Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

[markomalley]

Every time I log into Catholic Answers and look at the “Social Justice” forum, I log off with my head shaking vigorously.

The Church clearly teaches that socialism is evil. Yet you clearly advocate it. And then there are discussions on the subject. Endless discussions.

The Church clearly teaches that homosexuality is gravely disordered. Yet you say that it is OK. And then there are discussions on the subject. Endless discussions.

The Church clearly teaches that it cannot ordain women. Yet you say that it must do so.And then there are discussions on the subject. Endless discussions.

The Church condemns liberation theology. Yet you continue to push it. And then there are discussions on the subject. Endless discussions.

The Church condemns abortion. Yet you continue to push for it. And then there are discussions on the subject. Endless discussions.

All of this leaves me confused. Not about what the Church teaches. Not about what I am supposed to believe. It leaves me confused about why these discussions are happening among people who supposedly call themselves “Catholic” on a message board sponsored by a “Catholic Apologetics” organization.

Now I could see if the discussions were between Catholics and Protestants or Catholics and agnostics or Catholics and Muslims or some other permutation. But I don’t comprehend the discussions going on among so-called Catholics.

This is not something that is unique to Catholic Answers Forums, either. I remember having to attend the Ash Wednesday Mass at another parish and hearing one of the parishioners offering up “May the Church see the Light and begin to ordain women” during the Prayer of the Faithful. And then hearing a solemn “Lord, hear our prayer” following it…along with no gasps from the crowd and no rebuke from the celebrant. Never mind the fact that +JPII stated that it’s not up to him, but that the Church cannot ordain women. Even this is not unique: there are an alphabet of dissenting groups out there. Dissent is commonplace in the Church…and I simply don’t understand it.

If I was in a group where the expressed values and norms of the group diverged from mine, I would find a group that more clearly reflected my values. I wouldn’t stick around. I’m not that masochistic. On the other hand, if I was convinced that this group knew more than I did, I might stick around, but I would work on understanding why the group held the beliefs it did, in an effort to get my understanding to line up with that group.

But neither approach seems to be the motivation of the dissenting Catholic. I simply don’t understand what the motivation is.

So the question for the group is: if you dissent from so many of the Church’s teachings, why do you stick around? Why don’t you find a group that actually agrees with you?

(And, as a sidebar, I would love to hear from one of the moderators why endless discussions are permitted on subjects where the Church has basically said the discussion is over. I don’t see how this advances Catholicism in any way)

One caveat: this is not to say that NO discussion should be allowed. There are plenty of issues where the Church has NOT said the discussion is closed: the Iraq war (different undestandings of just war are out there), Global Warming (is it or isn’t it and what is/isn’t our response), the Death Penalty (when, if ever) and so on. I’m not talking about those issues. I just wanted to clarify that point.

 

[guanophore]

(And, as a sidebar, I would love to hear from one of the moderators why endless discussions are permitted on subjects where the Church has basically said the discussion is over. I don’t see how this advances Catholicism in any way)

I am not a moderator, but I would like to speculate on this point. Reading and understanding the theology and reasoning behind the Teachings is essential for most to accept them. Most of the dissent on the moral teachings of the church exist because people do not understand the Teachings. For example, most have not read Theology of the Body, and have not yet grasped the basics.

Also, most Americans are so steeped and contaminated by secular humanism and the media, they don’t even realize how divergent their ideas are from Church teaching until they begin reading such discussions.

 

[JonW]

HI markomalley. Thanks for the great post. I often find myself asking just such questions about dissent within the Church. It baffles me too. But consider: it is a good thing that these people have found the faith by whatever means, whether by cradle or conversion. Sometimes I think their political opinions are a result of compartmentalizing their faith in a secular culture and adhering to popular political opinion with their blinders on. Maybe some came to the church very much politically opinionated and have yet to reconcile their opinions with Church teaching. Rather than prudently and humbly investigating Church teaching within the confines of their faith, they might be simply reacting to it with their political prejudice. This is a disordered conscience, and we can’t pretend that any of this are without this sin from time to time. Since they love the faith for whatever reason, they want it to follow the lead of every other institution on the planet by dutifully conforming itself to the relativistic dictatorship of the post-modern ethos. Recently, at the Good Friday service at my own parish, we solemnly offered up prayers that the Church see diversity of sexual orientation as “enriching.” The implication was clearly of homosexual behavior and not just disposition. I confess that it is completely beyond my comprehension how mortal sin can be seen as enriching to the Church, but these are the realities of some of today’s “faithful”.

Take heart, have courage. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Pray often for our misguided brothers and sisters, and rebuke with charity. Remember that God loves them more than we can ever imagine.

God Bless

Jon Winterburn

 

[invocation]

The Church clearly teaches that socialism is evil. Yet you clearly advocate it. And then there are discussions on the subject. Endless discussions.

The Church condemns liberation theology. Yet you continue to push it. And then there are discussions on the subject. Endless discussions.

If I was in a group where the expressed values and norms of the group diverged from mine, I would find a group that more clearly reflected my values. I wouldn’t stick around. I’m not that masochistic. On the other hand, if I was convinced that this group knew more than I did, I might stick around, but I would work on understanding why the group held the beliefs it did, in an effort to get my understanding to line up with that group.

But neither approach seems to be the motivation of the dissenting Catholic. I simply don’t understand what the motivation is.

So the question for the group is: if you dissent from so many of the Church’s teachings, why do you stick around? Why don’t you find a group that actually agrees with you?

the first two are pretty easy.

the social documents of the last century-plus have been no kinder to capitalism than to socialism, and really up until V2 had been very negative on political liberalism (which we tend to call “democracy”) as a form of government (even there, the Council Fathers mitigated the claims that Murray wanted to make). Given that all those options are strenously questioned by the Church, one is certainly going to find oneself in a discussion over proper social organization. And given that the church is strongly corporatist in its own self-understanding (e.g., the Body of Christ) it is not surprising either that the political and social vision of Catholics should follow suit.

second, liberation theology has never been condemned. individual theologians within the movement have been censured which is not even vaguely the same thing. When a theologian is censured specific aspects of their thought are called into question and they are disciplined. The case of Sobrino is the most recent, I suppose. But Sobrino was not excommunicated nor was liberation theology declared heretical. There are plenty of liberationists who have never been in any trouble with the Church, including the man who is pretty much the patriarch of the movement, Guttierez.

Finally, the idea that if you don’t like everything that happens within a church you should leave strikes me as itself an extremely Protestant attitude. The Church is not the Elks Club. It is not a voluntary society. One does not walk away from the Church that easily, or flippantly. It is an attitude that suggests to me that the so-called conservatives no more understand the concept of catholicity than do the “liberals” who think it all ought to be put to popular vote.

in the peace of Christ.

 

[MrS]

But I don’t comprehend the discussions going on among so-called Catholics.

Understood… and there are even some threads about that. Who is/isn’t a true Catholic, Cafeteria Catholics, etc. And the differing positions on the Liturgy, on music, on vocations. The Church is definitely suffering and being attacked from within.

… there are an alphabet of dissenting groups out there. Dissent is commonplace in the Church…and I simply don’t understand it.

I do. The devil is alive and well, and feeding on weak faith where ever he can find it.

If I was in a group where the expressed values and norms of the group diverged from mine, I would find a group that more clearly reflected my values. I wouldn’t stick around. I’m not that masochistic. On the other hand, if I was convinced that this group knew more than I did, I might stick around, but I would work on understanding why the group held the beliefs it did, in an effort to get my understanding to line up with that group.

But neither approach seems to be the motivation of the dissenting Catholic. I simply don’t understand what the motivation is.

500 years ago, people did leave. And we have a bigger mess because of it. On the other hand, we have the opportunity to see that mess, and the fruits of that disention… if only we could learn from it.

(And, as a sidebar, I would love to hear from one of the moderators why endless discussions are permitted on subjects where the Church has basically said the discussion is over. I don’t see how this advances Catholicism in any way)

One caveat: this is not to say that NO discussion should be allowed. There are plenty of issues where the Church has NOT said the discussion is closed: the Iraq war (different undestandings of just war are out there), Global Warming (is it or isn’t it and what is/isn’t our response), the Death Penalty (when, if ever) and so on. I’m not talking about those issues. I just wanted to clarify that point.

 

[Icarus]

Every time I log into Catholic Answers and look at the “Social Justice” forum, I log off with my head shaking vigorously.

The Church clearly teaches that socialism is evil. Yet you clearly advocate it. And then there are discussions on the subject. Endless discussions.

The Church clearly teaches that homosexuality is gravely disordered. Yet you say that it is OK. And then there are discussions on the subject. Endless discussions.

The Church clearly teaches that it cannot ordain women. Yet you say that it must do so.And then there are discussions on the subject. Endless discussions.

The Church condemns liberation theology. Yet you continue to push it. And then there are discussions on the subject. Endless discussions.

The Church condemns abortion. Yet you continue to push for it. And then there are discussions on the subject. Endless discussions.

All of this leaves me confused. Not about what the Church teaches. Not about what I am supposed to believe. It leaves me confused about why these discussions are happening among people who supposedly call themselves “Catholic” on a message board sponsored by a “Catholic Apologetics” organization.

Now I could see if the discussions were between Catholics and Protestants or Catholics and agnostics or Catholics and Muslims or some other permutation. But I don’t comprehend the discussions going on among so-called Catholics.

This is not something that is unique to Catholic Answers Forums, either. I remember having to attend the Ash Wednesday Mass at another parish and hearing one of the parishioners offering up “May the Church see the Light and begin to ordain women” during the Prayer of the Faithful. And then hearing a solemn “Lord, hear our prayer” following it…along with no gasps from the crowd and no rebuke from the celebrant. Never mind the fact that +JPII stated that it’s not up to him, but that the Church cannot ordain women. Even this is not unique: there are an alphabet of dissenting groups out there. Dissent is commonplace in the Church…and I simply don’t understand it.

If I was in a group where the expressed values and norms of the group diverged from mine, I would find a group that more clearly reflected my values. I wouldn’t stick around. I’m not that masochistic. On the other hand, if I was convinced that this group knew more than I did, I might stick around, but I would work on understanding why the group held the beliefs it did, in an effort to get my understanding to line up with that group.

But neither approach seems to be the motivation of the dissenting Catholic. I simply don’t understand what the motivation is.

So the question for the group is: if you dissent from so many of the Church’s teachings, why do you stick around? Why don’t you find a group that actually agrees with you?

(And, as a sidebar, I would love to hear from one of the moderators why endless discussions are permitted on subjects where the Church has basically said the discussion is over. I don’t see how this advances Catholicism in any way)

One caveat: this is not to say that NO discussion should be allowed. There are plenty of issues where the Church has NOT said the discussion is closed: the Iraq war (different undestandings of just war are out there), Global Warming (is it or isn’t it and what is/isn’t our response), the Death Penalty (when, if ever) and so on. I’m not talking about those issues. I just wanted to clarify that point.

You read my mind:thumbsup: - Thats why I don’t think I’m going to stick around to much longer.



To this forum I mean…not The Holy See

 

[BillP]

Every time I log into Catholic Answers and look at the “Social Justice” forum, I log off with my head shaking vigorously……If I was in a group where the expressed values and norms of the group diverged from mine, I would find a group that more clearly reflected my values.

-Well, I can only speak for me but for me the “core values” of Catholicism are:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I have no quarrel with any of that. It is what I believe. EVERYTHING else is irrelevant.

Nothing in there about:

• Homosexuality
• Birth Control
• Female ordination
• Social justice

So the question for the group is: if you dissent from so many of the Church’s teachings, why do you stick around?

Semper ecclesia reformata, and if not me, who?

Why don’t you find a group that actually agrees with you?

I have! See above. The real question is why does it bother you? Why do you feel this need for everyone to fall into line and shut up?

[One caveat: this is not to say that NO discussion should be allowed. There are plenty of issues where the Church has NOT said the discussion is closed

As far as I know there have only been two issues that have been pronounced infallibly, The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. Have a look at this list of Dogmas:

theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

On everything else, discussion is open.

Again, my question is why do you feel that anyone who disagrees with you should shut up and go away? Who you think people should leave God’s church, no matter how imperfect their understanding of it?
[/quote]

 

[Icarus]

It is what I believe. EVERYTHING else is irrelevant.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

Who do you follow Jesus or yourself?

What do you think the eternal KING i s going to Judge?

Simply that you believ in him - Even the Demons do that.

Jesus said that not 1 letter of the Law is to be altered, that you must live by Gods Philosophy…EVERY PART OF IT. new & old Testament shows God’s Philosophy.

If you fall - like we all do - get up and keep running the race.

Maybe I’m wrong

 

[BillP]

Who do you follow Jesus or yourself?

I follow the Jesus who said

• “Love one another as I have loved you”
• “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”
• “if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses”
• “So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you.”
• “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:”
  Not the one who said, “persecute the homosexuals”, “degrade women by making them less than men”…or, wait, Jesus didn’t say any of those things did he?

What do you think the eternal KING i s going to Judge?

‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments"

Jesus said that not 1 letter of the Law is to be altered, that you must live by Gods Philosophy…EVERY PART OF IT. new & old Testament shows God’s Philosophy.

Well obviously you were misinformed, since MANY laws have been altered

• Burning bulls on the altar as a sacrifice(Lev. 1:9)
• Selling our daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7)
• Shunning women who are menstruating (Lev. 15:19-24)
• Purchasing slaves only from other nations (Lev. 25:44)
• Putting people who work on the sabbath to death (Exodus 35:2)
• Consider eating shrimp and scallops an abomination (Lev. 10:10)
  Or perhaps I am mistaken. Do you still abide by ALL the law?

 

[estesbob]

-Well, I can only speak for me but for me the “core values” of Catholicism are:

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
I have no quarrel with any of that. It is what I believe. EVERYTHING else is irrelevant.

Nothing in there about:

• Homosexuality
• Birth Control
• Female ordination
• Social justice

In the Creed you acknowledge the authority of the Church-an authority that Christ gave it. The Church has specific , infallible teachings on the 4 areas you mention above. i suggest you read this as to an explantion of the infallibiltiy of the magestrium on matters of Faith and Morals.

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

I have! See above. The real question is why does it bother you? Why do you feel this need for everyone to fall into line and shut up?

The reason it matters is it misleads Catholics on fundamental doctrines of the Church

.

As far as I know there have only been two issues that have been pronounced infallibly, The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. Have a look at this list of Dogmas:

theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

On everything else, discussion is open.

You assumption is incorrect. See above

Again, my question is why do you feel that anyone who disagrees with you should shut up and go away? Who you think people should leave God’s church, no matter how imperfect their understanding of it?

No they should not shut up and go away-they should study the teachings of the chruch to understand why the “reforms” they seek are not possible.

 

[Icarus]

I follow the Jesus who said

• “Love one another as I have loved you”
• “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”
• “if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses”
• “So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you.”
• “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:”
  Not the one who said, “persecute the homosexuals”, “degrade women by making them less than men”…or, wait, Jesus didn’t say any of those things did he?

‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments"

Well obviously you were misinformed, since MANY laws have been altered

• Burning bulls on the altar as a sacrifice(Lev. 1:9)
• Selling our daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7)
• Shunning women who are menstruating (Lev. 15:19-24)
• Purchasing slaves only from other nations (Lev. 25:44)
• Putting people who work on the sabbath to death (Exodus 35:2)
• Consider eating shrimp and scallops an abomination (Lev. 10:10)
  Or perhaps I am mistaken. Do you still abide by ALL the law?

Those are laws (expanded on and granted leeway only becasue it was man who failed to keep them) but I’m talking more about God’s Philosophy Re: Morality

 

[Icarus]

****Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
Exodus 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
Exodus 21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
Exodus 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.
Exodus 21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
Exodus 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.
Exodus 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
Exodus 21:8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
Exodus 21:9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
Exodus 21:11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

Next time why don’t you keep things in context
- LIB

Sell implied something totally diffrent than what you make it out to be.

And I can’t be bothered to explain it to you!

 

[Icarus]

This has to do with betrothement and & gifts (as a price for her work) – if you examined the passage you’d notice that.
Also if the master of that house has a son - there is an open ended contract that she would marry him.

Moses (from God) did this to initiate standards
Can you imagine if God wanted to get more detailed with those masses that were a greatly stubborn people.

So I explained this one . but that’s it

 

[AgnosTheist]

Next time why don’t you keep things in context
- LIB

had the catholic church followed those laws when slavery was still legal?

 

[Icarus]

had the catholic church followed those laws when slavery was still legal?

These laws were for a certain people… for a certain time!

God’s Chosen nation, his first born, his priestly nation - who God needed to purify - PHys & MetaPHs (the Isrialites - !!!)

Only through this priestly, purified line could Jesus have come into the world. Most Jews failed at keeping the Law . but if you look closely, the ones that did - are direct earthly desendents of JESUS!

Want me to go on?

 

[SoCalRC]

In the Creed you acknowledge the authority of the Church-an authority that Christ gave it. The Church has specific , infallible teachings on the 4 areas you mention above. i suggest you read this as to an explantion of the infallibiltiy of the magestrium on matters of Faith and Morals.

…

The reason it matters is it misleads Catholics on fundamental doctrines of the Church

An interesting argument. But when I quoted CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI:

“The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: <<All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator>>” - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, #38

You dismissed it as “typical pro abortion propoganda”. However, the Pope is citing the Pastoral Constitution of the Church, and eccumenical works are held to be the most infallible form of the Church.

When I quoted the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on the perils of isolating teachings and voting on them:

In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action." - CDF, “Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life”

You again dismissed it as lefitist propoganda, though the note was written by our current Pope and approved for release by our last one.

I think that the problem is that the Church, like Christ, sets a very high bar. One that none of us can truly meet. But rather than heeding our own unworthiness, as we are called to do in Holy Scripture and at every Mass, we fall prey to human nature and tend to act as pharisee’s - openly declaring our moral superiority over ‘inferior’ Catholics. Instead of playing the part of ‘dutiful son’ and complaining about the Father’s treatment of the ‘prodigal’ one, we should heed the Church’s instructions to theologians:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

We should understand the dangers of our own dissent and, in good will, seek the full communion that we should desire if we truly accept the proclamation of a Holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church that we proclaim in unison.

 

[invocation]

it didn’t take long for this conversation to get completely derailed and out of control. on the other hand, it does seem to do a very good job of displaying what many of us have to live with every day in our parishes: two groups who are frustrated with one and another and don’t talk or play well together. And it is precisely this that is the most unpleasant part of being Catholic.

And I am not sure which is worse, having a situation where both groups are in the parish throwing uncharitable accusations back and forth at one another, or having the Church divided into sectarian-factions where the supposedly faithful pick and choose a parish they like just like any Protestant does, going off to find an FSSP parish or an Eastern Rite parish or whatever, while the supposed liberals seek out comfortable, modern, etc. parishes. In both cases any sense of local community and the “parish” system are destroyed and ‘scandal’ is caused on all sides.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

it didn’t take long for this conversation to get completely derailed and out of control. on the other hand, it does seem to do a very good job of displaying what many of us have to live with every day in our parishes: two groups who are frustrated with one and another and don’t talk or play well together. And it is precisely this that is the most unpleasant part of being Catholic.

And I am not sure which is worse, having a situation where both groups are in the parish throwing uncharitable accusations back and forth at one another, or having the Church divided into sectarian-factions where the supposedly faithful pick and choose a parish they like just like any Protestant does, going off to find an FSSP parish or an Eastern Rite parish or whatever, while the supposed liberals seek out comfortable, modern, etc. parishes. In both cases any sense of local community and the “parish” system are destroyed and ‘scandal’ is caused on all sides.

This has been going on as long as the Church has been around. Different sides with different views. To only go back a little bit in time, think back to the early last century, in the US when many parishes were built, they were ethnic group centric. For example, the Polish had their church, the Germans another church etc… It was the same group but the ethnic communities did not look highly at each other and intermixing was heavily frowned upon.

All this is just human nature and I do not see any change in this. We were meant to disagree with each other at times.

 

[invocation]

it is not disagreement that bothers me. indeed talking with those who disagree with you can be a lot of fun. it is the inability and at times, it seems, unwillingness to understand the person or group with whom one disagrees.

i thought the initial question was a decent one, even as, or especially because, it was born out of the recognition that they didn’t understand the other side. It also recognized that that ‘other side’ was not leaving the Catholic Church and so there must be a sense of fidelity to the Church present within it.

 

[LRThunder]

Not the one who said, “persecute the homosexuals”, “degrade women by making them less than men”…or, wait, Jesus didn’t say any of those things did he?

Jesus never said those things and the Church doesn’t either.

How do we persecute homosexuals? Not anymore than we persecute adulterers, thieves and murderers…homosexual sex, like adultery, theft, and murder are mortal sins.

And when is not allowing female ordination degrading to women? For some reason, this wasn’t thought of as degradation until the 1960’s and the radical feminist movement.