Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

[Des]

While I don’t support gay marriage, I’m glad the California Supreme Court ruled as it did last week.

The Church seems to disagree with you there.

And you see, by saying ‘you are glad’ you are giving support to gay civil unions where the label marriage will still be attached to it along with all of the perks and benefits that only a ‘real’ marriage should have.

Unfortunately, Gay marriages have been allowed up here in Canada in most Provinces for a few years now. It was only inevitable that this immorality would creep down into your Country as well and I’m sure it will only spread further into many more states as time goes by like some disease.

Some gay and lesbian couples have children, and these children need legal protection.

The children need legal protection to keep them away from such perverse unions from the start.
Would you still feel the same and give your approval if it was a brother and sister or mom and her son getting married simply to give the children, legal protection?

 

[drpmjhess]

The children need legal protection to keep them away from such perverse unions from the start. Would you still feel the same and give your approval if it was a brother and sister or mom and her son getting married simply to give the children, legal protection?

No – I’m not a fan of incest. Nor am I approving of lesbians who go about securing children through sperm donation. But neither an I in favor of separating children from their parents. There is a lovely couple in our parish who adopted a Chinese orphan (she is in my sixth-grade son’s class). It would horrific to snatch this girl away from her loving parents and send her back to the orphanage. She deserved the same legal protection any child enjoys.

Actually, I think protection should be in place for all children, regardless of the makeup of their families. I don’t understand why–if there are no children involved–society privileges married couples and penalizes single people.

Petrus

 

[Joe_5859]

No – I’m not a fan of incest. Nor am I approving of lesbians who go about securing children through sperm donation. But neither an I in favor of separating children from their parents. There is a lovely couple in our parish who adopted a Chinese orphan (she is in my sixth-grade son’s class). It would horrific to snatch this girl away from her loving parents and send her back to the orphanage. She deserved the same legal protection any child enjoys.

Specifically what type of legal protection is denied children because of a lack of civil unions? I’m trying to come up with something, but I’m not seeing any.

 

[drpmjhess]

Specifically what type of legal protection is denied children because of a lack of civil unions? I’m trying to come up with something, but I’m not seeing any.

I don’t know – you’d have to research the legal case in California. What I’ve read is that civil unions as they stood did not provide child protections comparable to marriage, which is why the gay and lesbian community took the law to court. If these protections had been in place, they wouldn’t have taken it to court. Let me know what you find out!

Petrus

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The so-called non-dissenters are simply dissenters of a different kind. They dissent that LT is condemned when it is clearly not. They dissent that one is obliged to follow Church teaching at all costs AS THEY INTERPRET IT,

Maybe a few people do that, but there are a lot of us who don’t dissent on any Church teachings.

 

[Ender]

black and white statements of both the CCC and both recent popes that one’s own conscience is in the end controlling.

This is a common misconception of the role of the conscience. We are required to follow our conscience, but right and wrong are not determined by what our conscience tells us is true and following our conscience does not necessarily absolve us from the sin we commit if our conscience is erroneously formed. Sometimes “But, I did what I thought was right!” is a dog-ate-my-homework excuse that isn’t going to be accepted.

“To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and “being at peace with oneself”, so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment. … There is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly.” (Veritatis splendor #32)

“The judgment of conscience does not establish the law; rather it bears witness to the authority of the natural law. Conscience is not an independent and exclusive capacity to decide what is good and what is evil. Rather there is profoundly imprinted upon it a principle of obedience vis-a-vis the objective norm.” (Veritatis splendor #60)

“Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. … The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” (CCC 1783)

Ender

 

[minimom]

What everyone needs to remember is that there ARE infallible Church teachings. For one to say we ‘can’t meet the bar’ God sets is clearly wrong; otherwise God would not have ‘set’ the ‘bar’ where it ‘is.’ Remember- liberalism is a SIN. Please read the book by TAN. Liberalism basically means ‘the truth is what I WANT it to be. If I don’t like it, it’s not the truth.’ It’s like little kids who want to change the rules in the middle of a game. Those who are (unfortunately) swallowed up by the LT propaganda always seem as though they never can quite fully ‘commit’ to the Church’s teachings. Sorry, but that sounds like a spoiled child who doesn’t want to stop doing wrong things. I’ve tried numerous times to have clear, calm conversations on issues with “liberal Catholics” (tho you really cannot be both-it’s either/or) and they either get angry because they have no clear answers, or else they refuse to answer simple questions as an out. That’s not honest; that’s not Catholic. Please people, rather than listening to those in the Church who don’t fully embrace the faith 100%, read the Catechism, books by faithful Catholics like Bishop Sheen, who was an absolute genius, and ahead of his time, and start praying the Rosary and attending Mass more often. Your life will change; promise you! Do not settle for watered-down teachings which could easily pass for Protestant or even New Age. Be careful where you get your information about the Church. Also, for clarification, go to the “Ask an Apologist” forum. I also recommend Envoy magazine, and This Rock. Not sure if both are still around, but they’re awesome. (I am having financial trouble, so had to drop subscriptions for a while) The Catholic Answer is also great for clarification. So IF you want the truth…go to the correct sources. Be VERY VERY leery of leftist “Catholic” sources; they’ve led many astray. God bless.

 

[drpmjhess]

Remember- liberalism is a SIN. .

Hogwash! If liberalism is a “sin,” so is conservatism, which has gotten us involved in an illegal war, thrown away the lives of 4,000+ American young people or absolutely no reason, killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, and flushed the US treasury down the economic toilet. If that’s not sin, what is?

 

[markomalley]

Hogwash!

No hogwash. It is a truism. I suggest you read Mirari Vos (On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism) by Gregory XVI, the Syllabus of Errors (particularly Article X) by Pius IX, many of the writings of Leo XIII (Particularly “Libertas” – On Human Liberty), and particularly Pascendi Dominici Gregis (On the Doctrine of the Modernists) by Pius X. Pius XI, Pius XII, Paul VI, and John Paul II also addressed in their writings, as well.

Liberalism is a flawed philosophy. Its practice leads one into sin.

If liberalism is a “sin,” so is conservatism, which has gotten us involved in an illegal war, thrown away the lives of 4,000+ American young people or absolutely no reason, killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, and flushed the US treasury down the economic toilet. If that’s not sin, what is?

No, actually, the same progressive spirit that got us involved in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam got us entangled in the Middle East.

The same progressive thought process that caused us to see ourselves as superior to the little brown people of the world and thus have a right to impose our political philosophy – representative government with liberal, democratic ideals – on them – at the point of a gun.

(BTW, I predict that a hundred years from now, the current conflict in Iraq will be seen as a campaign in a far broader war, which we were involved in getting started back in the late 70s – and had its roots in the way the French and British dissolved the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War – by disregarding tribal lines when figuring out the lines in the sand that created the modern states.)

The same progressive thought process that had the arrogance to believe that the State could improve peoples’ lives through doling out bushels of money and removing all moral standards.

Liberalism might not be a sin…but it sure leads to that direction.

 

[estesbob]

Hogwash! If liberalism is a “sin,” so is conservatism, which has gotten us involved in an illegal war, thrown away the lives of 4,000+ American young people or absolutely no reason, killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, and flushed the US treasury down the economic toilet. If that’s not sin, what is?

Modern liberalism is a relgion unto itslefl. A religion with the enviroment as its god and a religion that practices child sacrifice. A religion where the most grevious sin is claiming there is sin.

 

[drpmjhess]

Modern liberalism is a relgion unto itslefl. A religion with the enviroment as its god and a religion that practices child sacrifice. A religion where the most grevious sin is claiming there is sin.

Not true. Conservatism has wasted the lives of 4000+ brave soldiers by sacrificing them on the altar of oil corporations to the god of the almighty dollar!

 

[estesbob]

Not true. Conservatism has wasted the lives of 4000+ brave soldiers by sacrificing them on the altar of oil corporations to the god of the almighty dollar!

As oppossed to 50 million dead children and counting.

History will record the liberation of Iraq as on of of our countries finest moments.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Maybe a few people do that, but there are a lot of us who don’t dissent on any Church teachings.

Oh I am sure there are, but I would argue that what is most clear here, is that many “follow all church teaching” as they interpret it. There are quite a few threads here which I would argue that church teaching is quite different than what someone else claims it is. Now we both can’t be following church teaching can we?

Any number of times when someone points out actual black letter law from the magisterium, the “dissenter” simply ignores what is written and continues their argument. I think its done by everyone. Some have the intellectual integrity to recognize when they are splitting the hairs an infinite number of times to be “legal”, but others do not.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This is a common misconception of the role of the conscience. We are required to follow our conscience, but right and wrong are not determined by what our conscience tells us is true and following our conscience does not necessarily absolve us from the sin we commit if our conscience is erroneously formed. Sometimes “But, I did what I thought was right!” is a dog-ate-my-homework excuse that isn’t going to be accepted.

“To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and “being at peace with oneself”, so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment. … There is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly.” (Veritatis splendor #32)

“The judgment of conscience does not establish the law; rather it bears witness to the authority of the natural law. Conscience is not an independent and exclusive capacity to decide what is good and what is evil. Rather there is profoundly imprinted upon it a principle of obedience vis-a-vis the objective norm.” (Veritatis splendor #60)

“Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. … The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” (CCC 1783)

Ender

I disagree. It is not a common misconception. It is stated in black and white and has been in the CCC,. and both both popes at various times. No one can EVER give up their responsibility to individually discern truth, They are to be guided in every respect by church teaching, but we are not allowed to simply allow the Church to think for us. To say otherwise means no conscience can be properly formed unless in agreement with the Church. That is the Nuremberg Defense and is not licit. We’ve been through this a hundred pages of posts before and I don’t intend to engage in it again. We disagree. Nothing more to be said.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Modern liberalism is a relgion unto itslefl. A religion with the enviroment as its god and a religion that practices child sacrifice. A religion where the most grevious sin is claiming there is sin.

It seems that every time one disagrees with someone, whether it be the atheist, the liberal, or the homosexual, their beliefs are labeed as a “religion” . That’s not an argument its a cop out. Demonizing people’s beliefs is not a way to convince anyone. You simply alienate them. I assume you wish to do otherwise?

 

[vz71]

I wouldn’t be so certain that the label does not apply.

There are some very good comparisons that show a great deal of truth in the statement.

 

[minimom]

You are splitting a might fine hair. Time and again I’m confronted with self-righteous Catholics who tell me that they essentially have no opinion until they have checked to see what the Vatican has to say, or more particularly the Magisterium. So I don’t buy the “not on the same footing” argument. There is a culture of life or a culture of death. I doubt seriously whether you or any of the pro death penalty/pro war people have any desire to stand before the Pope and make your explanations. I think you know you can still get away with this even though it violates the spirit of what the Vatican states and believes. And frankly as to many of the other issues I raised, I see way too much glee in making graphically unkind references to those you consider sinful. I as you might guess also don’t buy the protestations of loving the sinner and hating the sin. The way they treat the people involved suggests otherwise. Again please understand that I do not use the word “YOU” meaning yourself particularly or even necessarily. I refer to you as all those who stand in opposition to what I state.

With all due respect, you seem a bit defensive, and I’m wondering why. You speak of anyone who defends traditional and non-negotiable Church teachings as ‘self righteous’ but are they really? No, they’re just following Church teachings and being faithful. No sincere Catholic should be making any decisions on key issues until they know what the Church (and hence, Jesus) teaches. Did you never learn that? Please reflect on this a bit and pray. Time spent in adoration is awesome for sorting things out. God bless.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Oh I am sure there are, but I would argue that what is most clear here, is that many “follow all church teaching” as they interpret it. There are quite a few threads here which I would argue that church teaching is quite different than what someone else claims it is. Now we both can’t be following church teaching can we?

Any number of times when someone points out actual black letter law from the magisterium, the “dissenter” simply ignores what is written and continues their argument. I think its done by everyone. Some have the intellectual integrity to recognize when they are splitting the hairs an infinite number of times to be “legal”, but others do not.

Not me. Most of us conservatives here follow the magesterium 100%. I’ve only seen a couple of people who for conservative ideological reasons ignore church social teaching. You should do a poll

 

[estesbob]

I disagree. It is not a common misconception. It is stated in black and white and has been in the CCC,. and both both popes at various times. No one can EVER give up their responsibility to individually discern truth, They are to be guided in every respect by church teaching, but we are not allowed to simply allow the Church to think for us. To say otherwise means no conscience can be properly formed unless in agreement with the Church. That is the Nuremberg Defense and is not licit. We’ve been through this a hundred pages of posts before and I don’t intend to engage in it again. We disagree. Nothing more to be said.

Do you realize that you have just compared the Catholic Church to Nazi Germany? Do you really think that there is a moral equivalency between following the orders to exterminate Jews(the Nuremberg defense) and following the teachings of the Catholic Church.

If conscious is king why do we need a Church?

 

[minimom]

The simple reason is that we humans aren’t naturally predisposed to belief in any one Church’s dogma.

A Catholic may be wholeheartedly devoted to his/her faith but still find the Church’s prohibitation of contraceptives a bit troubling at times in terms of practicality–even if he/she understands why the Church takes this position.

Likewise, a Catholic who is close to individuals experiencing SSA (like myself) may fully comprehend the rationale behind the Church’s position on homosexuality, but at the end of the day still feel a legitimate dissent.

A Catholic may be 100% pro-life but still feel some sympathy toward those in difficult positions (maternal endangerment, rape or incest, etc.) and even agree with certain aspects of the pro-choice movement–or may simply believe economic and societal change are the first steps toward eradicating abortion.

The fact is, if you find yourself wholly and totally in agreement with all Church teachings, I am forced to suspect either super-human faith (praise God!) or complacent self-deception. That’s not to say the Church is necessarily wrong–only that we by our various subjective dispositions are dissenters. It’s ingrained. We should never cease to question things and promote positive change.

Not all Catholics are super-orthodox, or even orthodox at all. Many are simple sinners that legitimately disagree in some areas and are striving to better align their consciences, as well as their actions, with God’s will.

Orthodoxy isn’t easy. Give people the benefit of the doubt, that they’re trying, really trying, for something worth trying for. Sympathize with what may be a weak faith or simply a strong and opinionated personality.