfulness.

 

[TMC]

Spiritmeadow suggested that free thinking and exploring Catholics have been condemned through history, even called heretics, but that some of their ideas are now accepted by the Church.

I don’t know if the Church officially called these things heresies, but surely we can agree the Church has changed its position on these issues (sometimes more than once): married priests, translation of the Mass into vernacular, translation of the bible into vernacular, the role of women in the Mass, the role of the laity in general in the Mass, the validity of scientific inquiry into the particulars of the creation (Galileo, evolution, etc.).

I think there are many more, but I am trying to list those that most would agree have changed over time. Am I wrong?

 

[bilop]

It’s ironic that you mention opposition to contraception and “Church Fathers” in the same posting. If women had been proportionally represented in doctrinal and moral theological discussions since the early church – or if the venerable “fathers” had been at risk to get pregnant – I suspect we would be singing a different tune on contraception now!.

I don’t think it’s ironic at all. How about the Doctors of the Church? There are several females. How about all the great female saints? Are there any well known Catholic theologians or religious leaders (male or female) that supported contraception? Of course not. No Christian group approved contraception until 1930.

I once thought as you do. Please read up on the Theology of the Body. The truth is out there, we just have to seek it.

God Bless

 

[montanaman]

Spiritmeadow suggested that free thinking and exploring Catholics have been condemned through history, even called heretics, but that some of their ideas are now accepted by the Church.

I don’t know if the Church officially called these things heresies, but surely we can agree the Church has changed its position on these issues (sometimes more than once): married priests, translation of the Mass into vernacular, translation of the bible into vernacular, the role of women in the Mass, the role of the laity in general in the Mass, the validity of scientific inquiry into the particulars of the creation (Galileo, evolution, etc.).

I think there are many more, but I am trying to list those that most would agree have changed over time. Am I wrong?

No, I don’t think you’re wrong. But these are practices or small ‘t’ traditions. It’s quite a different matter to change capital ‘T’ Traditions like the Trinity or the Eucharist.

 

[drpmjhess]

Please read up on the Theology of the Body.

I do indeed!

 

[SemperFidelis]

“There is divine beauty in learning, just as there is human beauty in tolerance.” - Elie Wiesel

Come on, this man isn’t even Catholic, let alone somone who is regarded by the Church as a very important person when it comes to theology. Catholicism has abosolute truths which cannot change. Refusing to listen to someone who wants to reject that truth or change it is not intolerance, but is standing up for what you know is right. I’d much rather listen to the Apostle of Common Sense, who is a highly regarded “correct-thinking” Catholic than a French-Jewish novelist and political activist.

 

[bilop]

Spiritmeadow suggested that free thinking and exploring Catholics have been condemned through history, even called heretics, but that some of their ideas are now accepted by the Church.

I don’t know if the Church officially called these things heresies, but surely we can agree the Church has changed its position on these issues (sometimes more than once): married priests, translation of the Mass into vernacular, translation of the bible into vernacular, the role of women in the Mass, the role of the laity in general in the Mass, the validity of scientific inquiry into the particulars of the creation (Galileo, evolution, etc.).

I think there are many more, but I am trying to list those that most would agree have changed over time. Am I wrong?

You are wrong on some of these, and none rise to the level of dogma or doctrines, and hence could not be heresy.

1. Married Priests. The Catholic Church has and has always had married Priests. Married men can be ordained in the Eastern Churches, and, with dispensation, in the Latin Church. This is a disciplinary issue.
2. Vernacular Mass. Latin was the vernacular when it was adopted in the west. Greek was the vernacular in the East. The Eastern churces have always retained their liturgies in Greek, Slavonic etc.; they were never in Latin. The use of the vernacular in the Latin Rite was again, a disciplinary issue which could be chnaged, and can be changed back at any time.
3. Vernacular Bible. Always allowed. Again, Latin was the vernacular. Other translations were allowed in the Middle Ages(English, German etc.) but required approval.
4. Role of women, laity in Mass. Strictly disciplinary and subject to change, with the exception of the Male clergy.
5. Gallileo incident. Gallileo was only asked to teach his ideas as theory, not fact. That is why he was imprisoned. No actione were taken against Copernicus’ writings. Since this is outsided of the Church’s purview (Faith and Morals) they should not have interefered.

God Bless