Dissidents Rally Opposition to John Paul's Beatification

[flameburns623]

Arba Sicula:

What do you mean by a very liberal Catholic? Do you include perfectly orthodox Catholics who happen to be politically liberal?

There are Catholics who don’t follow Church teachings on abortion and such, and are also politically conservative. Do you refer to them as conservative Catholics?

Why not just use the term heterodox Catholics for those who are dissidents regardless of their politics?

Yes and for years William F. Buckley–a political conservative–favored the legalization of marijuana, ordinarily seen as a liberal cause. Buckley’s REASONS for his position, of course, were rooted in his particular brand of political conservativism, one which sought to minimize the intervention of government into private affairs unless there is a compelling overaching interest.

I would be surprised if you could name any prominent Roman Catholic who is clearly a political conservative BUT opposes the RCC’s teachings on abortion. Such a position is theoretically possible, but would be difficult to defend on principle. What I think you probably have in mind are people who are social conservatives/moderates, who typically vote for conservative political candidates, but who are in favor of changes in RCC teaching on abortion–WITHOUT having really examined the issues or defined their reasons clearly. People who in other words are willy-nilly ecclectics.

The terms ‘liberal’, ‘conservative’, ‘radical’, ‘moderate’, are NOT political terms, although I see that a number of people on this forum like to think so. The terms are used to measure a degree of fidelity to an ideology, to traditional beliefs or practices, or to indicate how loyal a person is to a particular person or insititution. In general, ‘radicals’ have little or no desire to be faithful to tradition or to a domnant ideology; they typically want to supplant current leadership or insititutions. On the other hand, ‘liberals’ and ‘moderates’ have a greater degree of loyalty to tradition or to a dominant ideology, though they may wish to redefine those things; ‘liberals’ or ‘moderates’ usually hope to transform or influence current leadership rather than replace it wholesale. ‘Conservatives’ tend to be very loyal to an idealogy, to tradition, and/or to persons or institutions. Hence, ‘conservatives’ in this country tend to be anti-Communist; conservatives in Russia tend to be pro-Communist or at least friendly to communism.

 

[estesbob]

]

There are Catholics who don’t follow Church teachings on abortion and such, and are also politically conservative. Do you refer to them as conservative Catholics?

?

No-I refer to them a Catholics who have seperated themselves from the Church.If they truly support abortion they need to go to their confessor.

 

[shannin]

Ah Ummm … excuse me… the definition of heretic is-
A person who holds controversial opinion, especially one who publically dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church

This has NOTHING to do with being a sinner … we ALL sin

**If people don’t agree with the teachings of the Church - PLEASE LEAVE and find another Church instead of mouthing off about the Catholic Church. :tsktsk: **

 

[maklavan]

Ah Ummm … excuse me… the definition of heretic is-
A person who holds controversial opinion, especially one who publically dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church

This has NOTHING to do with being a sinner … we ALL sin

**If people don’t agree with the teachings of the Church - PLEASE LEAVE and find another Church instead of mouthing off about the Catholic Church. :tsktsk: **

Absolutely, and the Right -wing dissenters must go also. have seen vicious attacks on the character and work of Pope John Paul !1 from tthe supporters of Lefebvre and the SSPX because of: 1. his support for Vatican 11
2. His efforts to encourage ecumenicism
3.His attempts to communicate with Muslims and his kissing the koran)
4. His apology to the world for the wrongoings committed historically by the Church.

I am weary of these people and all those who continue to snipe at the Church and its work since 1962. Why don’t they psh off and join the Old catholics or something? Leave us to enjoy our Catholic faith and the upcoming canonisation of the late Pope.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

flameburns623:

I would be surprised if you could name any prominent Roman Catholic who is clearly a political conservative BUT opposes the RCC’s teachings on abortion.

Must it only be prominent Catholics? Are the “liberal Catholics” being spoken of only prominent people? I’d think that one can be heterodox - or orthodox regardless of one’s station in life.

What I think you probably have in mind are people who are social conservatives/moderates, who typically vote for conservative political candidates, but who are in favor of changes in RCC teaching on abortion–

Right - heterodox conservatives.

People who in other words are willy-nilly ecclectics.

That’s one opinion, sure.

The terms ‘liberal’, ‘conservative’, ‘radical’, ‘moderate’, are NOT political terms, although I see that a number of people on this forum like to think so.

Oh? But, they are political terms. If you don’t think so, see how people like President Bush or Sens. Clinton or McCain are referred to - as a conservative, a liberal, and a moderate. No one referring to those three as conservative, liberal, or moderate are referring to their respective religious faiths.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Darrel:

Are you Catholic? It says 'N/A’ in your profile. Just curious.

For the last 63 years, including 18 years of Catholic education.

Are you by any chance a Catholic? Have you ever seen the inside of a Catholic Church yourself? Just curious.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

shannin:

This has NOTHING to do with being a sinner … we ALL sin

**If people don’t agree with the teachings of the Church - PLEASE LEAVE and find another Church instead of mouthing off about the Catholic Church. **

You make a difference between being a sinner and not agreeing with the teachings of the Church. Do you not consider the latter a sin as well? And, why shouldn’t the former leave the Church if they have what is called an “attachment to sin”? Obviously, if not following all Church teachings is grounds for leaving the Church, then it applies to the man who makes a living as thief as much as to a woman who practices artificial birth control. Both don’t agree with the Church’s teachings.

Consistency in application should be the rule, I’d think.

 

[Shoshana]

Arba Sicula:

Consistency in application should be the rule, I’d think.

Not necessarily…motivation is always a factor and most people do not have self-knowledge to scrutinize themselves.

No different than a good act can be motivated by a myriad of reasons in all aspects. so can sinning…

 

[shannin]

Arba Sicula:

You make a difference between being a sinner and not agreeing with the teachings of the Church. Do you not consider the latter a sin as well? And, why shouldn’t the former leave the Church if they have what is called an “attachment to sin”? Obviously, if not following all Church teachings is grounds for leaving the Church, then it applies to the man who makes a living as thief as much as to a woman who practices artificial birth control. Both don’t agree with the Church’s teachings.
Consistency in application should be the rule, I’d think.

The main difference is the word PUBLIC dissention. For example, John Kerry making the following statement on television:
“I am a Catholic, I was an altar boy, but I support a woman’s right to choose abortion”.
He is a heretic, which is different from a woman that has had an abortion (she’s a sinner) and then is truly sorry for her sin, goes to confession and vows to sin no more.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

shannin:

The main difference is the word PUBLIC dissention.

So, a couple who employ artificial birth control - in private, of course - are only sinners, or a nurse who counsels girls to have abortions - in private, of course, is only a sinner? I’d call them heterodox, myself.

He is a heretic

You are not competent to make that statement. Period. Only the Church is empowered to declare a person a heretic, whether or not he makes his statements publically or not… One of the most notorious dissidents, Fr. Hans Kung, has never been declared a heretic, though one might have occasion to think so based on some of his writings. Even so, no one may call him a heretic as the Church does not.

 

[EddieArent]

maklavan:

Absolutely, and the Right -wing dissenters must go also. have seen vicious attacks on the character and work of Pope John Paul !1 from tthe supporters of Lefebvre and the SSPX because of: 1. his support for Vatican 11
2. His efforts to encourage ecumenicism
3.His attempts to communicate with Muslims and his kissing the koran)
4. His apology to the world for the wrongoings committed historically by the Church.

I am weary of these people and all those who continue to snipe at the Church and its work since 1962. Why don’t they psh off and join the Old catholics or something? Leave us to enjoy our Catholic faith and the upcoming canonisation of the late Pope.

1. The SSPX also support Vatican II ---- in light of tradition.
2. Ecumenism has been condmned time and time again by the Church prior to V-II.
3. Prayer without the will to convert is quite dangerous.
4. The Church, as the mystical body of Christ on earth can do no wrong.
5. Don’t get me wrong, I hope Pope John Paul II had a Holy death & for the sake of his soul he is in Heaven or Purgatory. But to say His Holiness did no wrong or anything questionable as many claim, is quite a stretch.
6. The reasons, among other things why the SSPX don’t join the Old Catholics is b/c the Old Catholics are heretics who deny Papal Infallibity among other things (a lot of them support female “ordinations” as well. All the SSPX, as members of the Catholic Church as confimed by Cardinal Hoyos, are asking is, seeing that everything has been given a shot, like the clown Masses, the Lifeteen Masses, etc. why not allow the traditional Mass & Sacramental forms instead of having so many restrictions put in place (e.g. a bishop allowing an indult Mass at a certain time but only allowing the TLM and not any other Sacraments per the 1962 books)?

 

[EddieArent]

Ah Ummm … excuse me… the definition of heretic is-
A person who holds controversial opinion, especially one who publically dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church

This has NOTHING to do with being a sinner … we ALL sin

**If people don’t agree with the teachings of the Church - PLEASE LEAVE and find another Church instead of mouthing off about the Catholic Church. :tsktsk: **

Don’t ask them to leave as if they are manifest in heresy they have cut themself off by their own actions. Pray for their conversions!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

EddieArent:

All the SSPX, as members of the Catholic Church as confimed by Cardinal Hoyos, are asking is, seeing that everything has been given a shot

Good try, Eddie. They’re still excommunicated (the Arch and the Fab Four), still schismatic, still illicit and without faculties. You’ve had the tense of His Eminence’s remarks explained to you by Andreas Hoffer and there is no reason (at this point) to believe that the Cardinal believes any differently from what His Holiness Pope John Paul the Great believed, as expressed in Ecclesia Dei.

 

[Darrel]

Arba Sicula:

For the last 63 years, including 18 years of Catholic education.

Are you by any chance a Catholic? Have you ever seen the inside of a Catholic Church yourself? Just curious.

I’m in RCIA now and will be confirmed at Easter time. I go to mass every week with my Catholic wife of 5 months. I was a protestant for over 20 years before this conversion I’m in now. Going forward I can see that even if I don’t fully understand an issue it is fundamentally crucial to have loyalty to the Church if I am to be Catholic. If I am loyal to Christ then it only follows to be loyal to his Church which he personaly established. Thanks for asking.

-D

 

[shannin]

Arba Sicula:

You are not competent to make that statement. Period. Only the Church is empowered to declare a person a heretic, whether or not he makes his statements publically or not… One of the most notorious dissidents, Fr. Hans Kung, has never been declared a heretic, though one might have occasion to think so based on some of his writings. Even so, no one may call him a heretic as the Church does not.

EXCUSE me. I gave Webster’s definition of a heretic. I myself didn’t “declare” anyone a heretic. http://forums.catholic-questions.or...catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon8.gif

 

[flameburns623]

Arba Sicula:

I would be surprised if you could name any prominent Roman Catholic who is clearly a political conservative BUT opposes the RCC’s teachings on abortion.

Must it only be prominent Catholics? Are the “liberal Catholics” being spoken of only prominent people? I’d think that one can be heterodox - or orthodox regardless of one’s station in life.

I was looking for a concrete example of someone, not some person you might claim to know personally, who has never published or articulated their views where we could see if and how they try to integrate their positions into a rational wholeness.
Arba Sicula:

flameburns623:

What I think you probably have in mind are people who are social conservatives/moderates, who typically vote for conservative political candidates, but who are in favor of changes in RCC teaching on abortion–

Right - heterodox conservatives.

Inconsistent conservatives anyhow. I was describing people who favor certain things in a self-serving or knee-jerk way, who could not articulate the reasons for their inconsistency in positions.
Arba Sicula:

flameburns623:

People who in other words are willy-nilly ecclectics.

That’s one opinion, sure.

The ‘willy-nilly’ was editorializing on my part. ‘Ecclectic’, however, is an appropriate way to describe people who pick-and-choose their personal beliefs on various topics without bothering to integrate those beliefs into some sort of consistency based upon overarching principles and careful reasoning.
Arba Sicula:

flameburns623:

The terms ‘liberal’, ‘conservative’, ‘radical’, ‘moderate’, are NOT political terms, although I see that a number of people on this forum like to think so.

Oh? But, they are political terms. If you don’t think so, see how people like President Bush or Sens. Clinton or McCain are referred to - as a conservative, a liberal, and a moderate. No one referring to those three as conservative, liberal, or moderate are referring to their respective religious faiths.

They are not MERELY political but can be used in a variety of different ways to describe positions on wholly non-political subjects, including religion. They are not the ONLY way to describe opinions or belief systems however. President Bush, for example, has been called BOTH a ‘religious conservative’ AND ‘a conservative Evangelical’. Great stress is placed upon the President’s credentials as a ‘religious conservative’, in fact: for many in the secular-and-secularist media, this is synoymous with suggesting he is a fanatic and unworthy of respect.

Former President Jimmy Carter is appropriately deemed a ‘Christian liberal’, a ‘liberal Protestant’ or a ‘liberal Baptist’. Mel Gibson is widely touted to be either an ultra-conservative Roman Catholic or a traditionalist Roman Catholic. I have no idea what religion Senator Clinton or Senator McCain profess. Obviously, one can describe them by their denominational label; OR by categorizing their denomination (Evangelical Protestant, Mainline Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etcetera); or in broad terms as a Christian liberal or as a Christian conservative.

Sometimes, these terms are useful as shorthand; sometimes not. For example–I characterised Jimmy Carter as a ‘liberal Baptist’, etcetera. Fair enough in the sense that his religious values push him into liberal causes, and have even led him to express sentiments on moral issues which are certainly more liberal than conservative. On the other hand, Carter is, to the best of my knowledge, theologically conservative–he believes in the special inspiration of the Bible and interprets it in traditional ways common to most other conservative Protestants; he accepts the historicity of Jesus Christ, believes in the literal death and resurrection of Christ, etcetera. If the subject is theology, and the standard for ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ are the creeds and classic Protestant Confessions, Jimmy Carter is conservative. So the terms do need to be used judiciously–they are not always effective descriptors.

 

[seabird3579]

One of John Paul II’s greatest virtues besides calling for compassion and unity among christians, is his fortitude to withstand the continual onslaught by the evil one and his cohorts within the Church. He stood by the orthodoxy that has been handed down for 2000 years and refused to change fundamental doctrines of christian theology, many times being the one lone voice in the wilderness. He enshrined the Blessed Virgin Mary’s high place of honor within the Church, at times with great opposition. One of the true tests of character, virtue and love of God is the willingness to put forth the Truth, even in the face of continual opposition and persecution.

I support the beatification and canonization of John Paul the Great. :clapping:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

bones_IV:

This is really awful, liberals intentions unvieled!!! Liberal Catholics I’m so sick of you! If you don’t like what we teach, then GET OUT!
Link

Catholics are under no obligation whatever to admire popes - not even dead ones; not even beatified ones. If they think dead pope X was a scoundrel who was wasting space on God’s earth which someone else should have had - they can say so. It may be uncharitable, but it’s not something deserving any church penalty. To lurve Popes as though one had to be a papal groupie, is an annoying modern affectation - traditional it is not.​

Beatification is not a teaching act. No dissent is involved in objecting to a beatification.

You are not a teacher in the Church - so why the “we” ?

If people think a pope was unfit to be beatified - what is wrong in saying so ?

ISTM that the speed with which his cause has begun is a very bad thing - the old time limit of 50 years before beginning the cause was possible, was much wiser - for if a reputation for holiness lasts, it is a good sign of real holiness. “Quickie” beatifications look just a bit as though the beatus has to be processed before his holiness is past its “sell by” date. If I were Pope, I would tighten up the canonisation process a good deal… ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

shannin:

My words exactly. If they don’t want to follow the rules are free to leave. In fact,** I WISH they WOULD **leave.

Christianity is about living in charity with God & men - not about rules. Christ is not needed if one is to follow rules - He is more than vital, if one is to live in charity with God & one’s fellows. Obedience is not the same as (doing no more than follow) rules - it is far larger & richer. It’s worthless, if we don’t rule our hearts - that is where the problems arise.​

Ultimately, we are in the Church purely by the grace of Christ - He it is Who has brought us here. That’s why it makes no sense to expect others to leave - it’s not our Body, but His. We are not free to leave - and despite their love for the Church, too many “conservatives” seem not to have a very profound understanding of it - it is not a club; not the sort of thing that one can be slung out of.

If we tear strips off people, others will tear strips off us. Christians who want to turf out other Christians, seem to forget that. “Conservatives” might be more lovable, if it were slightly more obvious that they grieved at the falls of others, instead of gloating over those falls, and calling for punishment. ##

 

[bones_IV]

Gottle of Greer:

You are not a teacher of the Church so why the we?

Let’s reverse that. If we are not called to holy and obedient then what’ s the point in being Catholic? None. Your arguement holds no ground.
Gottle of Greer:

We are not free to leave - and despite their love for the Church, too many “conservatives” seem to not have a very profound understanding of it - it is not a club; not the sort thing that one can slung out of

Really? Is that so? Answer me this, then why did Mother Angelica say on World Youth Day 1993 “I’m so tired of you, liberal Church of America”? I guess I was off the mark on my initial post then. Your comment is just simply another long winded attempt at rationalization.
Gottle of Greer:

If people think a pope is not worthy to be beautified - what is wrong in saying so?

Many people who do this sing the pro-abortion song. That’s why. The same people who are just simply bitter with Mother Church. They oppose it because they don’t want to change. If they oppose a beautification process they are putting themselves at odds with the Church, we should be praying for their conversion not praying for their exclusion. If that’s what your accusing me of saying. Would you want a bunch of heretics ruining the Church and leading the flock astray?
Gottle of Greer:

##Catholics are under no obligation to admire popes - not even dead ones. If they thing that pope X was a scoundrel who was wasting God’s space on Earth which someone else should have had - they can say so. It may be uncharitable, but it is not something deserving of any Church penalty. To lurve popes as though one had to be a papal groupie is an annoying affectation - traditional it is not

So you say that these people are right in trying take the keyes away from Peter? Get real. These people have the right to call John Paul II a scroundrel when they have no just cause? I think not. Your ridiculous notion of calling admiring Pope John Paul II as an annoying affectation is qiute laughable and yet another poor arguement. What’s so non-traditional about admiring John Paul II?