Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

[MIZER]

originally posted by drpmjhess:

“Be fruitful and multiply” was quite important three thousand years ago. It becomes dangerous when insisted upon in a literal way in a world that is fast approaching the limits of carrying capacity. Already many children starve to death annually, and billions more will begin to starve in a decade or so when fossil fuels – upon which our agriculture depends – reach exhaustion. That is a serious moral issue, compared to which non-abortifacient so-called “artifical” contraception is trivial. I care about children!

Here we have a great illustration of the absurdity of liberalism.

If the world is fast appoaching the limits of carrying capacity, and if we already have many children starving to death annually and billions more will starve in a decade or so, won’t the two problems cancel each other out. If billions are going to die in a decade or two, then poof, no more overpopulation. Sounds like a plan.

drpmjhess, could you answer some questions for me please? Why do those in your camp call artificial contraception “so-called ‘artificial’ contraception” as if it weren’t or something?

How is any form of contraception, other than nfp, not artificial?

Also, the are reasons why the church condemns all forms of aritficial contraception. Will you study up on this?

Are you against chemical contraception?

Do you think the church is correct in condemning at least the use of chemical contraception?

 

[MIZER]

iamrefreshed posted:

Father Corapi has a nice saying…

“I’m not going to hell for anybody”.

Hang with people who don’t believe what the church CLEARLY states as doctrine and it may begin to rub off on people.

Being charitable is exactly what I do when I confront those like spiritmeadow and new ulm who preach heresy (yeah the big, bad H word)!

Main Entry: her·e·tic Pronunciation: \ˈher-ə-ˌtik, ˈhe-rə-\ Function: noun Date: 14th century 1: a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth

Imagine these ‘good catholics’ teaching my 1st grade CCD class?!?!?! Over my dead body!

Uh Oh! Watch out. Not many orthodox people can handle such un-adulterated truth, much less dessenters. Take cover.

 

[MIZER]

drpmijhess:
True. One could argue that if God had wanted infinite population growth he would have created Earth to be forever expanding. Instead, what we have is bounded sphere with finite resources. Imagine a cruise ship able to support 1,000 people for a one month cruise. It could support 500 for a two month cruise, but we now have 6,000 people on board, six times the sustainable number before fossil fuels were put to use in agriculture.

Ye of little faith.

 

[Joe_5859]

I have admitted that I fear the dissension in the ranks will ultimately result in a split in the Latin Rite Church, the Roman Catholic Church as we are disdainfully referred to by non-catholics, as the “dissenters” wish to persist in their denial of the truth (sin?) and yet remain “catholic.” This situation, the situation which gave rise to the OP starting this thread with the original question, may ultimately result in a split in the church where we will have a very defined distinction among parishes or, more likely dioceses, some which follow a more liberal system of faith and not “Rome” and those who are more orthodox and follow “Rome” to the letter.

I don’t believe this will happen for much the same reason as many of the “dissenters” haven’t left the Church yet. Most of the “liberals” I’ve come acorss love the universality of the Catholic Church. They love the fact that we are one Church throughout many different nations, cultures, and languages. It’s the whole diversity thing. I don’t think they would give that up for a mere “American” Catholic Church.

Here we have a great illustration of the absurdity of liberalism.

If the world is fast appoaching the limits of carrying capacity, and if we already have many children starving to death annually and billions more will starve in a decade or so, won’t the two problems cancel each other out. If billions are going to die in a decade or two, then poof, no more overpopulation. Sounds like a plan.

Although I disagree with almost everything drpmjhess posts here at CAF, to his defense, I don’t think he’s arguing over the outcome, he’s arguing over which is more “humane”. In his mind, it’s preferable to institute population control now (through ABC, abortion, etc.) rather than risk the inhumane starvation of billions of people down the road. In his mind (and he can correct me if I’m wrong), that starvation would be a much worse evil than contraception.

Now, I think this argument is flawed. I don’t think it’s morally justifiable to commit evil acts now in hopes of avoiding some hypothetical future evil. The whole ends-doesn’t-justify-the-means thing.

 

[drpmjhess]

I don’t think he’s arguing over the outcome, he’s arguing over which is more “humane”. In his mind, it’s preferable to institute population control now (through ABC, abortion, etc.) rather than risk the inhumane starvation of billions of people down the road. In his mind (and he can correct me if I’m wrong), that starvation would be a much worse evil than contraception…

Accurately stated!

 

[drpmjhess]

I don’t believe this will happen for much the same reason as many of the “dissenters” haven’t left the Church yet. Most of the “liberals” I’ve come acorss love the universality of the Catholic Church. They love the fact that we are one Church throughout many different nations, cultures, and languages. It’s the whole diversity thing. I don’t think they would give that up for a mere “American” Catholic Church.

I think you are right. Unless there is open fighting in the pews, there is no real point in a split of the church. At our parish we have a “family Mass” for families with young children, and the Latin Mass for which I sing with the Schola Cantorum. Nobody forces people to go to either liturgy.

There are people guilty of what other people call sin, but no one throws stones at them or hurls insults like conservatives do on CAF. We all get along in a fine, gentle, caring, loving way.

 

[MIZER]

Joe, you make a good point.

I don’t believe this will happen for much the same reason as many of the “dissenters” haven’t left the Church yet. Most of the “liberals” I’ve come acorss love the universality of the Catholic Church. They love the fact that we are one Church throughout many different nations, cultures, and languages. It’s the whole diversity thing. I don’t think they would give that up for a mere “American” Catholic Church.

Perhaps you are correct. Maybe the dissenters will see the light and begin to embrace Catholic truth. Miricles do happen. People grow.

 

[drpmjhess]

Joe, you make a good point.
Perhaps you are correct. Maybe the dissenters will see the light and begin to embrace Catholic truth. Miricles do happen. People grow.

So you won’t be asking sinners to leave the Church – that’s good!

 

[MIZER]

originally posted by Joe:
Although I disagree with almost everything drpmjhess posts here at CAF, to his defense, I don’t think he’s arguing over the outcome, he’s arguing over which is more “humane”. In his mind, it’s preferable to institute population control now (through ABC, abortion, etc.) rather than risk the inhumane starvation of billions of people down the road. In his mind (and he can correct me if I’m wrong), that starvation would be a much worse evil than contraception.

Ahhh. I see now. And confirmed by drpm…

Joe again,
Now, I think this argument is flawed. I don’t think it’s morally justifiable to commit evil acts now in hopes of avoiding some hypothetical future evil. The whole ends-doesn’t-justify-the-means thing.

I agree. Trading one evil for an imagined other evil down the road doesn’t make sense to me. Also, doesn’t drpm…'s argument presume that people are starving becasue we are unable to grow, transport etc… the food? Isn’t most of the starvation in the world due to corrupt and intrinsically evil governments? Don’t millions (100’s of millions, billions even) die due to disease or natural disasters? These are things that are largely out of our control. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that the overpopulation crowd would be happy to hear about such things? Birth control is not going to stop a single sunami or earthquake from happening.

 

[drpmjhess]

Wouldn’t it stand to reason that the overpopulation crowd would be happy to hear about such things? Birth control is not going to stop a single sunami or earthquake from happening.

I don’t follow your logic. Can you please explain what you mean? (And note that “tsunami” begins with a “t”).

 

[MIZER]

drpmijehess posted:
And for those of you who are so sex-obsessed that contraception and homosexuality define your Catholicism, why can you not worship alongside the people you call “sinners,” happy in the knowledge that they are going to hell and you won’t have to put up with them for eternity? Why do you get your knickers in a twist over this?
QUOTE

This is not a fair statement. My knickers are not in a twist at all over this. We are simply engaged in a debate set in motion by the OP. None of us orthodox catholics, those of us who actually believe the church teaches truth, are sex obsessed nor does contraception and homosexuality define our Catholicism. Where do you get this stuff?
I notice you never respond to the intelligent and well thought out arguments that show your position on these issues to be WRONG. Why is that? Is it because you know you are wrong and just don’t want to admit it? Can you, or another poster who shares your views respond to anything I’ve written or the other orthodox catholic’s on the board have written about the nature of the marital embrace as created by God? About the convenant bond? About how married sex is a sacramental act designed by God to be a self gift and open to new life? About how we are called to love each other as the Father loves us and how the nature of love is never to be self serving? How contraception is steeped in selfishness? Can any of you answer the OP’s question? Anyone? Anyone?

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

I’ve never spoken about ‘Orthodox Churches’ and ‘non Orthodox Church’s’. I have however spoken about those who pretty much reject most tenets of the Catholic faith yet call themselves Catholic as being dishonest.

As for who is orthodox or not, we can figure who is by looking at the teachings of the Church (yet New Ulm and Spirit Meadow reject her authority, don’t they?)

Associating with those who try to bring about your spiritual fall is not wise, **in particular when such people persist in spreading their seeds of error amongst those who are trying their hardest to submit to what the Church teaches, and not what their sinful subjective desires are telling them **

Taken on board. I have looked in the mirror and although I’m a mere sinner, neo Gnosticism is certainly something that I’m not guilty of. I have no problem submitting to what the Church teaches and when I struggle with some of her teachings, I don’t intentionally lead others astray to make myself feel better about my shortcomings.

Ave Maria

What we see here is a difference between a rigid and calcified view of Church teachings and a fluid, dynamic one which relates to the day to day world with real-life applications. Most threads on CAF revolve around this difference in thinking. The Church is made up of a couple billion people, if you travel you see many local diversity in the Church, which helps it grow. CAF is one form of outreach to show the strong diversity in the Church and the well reasoned discussion on the issues and teachings, as the vast majority can be discussed in relation to the present and how they came about in Church history.

All of us on (and off) CAF are made in the image of God. We are growing in our faith through discussion of the issues of our day. The more we discuss, the stronger the Church (at all levels) gets, the diversity keeps the Church relevant to the modern world and constantly renews the Church.

 

[MIZER]

drpm…posts:

I don’t follow your logic. Can you please explain what you mean? (And note that “tsunami” begins with a “t”).

I appreciate the spelling lesson. I can’t spell to save my life, thank God I don’t have to.

And no, I will not explain myself until you explain yourself. Why won’t you respond to any of the other post’s I’ve written today on the subject of contraception in marriage and how that is going against the direct teaching of the church you claim membership in? The Catholic Church claims to teach with the voice of Christ and the Apostles. Do you deny the truth of this claim?

Why won’t you explain what you mean when you don’t bother to answer the OP’s question?

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

**
You have this the wrong way around.** During the growth of the early Church, it was the Gnostics who were the dissidents who believed themselves to have such a superior intellect that they knew more than what the Church taught. The modern dissidents come in the form of those both on the right and the left as demonstrated by the SSPX and Call to Action, and most certainly Spirit Meadow and New Ulm are of this modern Gnostic mindset as they clearly oppose what the Church has declared doctrine. There is wriggle room in areas that the Church has not spoken definitively on. **There is no wriggle room in areas that the Church has spoken definitively on. **It is this which both Spirit Meadow and New Ulm are rebelling against. It is not hard to see who the neo Gnostics are

Ave Maria

You can read my responses in the Secular board, I will not take that discussion over here as there is no place for it.

That is interesting to use the term “neo-gnostic”. You are aware that the vast majority of teachings are up for debate, and even the teaching of infallibility (e.g. “no wriggle room”) has a history of being used as an attack on the Church when it came about (e.g. Vatican I era). Remember all religions have a foot in the past and the present, the human-made and run institution are just that, human. What you have are years and years of things that were written to the time they were written, but time, life and society are always moving forward. The Catholic Church does this on a slower timeframe (e.g. look at what JPII did during his years). The Church always has been and always will be fluid in relation to the world around it. To not be able to relate to the world around it leads to a Church that is unable to help people grow along their spiritual paths.

Look at the gnostic era, what you had was a multitude of writings written around a century after Jesus died (all the NT was written many decades afterwards). Yet only a few selected books were selected by an official committee. Some beliefs were focused on, others were not but all were considered and were part of the Faith. You had diversity then and you have diversity now. If you read the writings, most do not discount/discredit the Church, they show a broader spiritual view at the time which can still co-exist in many ways today.

Ask yourself, what is the lifeblood the Church, is it a quasi-static book of rules? No, it is the people and even more importantly the spirituality of the people who make it up. Fr Grochel talks about in his rosary (3rd Luminous I think, need to double check) about the Church that lives within all of us and not only in a physical building we attend daily or weekly.

 

[drpmjhess]

And no, I will not explain myself until you explain yourself.

Your claim was either incoherent, or deliberately perverse:

“Wouldn’t it stand to reason that the overpopulation crowd would be happy to hear about such things?”

You insult those who work hard for human welfare by imputing to them rejoicing over the death of many by starvation. Should I assume that’s your emotions speaking, or your narrow, bigoted conservative Catholicism?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Uh Oh! Watch out. Not many orthodox people can handle such un-adulterated truth, much less dessenters. Take cover.

Having been the most vile, disgusting, contemptuous sinner around I am left with no tolerance for anything but the Truth.

Yes, I’m that vile ex-smoker evey smoker fears!

 

[iamrefreshed]

Accurately stated!

I don’t know if you clearly understood what you were responding to or not. I would give you the benefit of the doubt but I will also ask you straight out…

In the post by Joe 5859 it was implied you support abortion as a method of population control.

Your response to that post is listed above as “Accurately stated”.

Is that your position? You support abortion for population control?

 

[iamrefreshed]

There are people guilty of what other people call sin, but no one throws stones at them or hurls insults like conservatives do on CAF. We all get along in a fine, gentle, caring, loving way. And for those of you who are so sex-obsessed that contraception and homosexuality define your Catholicism, why can you not worship alongside the people you call “sinners,” happy in the knowledge that they are going to hell and you won’t have to put up with them for eternity? Why do you get your knickers in a twist over this?

I think it’s because we love you.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I don’t follow your logic. Can you please explain what you mean? (And note that “tsunami” begins with a “t”).

Do you feel better for correcting a spelling error?

We try to correct your misguided life altering decisions over your catholic beliefs and take grief for being judgemental and you deride us for spelling?

Wake up!

 

[iamrefreshed]

What we see here is a difference between a rigid and calcified view of Church teachings and a fluid, dynamic one which relates to the day to day world with real-life applications.

If you weren’t aware, the devil is fluid and dynamic. God is rigid and calcified (Ten Commandments).

You follow your leader, I’ll follow mine.