Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

[drpmjhess]

So your pastor gives communion to people who are in open defiance of the teachings of the Church. Or am I mistaken that you are Catholic??

There are many parishes in the dioceses in this region that have a significant number of gay and lesbian couples. I haven’t grilled the pastors, but I’ve never heard of gay or lesbian Catholics being denied communion.

 

[estesbob]

There are many parishes in the dioceses in this region that have a significant number of gay and lesbian couples. I haven’t grilled the pastors, but I’ve never heard of gay or lesbian Catholics being denied communion.

You havent???

From the Cathecism:

%between%
. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2358

How could they possibly recieve communion? Once again one must ask-are we talking about Catholic Churches here???

Note for those who may be lurking and who may not understand Catholic Doctrine-under no circumstances can one who is openly living a homosexual life style receive communion. They are a in publicly in state of Mortal sin and for a Pastor to knowingly give them communion would undermine and distort Church teaching -as it appareantly has for drpmjhess

 

[drpmjhess]

You havent???How could they possibly recieve communion? Once again one must ask-are we talking about Catholic Churches here???
Note for those who may be lurking and who may not understand Catholic Doctrine-under no circumstances can one who is openly living a homosexual life style receive communion. They are a in publicly in state of Mortal sin and for a Pastor to knowingly give them communion would undermine and distort Church teaching -as it appareantly has for drpmjhess

Hey – I’m just a parishioner, not an instrument of the Spanish Inquisition! I sing in the choir, serve the parish as I am able, and show charity where I can.

 

[estesbob]

Hey – I’m just a parishioner, not an instrument of the Spanish Inquisition! I sing in the choir, serve the parish as I am able, and show charity where I can.

Do you think validating sinful behavior is an act of Charity?. Do stateing Church teachings is akin to the Inquisition?

 

[drpmjhess]

Do you think validating sinful behavior is an act of Charity?. Do stateing Church teachings is akin to the Inquisition?

These are kind and good people and great parents. The priests are gentle and compassionate and understanding. I have no burning desire to ignite a firestorm of rancor and ill will that might wreck our parish. And besides, there are dozens and dozens of parishes in the four dioceses, and driving around to root out all the homosexuals would be beyond my family budget, especially with gasoline prices as high as they are.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You wont get into a primacy of conscience discussion becasue as has been shown repeatedly you cant defend your position. Your "anything goes as long as your conscience says its all right "is not supported in any way by the Church-either in black and white or technicolor.

You said people who ahhere to the Teachings of the Church are using the Nuremburg defense. That defense was used by Nazis who said they couldnt be held accountable for their actions because they were acting under orders. It appears you are indeed comapring us to Nazis-comparing our obedience to the Chruch to the obedience of the Nazis to Hitler. Perhaps you can explain what you meant if this is not so.

What i find interesting is that whenvever someone talks about primacy of concience 99% of the time they use it either to justify homosexual behavior or contraception. Why is that?

Hardly, its just the opposite. I investigated this area very thoroughly some months ago, and several of us quoted directly from documents of both Benedict and JPII as well as theologians who all stated in black and white, that in the end NO ONE can give up their own belief. In fact it says this in the CCC as well. Those who oppose such a notion simply disregarded the documents and claimed they were not “dogma.” Mostly they were just jumped over and the same tired arguments used again.

You have stated it correctly finally. I nowhere compared the Church to Nazi Germany. I said that claiming that one must adher to the Chruch teaching whatever they may be and surrender one’s own beliefs is tantamount to claiming the Nuremberg defense. I am not guilty because the Church told me I must believe this. This is not a defense I would make to God, nor was it an adequate defense before the World court.

I am talking about primacy of conscience in the abstract. I have no clue what you base your conclusions on. Probably on the threads you choose to involve yourself in. That might not be a good indicator of actual facts however.

 

[minimom]

**Quotes by Petrus **

Juxtapose the 2 halves of the quote; at the comma. It sounds to me like you do support gay marriage… although you prefer the guise of sitting on the fence, where you think it’s safe. Sounds like Self preservation my Darwinian friend.

Why? Are they extra special than Hetero people’s children – ALL CHILDREN NEED PROTECTION

This latently contradicts your first and second to last quotes.(although you’ll explain it away) …And up to a few years back before the gay agenda, nobody had a problem with this! What’s changed Petrus?

What special Protection do you want- above and beyond any other children (every situation has its own specific set of circumstances? - I thought the law covered all children)

I thought the Church is already free from government or anyone’s intervention – to do as it see’s fit…. But further to this… if you approve of “churches” doing there own thing (and you consider it sanctifying) this goes to show how you are against the sovereign word of God –and it appears that you’d prefer to see schism after schism occur, until the church resembles humpty-D, except this time microscopic pieces. Divide and conquer hey!

Bottom line is you are dissenting from God’s word …if you approve of it (gay unions) in any form.
So…Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

You are so correct about this. Dissenters need to stop and REALLY think about what they believe; more often than not it is secular humanism and not following the Church. In other words it’s making the world the authority; not God. So dangerous and so subtle!

 

[estesbob]

Hardly, its just the opposite. I investigated this area very thoroughly some months ago, and several of us quoted directly from documents of both Benedict and JPII as well as theologians who all stated in black and white, that in the end NO ONE can give up their own belief. In fact it says this in the CCC as well. Those who oppose such a notion simply disregarded the documents and claimed they were not “dogma.” Mostly they were just jumped over and the same tired arguments used again.

You have stated it correctly finally. I nowhere compared the Church to Nazi Germany. I said that claiming that one must adher to the Chruch teaching whatever they may be and surrender one’s own beliefs is tantamount to claiming the Nuremberg defense. I am not guilty because the Church told me I must believe this. This is not a defense I would make to God, nor was it an adequate defense before the World court.

I am talking about primacy of conscience in the abstract. I have no clue what you base your conclusions on. Probably on the threads you choose to involve yourself in. That might not be a good indicator of actual facts however.

We’ll leave it at that-have a great weekend.

 

[Ender]

several of us quoted directly from documents of both Benedict and JPII as well as theologians who all stated in black and white, that in the end NO ONE can give up their own belief. In fact it says this in the CCC as well.

This is true but is only one part of what the Church says about the conscience.

(CCC 1790) *“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”

*That same paragraph goes on to say, however,:

*“Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments.”

“This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. … In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.” *(1791)

So, while we are commanded to follow our conscience we are also warned that our conscience can be wrong and that we may be held accountable for acting on a wrong conscience. Oh, and some of the reasons for error are:

" … assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching … can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct." (1792)

We reject the Church’s teaching at our peril.

Ender

 

[guanophore]

I think it is entirely possible to be a “good Catholic” and yet not be very Christian.

I must be one of those who “just don’t get it”. Can you please explain this to me, because it does not make any sense ot me at all.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This is true but is only one part of what the Church says about the conscience.

(CCC 1790) *“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”

*That same paragraph goes on to say, however,:

*“Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments.”

“This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. … In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.” *(1791)

So, while we are commanded to follow our conscience we are also warned that our conscience can be wrong and that we may be held accountable for acting on a wrong conscience. Oh, and some of the reasons for error are:

" … assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching … can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct." (1792)

We reject the Church’s teaching at our peril.

Ender

I agree whole heartedly to what you added. One does follow their own conscience at a risk that they may well be wrong. The church should always be the guiding light and under most circumstances I would agree her long history of well thought out theology should prefail. I am talking about simply giving over all decision making to the Church. That is simply not allowed as the CCC states directly. The fact that one is in disagreement alerts one immediately that one has a great deal of homework to do. In the end, one is morally bound to follow one’s own conscience if after careful and deliberate and thorough examination of all available documents, one is still convinced that one is correct.

Oddly enough the same basic instruction is given to prospective jurors in determining the very serious fate of another individual. One is to give every opportunity to listen and think deeply about the conclusions of other jurors, but in no case can one surrender one’s own considered opinion just go reach a unanimous verdict.

Such concepts have a very long history in both faith and jurisprudence.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I agree whole heartedly to what you added. One does follow their own conscience at a risk that they may well be wrong. The church should always be the guiding light and under most circumstances I would agree her long history of well thought out theology should prefail. I am talking about simply giving over all decision making to the Church. That is simply not allowed as the CCC states directly. The fact that one is in disagreement alerts one immediately that one has a great deal of homework to do. In the end, one is morally bound to follow one’s own conscience if after careful and deliberate and thorough examination of all available documents, one is still convinced that one is correct.

While this is true, many of us have come to firmly believe that the Church’s magisterium is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. So, since our consciences tell us that the Church cannot err, we can, in good and free conscience, accept the teachings of the church even when we can’t understand the reason for them. We can do this because our own consciences told us to have faith in the Magisterium. Do you think that is acceptable?

 

[JenniferMoon]

To the OP, I agree with everything you wrote. And I weep.

 

[Ender]

In the end, one is morally bound to follow one’s own conscience if after careful and deliberate and thorough examination of all available documents, one is still convinced that one is correct.

The Church teaches that (e.g.) contraception is immoral. A lot of Catholics are familiar with that teaching but reject it; that is, their consciences tell them that the Church is wrong and therefore they use contraceptives. Assume for the moment that the Church is correct and that contraception is a sin. Anyone practicing contraception is committing a sin and the question therefore is: are they held accountable for that sin or are they absolved of their guilt because they were following their conscience?

Ender

 

[estesbob]

The Church teaches that (e.g.) contraception is immoral. A lot of Catholics are familiar with that teaching but reject it; that is, their consciences tell them that the Church is wrong and therefore they use contraceptives. Assume for the moment that the Church is correct and that contraception is a sin. Anyone practicing contraception is committing a sin and the question therefore is: are they held accountable for that sin or are they absolved of their guilt because they were following their conscience?

Ender

Is not rejecting the Authortiy of the Church a sin in itself? Also if ones Conscience tells them that the Church is wrong how can they in good conscience remain Catholic? If, for instance, the Church is wrong about homosexualtiy how can one trust it when it says Christ rose from the dead?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

While this is true, many of us have come to firmly believe that the Church’s magisterium is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. So, since our consciences tell us that the Church cannot err, we can, in good and free conscience, accept the teachings of the church even when we can’t understand the reason for them. We can do this because our own consciences told us to have faith in the Magisterium. Do you think that is acceptable?

If your conscience is clear then far be it from me to say you are wrong. That is the point to me after all. My issue is simply that I am a member of the Church, and means that I too am guided by the Holy Spirit. Those persons who are responsible historically with innunciating church dogma are guided by that same spirit. To simply refuse to engage my own conscience in favor of theirs negates my responsiblity as Church. If one feels totally at ease with a “group” conclusion to the point of being able to easily suppress reservations with no qualms, then I am surely not objecting.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The Church teaches that (e.g.) contraception is immoral. A lot of Catholics are familiar with that teaching but reject it; that is, their consciences tell them that the Church is wrong and therefore they use contraceptives. Assume for the moment that the Church is correct and that contraception is a sin. Anyone practicing contraception is committing a sin and the question therefore is: are they held accountable for that sin or are they absolved of their guilt because they were following their conscience?

Ender

Oh I think they are wholly in sin. God is afterall the final arbiter. One cannot hide behind an honest conscience any more than Church Dogma in defense. I would hope God tempers justice with mercy, and I trust He does. It is always a matter of serious honest reflection versus headstrong willful refusal to listen. I doubt God treats the two the same, but then I’m not God and could well be wrong.

 

[drpmjhess]

Oh I think they are wholly in sin. God is afterall the final arbiter. One cannot hide behind an honest conscience any more than Church Dogma in defense. I would hope God tempers justice with mercy, and I trust He does. It is always a matter of serious honest reflection versus headstrong willful refusal to listen. I doubt God treats the two the same, but then I’m not God and could well be wrong.

Hell will have ten times the population of heaven.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Hell will have ten times the population of heaven.

Last I checked, none of us was privy to the mind of God so we have no idea how populated Heaven or Hell will be. We have the Church teachings and we have the Bible, but as God is omnipotent-we can’t possibly know His mind from those things alone. We have guidance that we follow, hoping to please Him-but in the end it’s all up to Him what happens after we die.

 

[Ender]

Oh I think they are wholly in sin. God is after all the final arbiter. One cannot hide behind an honest conscience any more than Church Dogma in defense.

Given your comments on the primacy of the conscience I’m surprised we are so close in agreement on this point. It is clear that our sins are not overlooked simply because we commit them with a clear conscience; I do, however, take issue with your characterization of assent.

It is not merely “Church dogma” to which we assent but God’s will as explained by the Church Christ instituted for that very purpose. *

“The faithful are obliged to acknowledge and respect the specific moral precepts declared and taught by the Church in the name of God.” *(Veritatis splendor #76)

That is, if you accept that the Catholic Church was in fact instituted by God and accurately interprets his word, then assent is not to an earthly institution but to God himself and cannot be characterized as “hiding behind Church dogma.”

Ender