Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

[SedesDomi]

Look at it this way. Let’s say a father tells his son to clean his room and his son says no. What should the father do? A) Allow his son to dissent against his authority because his son is, along other times loyal and faithful and loving to the father B) Discipline the son for disobedience and take measures to ensure the disobedience never happens again).

Take a look at God and Israel as well in the Old Testament. As long as Israel stayed faithful to God and obedient to his commands, they prospered. But every time they strayed, he has had to send consequences for their disobedience.

And, yet, the father never says to this son: "Hey, since you disobeyed me, you can’t call me “father”.

Neither did God say to Israel: “Hey, since you disobeyed me, you can’t call yourselves “Israel””.

 

[drpmjhess]

God will provide other forms of energy when the oil runs out, if the that happens before the 2nd coming. In America alone we haven’t even begun to access the oil we have because of supposed environmental concerns. .

You need to wake up and smell the coffee. Oil is a finite resource, of which we have used half in 150 years. The cheap and easy half, that is. From now on it will be increasginly expsensive to extract, and there is no way it will sustain civilization for another 10,000 years. Your faith in divine solutions is admirable, but Goid didn’t intervene to keep the Titanic from sinking, did he? He could easily have moved the iceberg, if that’s the way God worked.

At the current use of 86.1 million barrels per day the volume of oil we use would fill a swimming pool 82 feet by 6.5 feet by 63,488 miles long every year, or 5,600 Olympic sized pools per day. And oil is not just about powering your SUV to cart around your six kids. 60% of a barrel of oil is used for transportation fuel; the other 40% goes to products, everything from the asphalt roads you drive to the plastic cups, computer parts, kitchen utensils, the elastic in your underwear, the carpets in your office.

The governments of the world have no idea how to replace this volume. Every calorie of food you consume require 10 calories of fossil fuel (name removed by moderator)ut. A biofuel solution is illusory, as there isn’t enough land to grow crops capable of replacing the volume of oil we use, much less to produce food for the world’s hungry as well. It is oil that allowed the population of the world to skyrocket from one to 6.7 billion in a century and a half. This is a population that will no be sustainable once global fossil fuel output begins to drop precipitously, probably after 2012.

Still, if you’re really that upset with the use of artificial contraception, don’t use it yourself. And if you’re upset that so many of your fellow American Catholics do, then excommunicate them – it can’t be that difficult to find bishops who will initiate the process. Purify the Church!

Petrus

 

[LRThunder]

And, yet, the father never says to this son: "Hey, since you disobeyed me, you can’t call me “father”.

Neither did God say to Israel: “Hey, since you disobeyed me, you can’t call yourselves “Israel””.

Not an exact comparison. At least with converts, when they join the Church they (and I am a convert) say, or supposed to say, “We profess and believe all that the Church teaches.” How can one be Catholic (convert or cradle) and not believe all the Church teaches?

 

[MIZER]

Apparently drpmijhess follows the religion of dooms day prophecy.

The governments of the world have no idea how to replace this volume. Every calorie of food you consume require 10 calories of fossil fuel (name removed by moderator)ut. A biofuel solution is illusory, as there isn’t enough land to grow crops capable of replacing the volume of oil we use, much less to produce food for the world’s hungry as well. It is oil that allowed the population of the world to skyrocket from one to 6.7 billion in a century and a half. This is a population that will no be sustainable once global fossil fuel output begins to drop precipitously, probably after 2012.

Still, if you’re really that upset with the use of artificial contraception, don’t use it yourself. And if you’re upset that so many of your fellow American Catholics do, then excommunicate them – it can’t be that difficult to find bishops who will initiate the process. Purify the Church!

Petrus

Bio-Fuel isn’t the only option, you realize. Take heart. I smell the coffee just fine and it doesn’t smell as bad as you think.

Increasing sin is no answer to the problems we face or the problems our children and grandchildren will face in the future. You are a man (woman?) of either little or no faith if you don’t believe God will provide.

Although I am not the least bit upset about my fellow Catholics who contracept, you seem to be very upset about your fellow citizens of Planet Earth who choose not to limit the size of their families. What exactly are you upset about? What is your worst fear? Is it that the world will come to an end the moment we spend the last drop of oil? And is this of great concern to you because you saw in your crystal ball that this will occur ca. the year 2012? If that’s true then what difference does it all make anyway. We’re doomed. We only have 4 years left and then the real suffering will begin. If what you say is true, then in 4 years people will die off because they will starve to death or they won’t be able to get medicine or water or whatever it is that will render thier life unsustainable, and we’ll get back to a manageable population. What could be more perfect? Sounds like a plan to me. Let’s wait and see, shall we?

 

[drpmjhess]

Bio-Fuel isn’t the only option, you realize.

And in order to feed, clothe, house, water, and transport 6.7 billion people into the indefinite future – plus the additional 80 million being added every year – what is your plan for after our finite supply of fossil fuels is exhausted?

 

[SedesDomi]

Not an exact comparison. At least with converts, when they join the Church they (and I am a convert) say, or supposed to say, “We profess and believe all that the Church teaches.” How can one be Catholic (convert or cradle) and not believe all the Church teaches?

To “believe” is a profound word. I might “believe” that the speed limit should be made higher, but until that’s done, I have to obey the speed limit or pay the consequences. In any event, I’m still a citizen of the local community, of the state, of the nation; whether I obey the speed limit or not, as long as I don’t begin a campaign of terrorism or something.

Likewise, a Catholic might “believe” that animals have immortal souls, even if the Church teaches otherwise, because said Catholic might not consider the teaching on animal-souls to be really “Church” teaching on the same level as, say, the Trinity. Yet, the person might not try to change Church teaching, since he suspects that even though the Church teaching isn’t true, it is still what the Church currently teaches, and such teaching should be respected. Such a Catholic might be considered a dissenter by some, but as long as such a Catholic doesn’t try to change Church teaching, no one would know about his “dissent”.

My basic point is that to dissent is one thing, and is quite OK. But to actively attack, criticize, and condemn the Church as a whole is way beyond dissent, and enters into something graver.

 

[drpmjhess]

What exactly are you upset about? What is your worst fear? Is it that the world will come to an end the moment we spend the last drop of oil? And is this of great concern to you because you saw in your crystal ball that this will occur ca. the year 2012?

Of course the world will not end, but we face a “trimming down” of the global population by four or five billion people, through famine, epidemic disease, and resource wars over the last deposits of fossil fuel. That should be a Catholic concern.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Yes, but one can sling these accusations around all day. You say that the conservatives aren’t fully orthodox because they’re too fundamentalist, and they say that you aren’t fully orthodox because you are too liberal.

Isn’t it possible that each of you has a valid point about the other, and that you might all become better Catholics if you were willing to listen to what the other side has to say?

And with that hopelessly mushy remark, I am,

The resident Obnoxious Representative of the Via Media (or one of them),

Edwin

Yes you are undoubtedly right.I have tried dozens of times to find some common ground but alas I’m not met with but a couple of people willing to respond with anything other than pure condemnation. A guy on another thread asked about a lifestyle he was lving and asked if it were too secular. Nobody cared aobut his good works, they universally glommed onto the fact that he mentioned his “partner” and that means homosexuality and everything was completely ignored to tell him 8 times that he was “living in sin.” You see, real discussion is not possible except for a segment here. As I said, I have tried and been met with so much nastiness that I now categorically refuse to waste time in research on anything. What they cannot refute they simply ignore. I was told that “I don’t have to accept your quotation because I can’t find it on the internet.” This was a quote from a Catholic theologian. If that is the kind of thing that passes for “debate” then I can but laugh.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I agree there were some mistakes copying manuscripts. I disagree that any of them were important.

I also believe that none of the differences we know about make any difference. Also I believe that since they are God’s word, God also preserves them intact for future generations.

Which one do we believe when they differ? We interpret them all in light of Church Teaching, which is infallible.

Well there are a couple for sure that are quite important, but of course it matters not. What you believe is not evidence that I am wrong. It is however more than sufficient as an answer for you personally that you have no difficulty with arranging your mind around the difficulty. That is certainly your perogative. It certainly solves the problem of what to believe if you simply declare the Church infallible.

 

[drpmjhess]

My point is that the liberal mindset does not “build up” the body of Christ. It weakens it and ultimately it tears it down. This is a serious problem and we need Priests who are willing to stand up to it, face it, and fight against it. We need parishoners who are willing to recognize contraception for the sin that it is and then pray together, to erradicate it, not just, “get used to it” as some on this board have suggested we all must do. .

That’s curious. Our parish has vibrant liturgies (including in Latin), is replete with young people, graced by excellent priests, and supportive of the poor. I call that faithful, even if it doesn’t fit your definition of “orthodoxy.”

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I agree the Gospels have different origins; I still don’t understand even if an earlier writer contradicts a writer of Canon, the Canon is declared inspired, so yes I propose to argue just that.

It seems you are putting scholarship ahead of Christ’s declaration to Peter. If Jesus left us without an authoratative source and as is plainly evident from history that the Holy Spirit does not settle theological disputes, we have NO basis other than concupiscent scholarship. If that’s the case I cannot refute homosexual activists who “scholar up” reasons why homosexual behaviour is lawful. Under what rubric is their interpretation to be less valid than mine? We are lost to our fallen natures without a shepherd, if scholarship has given the lie to Jesus’ promise.

If you overturn one authoritative pebble you overturn the whole mountain. This is the nature of Just Authority: That it is founded in Truth.

But I don’t think there is an issue. For example, a writer St. John perhaps was there on the scene. He wrote a gospel. Does that mean everything he wrote is divinely inspired? No, that would be silly. The prayerful Church under the guidance of the Spirit chose what was Holy Scripture. The basis for this choice is not scholarship or even historical accuracy, but the Spirit Himself.

This does not invalidate scholarship, but does put scholarship in proper context when contemplating Scripture, divinely inspired. Seriously, if the Church declared Dr. Seuss’ Cat in the Hat as a divinely inspired book, I would submit and try to find out why. For 2000 years and countless intellectual heresies, the Church has taught a constant Gospel with all manner of concupiscent pressures and perhaps diabolical pressures. Yet for that whole time against arianism, protestantism, the islamic heresy, the Church has upheld the Gospel and the cross.

Wow, just wow. I just cannot not believe in the Church. For two millenia She has consistently held up the gospel. It is too hard a thing this Good News. I must carry a cross and deny myself to be true to myself? The more I empty myself, the more I receive? God is Bread that I must eat, literally? God died–and for me personally and now wants to adopt me? Yet this startling message has been faithfully upheld. History bears out the truth of Christ’s promise to Peter. And the gospel and the saints are too consistent, too continually correct in their spirituality in surprising ways.

Without the promise of Christ, I do not see how such a counter intuitive message could have maintained such deep coherency as evidenced by the doctors of the Church. When churches fall from the Church, how quickly do they bend and wilt under the pressures of the age? These are signs of authority and lack thereof.

Thanks for dialoguing with me.

If it is enough that Mother Church announces it as true, then so be it. I cannot give over such power to any institution, and I don’t personally believe that God appreciates such actions. You cannot place limits on scholarship. YOu cannot restrict it to some areas and not others. the Church fully expects and condones such work and while she from time to time disagrees with some conclusions, She doesn’t restrict for the most part such investigation. Moreover, what has been taught has changed over time. JPII certainly has a different take on Genesis that his predecessors have had. What is considered heretical at one point is often tomorrows orthodoxy. You claim that the church has taught the same for ever. I would suggest she has refined a good deal of teaching over time and in effect changed it carefully and subtly to reflect new learning. She certainly did so with regard to Galileo. Protestants believe in their 35.000 different sects that they too have the correct interpretation of the scripture. It has been a pleasure none the less in discussing the matter with you. Take care.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Liberal Catholics and contraceptors are dying off (for reasons of nature and grace). Get used to it.

I do believe I hear the echo of Jerry Falwell.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Going back to the OP,

Mark,

I think you have gotten the answer to your original question. Dissenter’s remain in the church because they can. In fact, in many cases it is possible to find a priest, followed by whole congregations which condone (either silently or openly) whatever their particular sin of choice is.

I think your sidebar is really the most interesting point to be considered.

I don’t expect the moderator to stop the discussions on the forum. This is a good place to have discussions of all kinds and we should certainly be allowed to debate church teaching.

My question would be to the priest’s and the Bishops in this country. Why do they allow the dissent to go unmentioned or even supported, in the local churches, the parishes?

Every Confirmed Catholic is called by God to be obedient to the teachings of HIS Church. To dissent, either mentally or corporally is to sin. That’s it. Catholics are called by God to holiness. It is not a matter of simply saying we must accept the fact that there are dissenter’s in the church, we already have. We all sin. We know Christ came to save the sinner’s not the righteous. Christ also said, however, “…go and sin no more.” The real question is then, why does the hierarchy of the Church, sarting with the Bishops and going all the way to the magesterium of the Church, tolerate the onging sin of the clergy (the priest’s), in their own dissension, in as much as they fail to properly instruct the people?

I will use my own parish priest as an example. He doesn’t want to lose parishoners, so he says. So, he never gives a sermon. Every week we hear, essentially, the exact same homily. It centers on “going out into the world and living out our faith.” He never instructs us from the pulpit, however, what that faith should look like other than chartible acts and donations. He’s been at our parish for five years now and he has never given a sermon on any of the issues which people most often dissent from church teaching on. We haven’t heard a word about contraception, abortion, reproductive technology, homosexuality, the short or absent line at confession, fornication, out of wedlock procreation…the list is truely endless. So beginning with the priest’s lack of intruction from the pupit, every educational venue in our parish is also, tainted. I was fired as a chatechist, for teaching a Biblical definition for the words modesty and chastity to seventh graders. That’s 13 year olds. The A.R.E. called my lesson sex education and I hadn’t sent the appropriate paperwork to the parents (who were no doubt offended that someone might teach their 13 year olds that chastity is a virtue for the married as well as for the unmarried and that their is an appropriate way to present ourselves, especially for Mass) and so, she “let me go”. At the “mother’s group” meetings, the women sit around and joke about their preferred method of contraception and I sat in on an adult education class on social issues and the priest himself stated that artificial reproduction was gray area and up to each individual to decide. That statement was made for the benefit of one of the women in the group who was, at the time, undergoing in-vitro fertilization. I tried to argue with the priest, who was “teaching” the class, and I pointed to evangellium vitae, and humana vitae, but to no avail. I was rudely shut down.

The interesting thing to keep in mind is that we have a regular exodus of families, leaving our parish to go elsewhere because they want their children raised in orthodox catholicism. So they may teach their children at home (which is what I do) or they drive 30,40,50 miles away to attend a different parish.

The saddest thing to me is that you report all this and yet it doesn’t in any manner suggest to you that given this minority position, you don’t question or look at the fact that perhaps you are out of touch? No, don’t bother with being in the minority doesn’t mean I’m wrong. Of course it does not. But it might just might give you pause. Another said their priests and bishops do nothing. Again, why? do you bother to think of an answer that does not start with “they are unfaithful” “not properly catechetized” (as you presumably). There is such a total lack of humbleness and the willingness ot perhaps just perhaps rethink a few things. I have struggled with these issues for years, I have read at great length and asked questions of those in authority (priests, religious and theologians). In the end, I must be true to my heart for I expect God requires that. If that is where you come down, after a long and laborious process, then so be it. But I would argue that does not give you the right, or anyone the right to disturb your parish with complaint, since apparently they are not seeing the world as you do.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So, to the question "why do the dissenters stay, the only answer can be that they stay because they can. They wish to stay in sin and they can pretend to be Catholic (which is, one who seeks holiness, one who seeks to be chistian, ie: christlike), and because no one (including the parish priest) challanges them to erradicate the sin in their life, they become comfortable in it. So their is no need for them to leave. The one’s who have to leave are the one’s who wish to PRACTICE catholicism with others who wish to PRACTICE catholicism.

So we see, there is a difference between the parishes. The dissenter’s call themselves catholic and they go to what is called a Catholic Church but they aren’t really PRACTICING Catholics. One must go to a Parish where there are Orthodox Catholic priests if one want’s to truely PRACTICE the true faith with other’s who are PRACTICING the true faith. Those orthodox parishes are sometimes hard to find and/or hard to get to. So, many of us, who wish to attend a Catholic Mass every Sunday or even daily Mass, must self educate ourselves and our children and suffer the parish we have.

I have no doubt the dissenter’s, including the Priest’s and Bishop’s who dissent, will be responsible for yet another break in the church. And we will have a clear liberal or progressive branch versus an orthodox or conservative branch, in Roman Catholicism. Very sad.

So let me get this straight. You define what is catholicism, you then judge that those not agreeing with you are in sin. Nobody is asking you to leave Sir, I believe it is the other way around. I wonder why God is even needed when some here are prepared to make all the judgements and decide on the penalty. Practice Catholicism as you wish, but Sir, do not attempt to tell me I am sinful and not practicing it as I see it. Such total lack of humility is simply uncalled for. If you are doing as you believe you should what is it to you that I don’t adopt your standards? Read the bible for the answer. Jesus was most clear.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

These two statements make no sense: if I am responsible for making a full investigation of those things with which I struggle what am I to do if I can’t reconcile myself with Catholic doctrine? How can I not decide for myself what to choose? That’s what you have done and you clearly think it is appropriate; how can you not recommend that we all do the same? Surely you’re not the only one who gets to decide for himself which of the Church’s moral laws he should follow and which he can disregard.
How very Protestant of you. Catholicism, however, is based on scripture, tradition, and the teaching authority of the Church, the latter two which you completely dismiss.
(CCC1868) *Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
…

• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them*;

Inasmuch as you encourage others to reject the Church’s teachings when they cannot personally agree with them you contribute to the sins they may commit, and for this you bear responsibility.

Ender

The condemnation here is just endless. Do you never stop feeling the need to judge others? I am not ordering advising praising or approving of any behavior. I simply reject your right to condemn, correct, and order others not to receive the sacraments and to leave the church if they don’t agree with you.

What I am trying carefully and slowly to explain again and again, is that it is a moral failure to accept what in my heart rings as untrue. I believe that is against God. I am compelled to then do everything I can to determine what is true. I have no claim to answers, only questions, and until I have answers, I am not going to condemn anyone for how they live. To blindly adhere to any teaching even when it rankles the heart is against God IMO. We cannot give over this to any body be it church or person. We are individually responsible for what we say and do. Pretending to believe as some do here, (and if you have never heard the phrase “I don’t know if the church addresses this issue, but if it does I believe whatever it is.” then you haven’t been here long) is simply wrong and an avoidance of one’s human responsibilites.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Everyone, I do not have time to look at every post to make sure I haven’t mis-represented Spirit Meadow when I said she believes the church is wrong on Homosexuality.

Spirit Meadow, if I have misrepresented you, I appologize. I hope you will allow some latitude as I was making my point and I realize now that I shouldn’t have used your name specifically. Sorry.

The big picture is that we are all sinners. Willful and open dissent is just one of many and Spirit Meadow and other’s on this board have been willing to put it out there, so to speak. For the sake of the discussion I thank her/them for that and want her/them to know that I judge her/them, NOT.

I admit to being gravely flawed myself and do not hold myself up as some kind of saint. I have many struggles.

I have not actually said the Church is wrong. I said that I have grave doubts that scripture supports the Church’s position. I still have no answer and don’t expect one any time soon. I simply believe that I must refrain from condemning anyone for their behavior given this. Even if I supported the Church’s position wholeheartedly, it would still be my opinion that I have no basis for judgming another. That I leave to God. I believe Jesus made it clear that judgment is reserved for God.

I took no offense. I’ve been called just about everything here by these charitable folks and I have developed a fairly thick skin. IN any case, I tend to follow my priest, my spiritual advisor, and Catholic theologians I have had the privilege to know over the years. My blessings, and good luck in our struggles to be good people.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Then maybe it’s time to reinstate the widespread excommunication…purge the Church of the wolves pretending to be sheep and make sure that authentic, orthodox education is instilled so that the laity can understand Church teachings (of course that in of itself won’t stop dissent).

Yes, throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is just nothing like a brand new Catholic and their desire to be more Catholic than the pope as we say. No one is more fervent than the new convert. I am thinking that the Vatican is not particularly pleased with the idea of a little Catholic church. You might want to check with them before advocating full scale excommunication for all those (you?) deem unworthy?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

No, but it would be nice if priests and bishops acted as if they believed the teaching themselves, then maybe more of the people in the pews might take it seriously as well.

The 85% are those who believe that dissent from Church teaching is acceptable and that they are justified in following their own consciences.

Note to Spirit Meadow: this is the kind of thinking you support and this is the result of that approach. If you are justified in dissenting on one thing then we are all justified in dissenting on everything.

Ender

Alas that you never for one second question your own position as you judge everyone else. I did not cause the contraception thing you know. I was a kid when that came about and not a Catholic. I also am not responsible for global warming in case it comes up.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

drpmijhess,

About the contracepting couples in your parish, you state:

I sincerely doubt this is true. I doubt the your fellow parishoners use contraceptives because they wish to save the world from overpopulation based on future oil shortages. Please.

People contracept because they are inherantly selfish, short on patience, personal finances, lazy, seek convenience in thier lives, are married to non-catholics, etc. etc. etc…

God will provide other forms of energy when the oil runs out, if the that happens before the 2nd coming. In America alone we haven’t even begun to access the oil we have because of supposed environmental concerns. We have a very long way to go before “the oil runs out” and I have never heard any contracepting catholic say they were limiting their families size, artificiallly, because "we are running out of oil. Let’s be real here.

I would imagine that that theory that God will take care of it,didn’t get the jews very far during WWII. I dont’ think we want to depend on God to do our dirty work for us. Not a good idea. Please rethink that, since it can be used to justify all manner of vile things.

NFP is but a cute method of IMO practicing contraception without any foreign objects. Sorry but that’s the way I see it. And before you start, I’m past childbearing, and never used contraception as a Catholic.

 

[9Choirs]

That’s curious. Our parish has vibrant liturgies (including in Latin), is replete with young people, graced by excellent priests, and supportive of the poor. I call that faithful, even if it doesn’t fit your definition of “orthodoxy.”

If such young people in your parish which has ‘vibrant liturgies (including in Latin)’ are in a state of mortal sin due to them not adhering to the Church’s strong prohibitions against sins which are cited as mortal sins, and they breath their last breath whilst in such a state, their support of the poor will not alter their probable destination. No ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ about it. It is this that you do not get as you are not seeing the bigger picture.

No feel good works they’ve done on this earth will change their permanent residence in this particular location, no matter how many argue otherwise on earth.

Stop looking at the picture through the worlds eyes (which is *very *easy to do as it comes naturally) and attempt to see things through Gods eyes. Mortal sin is mortal sin and those who die in a state of mortal sin, if their intent and knowledge is unquestionable, are sealing their fate. Period.

Ave Maria