Does Doctrine Matter?

[Roy5]

A few points

** 1. I honor Mary, as all Christians do.** As I stated, Mariology has gone too far in making her nearly equivalent to Christ in the eyes of many Catholics. That has been my experience. The Rosary - what is it? how many Hail Marys for every Our Father?

** 2. The more liberal Protestant denominations have changed over the years.** Beginning with the Reformation, of course, clergy were permitted to marry, a freedom which I think is normal, healthy and wise. Over the past 60 or so years most of them have ordained women, which is another important step forward. They once may have had sharp disagreements theologically, but today don’t. In Canada, for example, two Calvinist groups, the Presbyterians and Congregationalists, merged with an Arminian group, the Methodists, to form the United Church of Canada. (Arminian - free will as opposed to predestination.) There are scores of federated and united congregations in the USA that combine Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Baptist congregations. The idea common among Catholics that Protestants are sharply divided by doctrine was once justified but is passe now. They have evolved into ‘big tent’ denominations, and members of one transfer easily to another when - for example - they may move to a different community. This does not involve any ‘conversion’. a term often used when people become Catholic or perhaps go from Catholic to Protestant. Most liberal Methodists, for example, see the word Congregationalist and think ‘one of us’. These groups also work together through the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, which the Catholic Church has not joined, though local Catholic churches often have joined local and even state councils since Vatican II.

** 3. I do not claim to have the correct doctrines.** In fact, I don’t consider it important to have embraced many specific doctrines emphasized by Catholicism. Was Mary a perpetual virgin? Maybe. But she was married, after all, so what if she wasn’t? There seems to be an undertone in Catholicism that virginity is to be preferred over marital relations - an undertone I find disturbing. I don’t see anything more sacred and beautiful than a loving husband and wife and their beloved children. But for those who prefer not to marry, that’s okay, too. The assumption too often made about people like me (we are many) is that we have strong attachments to other and/or contrary doctrines. Not true. We are likely to bend toward one idea or another but without dogmatism. Is there a physical heaven? Maybe. But I’m inclined to think that it is on a totally different plane. What I treasure is an atmosphere in which there is freedom to discuss a wide variety of beliefs without fear of being ‘heretical’. There are many areas clouded by mystery in this vast and miraculous universe and we can, at best, theorize. I like the freedom to do just that without feeling that I am somehow disloyal to God or to any church.

** 4. Love of God and love of our fellow beings is, to me, the core of Christianity**. Most other doctrines are secondary and should be open to honest discussion - and rejection. As has been said by others, I want my Christianity to focus upon the example of Jesus and not upon doctrines about Jesus. Personally, I think Jesus would agree. “Why do you call me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?”

** 5. Paul c, where does that son go to school**? A parochial school? Certainly he would not get an unbiased church history there. However, it is true. The Reformation went well beyond where it ended up. Poland almost became Protestant, and it was strong in France and Italy, too. The Huguenots were oppressed, and the Waldensians were chased up into the Alps. The Jesuits also were very effective agents of the Counter-Reformation which made some much needed reforms. The religion of most Europeans at that time generally went along with that of those in power. England, Scotland, Scandinavia, Latvia, Estonia, 2/3 of Germany, about half of the Netherlands and Switzerland, about a third of Hungary remained Protestant. Today most European countries, Catholic or Protestant, have become largely secularized. Poland and Ireland seem to have the highest percentage of faithful Catholics, and even in those two countries church attendance has fallen dramatically. Much of eastern Europe, of course, was Eastern Orthodox - Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, etc.

** 6. One other thing that annoys me **- a small matter, perhaps. This having a relic of some saint in every church, a relic that often is venerated. And I’ve read that there’s enough pieces of the ‘true cross’ to build a sizeable yacht and enough pieces of Mary’s clothing to outfit a queen. Is that true? The whole area of miracles, relics, and veneration surrounding saints is troubling. I fear that it borders on superstition that may have been acceptable in medieval times but not today.

**7. My emphasis is on scripture, reason (including reasonableness. common sense), and the findings of history and or science.** For example, there seems to be not a scrap of  evidence that the ancient Hebrews ever were slaves in Egypt. One book that impacted me heavily is "Hebrew Origins" by Theophile Meek. A good read. I recommend it.

**8. But I end on my perpetual theme.** For those who can accept traditional Catholicism, fine. I respect that. I keep using the word traditional because most Catholics I know well are of the 'cafeteria' variety.

** God bless everybody. **

 

[paul_c]

A few points

** 1. I honor Mary, as all Christians do.** As I stated, Mariology has gone too far in making her nearly equivalent to Christ in the eyes of many Catholics. That has been my experience. The Rosary - what is it? how many Hail Marys for every Our Father?

** 2. The more liberal Protestant denominations have changed over the years.** Beginning with the Reformation, of course, clergy were permitted to marry, a freedom which I think is normal, healthy and wise. Over the past 60 or so years most of them have ordained women, which is another important step forward. They once may have had sharp disagreements theologically, but today don’t. In Canada, for example, two Calvinist groups, the Presbyterians and Congregationalists, merged with an Arminian group, the Methodists, to form the United Church of Canada. (Arminian - free will as opposed to predestination.) There are scores of federated and united congregations in the USA that combine Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Baptist congregations. The idea common among Catholics that Protestants are sharply divided by doctrine was once justified but is passe now. They have evolved into ‘big tent’ denominations, and members of one transfer easily to another when - for example - they may move to a different community. This does not involve any ‘conversion’. a term often used when people become Catholic or perhaps go from Catholic to Protestant. Most liberal Methodists, for example, see the word Congregationalist and think ‘one of us’. These groups also work together through the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, which the Catholic Church has not joined, though local Catholic churches often have joined local and even state councils since Vatican II.

** 3. I do not claim to have the correct doctrines.** In fact, I don’t consider it important to have embraced many specific doctrines emphasized by Catholicism. Was Mary a perpetual virgin? Maybe. But she was married, after all, so what if she wasn’t? There seems to be an undertone in Catholicism that virginity is to be preferred over marital relations - an undertone I find disturbing. I don’t see anything more sacred and beautiful than a loving husband and wife and their beloved children. But for those who prefer not to marry, that’s okay, too. The assumption too often made about people like me (we are many) is that we have strong attachments to other and/or contrary doctrines. Not true. We are likely to bend toward one idea or another but without dogmatism. Is there a physical heaven? Maybe. But I’m inclined to think that it is on a totally different plane. What I treasure is an atmosphere in which there is freedom to discuss a wide variety of beliefs without fear of being ‘heretical’. There are many areas clouded by mystery in this vast and miraculous universe and we can, at best, theorize. I like the freedom to do just that without feeling that I am somehow disloyal to God or to any church.

** 4. Love of God and love of our fellow beings is, to me, the core of Christianity**. Most other doctrines are secondary and should be open to honest discussion - and rejection. As has been said by others, I want my Christianity to focus upon the example of Jesus and not upon doctrines about Jesus. Personally, I think Jesus would agree. “Why do you call me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?”

** 5. Paul c, where does that son go to school**? A parochial school? Certainly he would not get an unbiased church history there. However, it is true. The Reformation went well beyond where it ended up. Poland almost became Protestant, and it was strong in France and Italy, too. The Huguenots were oppressed, and the Waldensians were chased up into the Alps. The Jesuits also were very effective agents of the Counter-Reformation which made some much needed reforms. The religion of most Europeans at that time generally went along with that of those in power. England, Scotland, Scandinavia, Latvia, Estonia, 2/3 of Germany, about half of the Netherlands and Switzerland, about a third of Hungary remained Protestant. Today most European countries, Catholic or Protestant, have become largely secularized. Poland and Ireland seem to have the highest percentage of faithful Catholics, and even in those two countries church attendance has fallen dramatically. Much of eastern Europe, of course, was Eastern Orthodox - Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, etc.

** 6. One other thing that annoys me **- a small matter, perhaps. This having a relic of some saint in every church, a relic that often is venerated. And I’ve read that there’s enough pieces of the ‘true cross’ to build a sizeable yacht and enough pieces of Mary’s clothing to outfit a queen. Is that true? The whole area of miracles, relics, and veneration surrounding saints is troubling. I fear that it borders on superstition that may have been acceptable in medieval times but not today.

**7. My emphasis is on scripture, reason (including reasonableness. common sense), and the findings of history and or science.** For example, there seems to be not a scrap of  evidence that the ancient Hebrews ever were slaves in Egypt. One book that impacted me heavily is "Hebrew Origins" by Theophile Meek. A good read. I recommend it.

**8. But I end on my perpetual theme.** For those who can accept traditional Catholicism, fine. I respect that. I keep using the word traditional because most Catholics I know well are of the 'cafeteria' variety.

** God bless everybody. **

My son goes to a public school and the book is a standard secular text book.

Still, I have the question, what is the critieria you use to determine the truth? We believe that the Church is a trusted authority worthy of belief. What is your criteria for deciding what is true?

 

[MarkInOregon]

A few points

4. Love of God and love of our fellow beings is, to me, the core of Christianity. Most other doctrines are secondary and should be open to honest discussion - and rejection. As has been said by others, I want my Christianity to focus upon the example of Jesus and not upon doctrines about Jesus. Personally, I think Jesus would agree. “Why do you call me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?” It has been interesting to read the back an forth. Roy5 you keep making this point. Maybe the next place for this discussion to go–is to examine Jesus example in detail – and see what conclusions can be drawn from that example. You have found validation for your independent thought there where I venture that those engaged in discussion with you have not. I don’t think anyone here would argue with your love of God and neighbor and attemptiong to do God’s will. I think it would be an interesting discussion as the current one seems to now be going in circles.

7. My emphasis is on scripture, reason (including reasonableness. common sense), and the findings of history and or science. For example, there seems to be not a scrap of evidence that the ancient Hebrews ever were slaves in Egypt. One book that impacted me heavily is “Hebrew Origins” by Theophile Meek. A good read. I recommend it.
It should be pointed out that this argument was used against the the existence of Troy and the Trojan war.

God bless everybody. Amen.

 

[Cat_Herder]

** 2. The more liberal Protestant denominations have changed over the years.** Beginning with the Reformation, of course, clergy were permitted to marry, a freedom which I think is normal, healthy and wise. Over the past 60 or so years most of them have ordained women, which is another important step forward. … The idea common among Catholics that Protestants are sharply divided by doctrine was once justified but is passe now. They have evolved into ‘big tent’ denominations,

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1087&pictureid=7587

Looks like there is a mass “exodus” OUT of that “big tent.”

The children of the “big tent” denominations want truth and aren’t getting it from their parents’ church. What’s more, they go off to college and get their brains scrambled by Dr. Generic Agnostic/Atheist Professor and come out looking like… well… you. But at least you still identify yourself as a Christian, to your credit. Many of these freshly minted baccalaureates don’t.

Speaking of Exodus…

**7. My emphasis is on scripture, reason (including reasonableness. common sense), and the findings of history and or science.** For example, there seems to be not a scrap of  evidence that the ancient Hebrews ever were slaves in Egypt. One book that impacted me heavily is "Hebrew Origins" by Theophile Meek. A good read. I recommend it.

I see your Meek and raise you an Oxford, a [Princeton](http://books.google.com/books?id=DSXIfdlXkMkC&lpg=PA160&dq=exodus archaeology (name removed by moderator)ublisher%3Aprinceton&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=dating%20the%20exodus&f=false) and a [Harvard](http://books.google.com/books?id=2kSovzudhFUC&pg=PA42&dq=exodus+archaeology+(name removed by moderator)ublisher:harvard&hl=en&ei=H23PTKqENoO8lQf1h6DRBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=exodus%20archaeology%20(name removed by moderator)ublisher%3Aharvard&f=false).

You should stop believing whatever a random agnostic professor tells you, get the facts and make your own decision.

 

[Roy5]

Paul c.

** To begin with, my emphasis is not upon any one truth when it comes to doctrine**. I embrace certain beliefs without hesitation, such as God, of course, and afterlife. But apart from a few such general doctrines I don’t speak of ‘truth’ in the way that Catholicism and Protestant fundamentalism do. As I have tried to explain, I found myself in a book called “The Christian Agnostic” (or similar title) by a British Methodist minister. He said that he was a Christian in that he sought to follow the ethical teachings of Jesus, admired Christ enormously, considered him an incarnation of God, and viewed himself a disciple of Jesus. At the same time, he was 'agnostic when it came to a wide variety of questions that Christians often haggle over. Did Christ raise Lazarus from the dead? Did he meet with Moses and Elijah in the Transfiguration? Did he cure a mental disorder by transferring demons into pigs which went racing over a cliff? Did Mary live a sinless life? Was she immaculately conceived? Does the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ during mass? Is the Pope infallible when he speak ex cathedra? Can a priest properly declare our sins absolved? Etc. How much of this involves genuine miracles, or is it mostly folklore connected to Christ, indicating the enormous impact that Jesus made upon his followers and others. But such concerns are secondary to Christ’s call to love God and one another.

**Please keep in mind that, like millions of mainstream Protestants and Catholics, I am not sola scriptura!** I do not accept the Bible literally. There simply are too many historical errors, contradictions, atrocities, and other issues raised when one unbiasly approaches the Bible. It would take a short book to pursue this theme in any detail, but it tends to undermine any form of Christianity which treats the scriptures as completely authoritative. I find great inspiration in the Bible but when I approach it I do not leave common sense, science, and historical reality behind. Liberal Protestantism has been battliing fundamentalism for a century and longer. They also do not swear by Luther or Calvin, although both men made their own contribution toward expanding Christian understanding and breaking the monopoly of one church. We can salute historic figures without concurring with everything they taught.

** By the way, I have a favorite Catholic writer.** He is the Rev. McBrien of the Notre Dame faculty. He writes a regular column which appears in our area newspaper. If official Catholicism followed the thinking of Fr. McBrien what a blessing for the Catholic world and a relief for me!

** I have no problem with Christians disagreeing with one another.** But I hope that religion becomes a bridge and not a barrier. We can and should live in mutual respect with all people of all faiths who seek to love God and one another. Jesus would want that. We can achieve a spirit of unity without organic union.

God bless everybody!

 

[Cat_Herder]

A few points

** 1. I honor Mary, as all Christians do.** As I stated, Mariology has gone too far in making her nearly equivalent to Christ in the eyes of many Catholics. That has been my experience. The Rosary - what is it? how many Hail Marys for every Our Father?
…
** 6. One other thing that annoys me **- a small matter, perhaps. This having a relic of some saint in every church, a relic that often is venerated. And I’ve read that there’s enough pieces of the ‘true cross’ to build a sizeable yacht and enough pieces of Mary’s clothing to outfit a queen. Is that true? The whole area of miracles, relics, and veneration surrounding saints is troubling. I fear that it borders on superstition that may have been acceptable in medieval times but not today.

I’m sure you have no problem with Jews venerating the Sefer Torah at every synagogue service.
I’m sure you have no problem with Jews venerating Rachel’s Tomb (even when they bow before the tomb or kiss her reqliuary) or that of any patriarch, prophet, matriarch or Davidic king.
I’m sure you have no problem with Jews venerating and kissing the Wailing Wall, either. Or placing prayers there.
I’m sure you have no problem with Jews wearing tzitzyot or beaded talliot.

But you have a problem with Catholics venerating relics.
But you have a problem with Catholics venerating Mary and the saints, and kissing their relics.
But you have a problem with Catholics venerating shrines and placing prayers there.
But you have a problem with Catholics wearing scapulars and with the Rosary.

DOUBLE STANDARD FAIL.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Paul c.

** To begin with, my emphasis is not upon any one truth when it comes to doctrine**. I embrace certain beliefs without hesitation, such as God, of course, and afterlife. But apart from a few such general doctrines I don’t speak of ‘truth’ in the way that Catholicism and Protestant fundamentalism do. As I have tried to explain, I found myself in a book called “The Christian Agnostic” (or similar title) by a British Methodist minister. He said that he was a Christian in that he sought to follow the ethical teachings of Jesus, admired Christ enormously, considered him an incarnation of God, and viewed himself a disciple of Jesus. At the same time, he was 'agnostic when it came to a wide variety of questions that Christians often haggle over. Did Christ raise Lazarus from the dead? Did he meet with Moses and Elijah in the Transfiguration? Did he cure a mental disorder by transferring demons into pigs which went racing over a cliff? Did Mary live a sinless life? Was she immaculately conceived? Does the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ during mass? Is the Pope infallible when he speak ex cathedra? Can a priest properly declare our sins absolved? Etc. How much of this involves genuine miracles, or is it mostly folklore connected to Christ, indicating the enormous impact that Jesus made upon his followers and others. But such concerns are secondary to Christ’s call to love God and one another.

 

[Cat_Herder]

** By the way, I have a favorite Catholic writer.** He is the Rev. McBrien of the Notre Dame faculty. He writes a regular column which appears in our area newspaper. If official Catholicism followed the thinking of Fr. McBrien what a blessing for the Catholic world and a relief for me!

Fr. McBrien is on record as opposing the bishops on pro-life issues. If official Catholicism (whatever that means) followed the teaching of Fr. McBrien it would certainly not be a “blessing” for the unborn.

God bless everybody!

Except the unborn?

 

[Roy5]

Cat Herder
**
1. Jews are not of my faith, so I do not critique them in the same way.** However, I am hesitant to approve of veneration of physical objects - depending a bit I presume on what is meant by veneration. I have been to the Western Wall four times and understand the tradition, growing out of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD by the Romans. That’s why it is often referred to as the Wailing Wall. Orthodox Jews are a distinct minority in Israel and more so in the wider world. I have read somewhere that 4% of American Jews are Orthodox. Secular Jews have taken the lead in opposing prayer in schools, prayer at high school graduations, removing “In God We Trust” as our national motto, removing God from the pledge, etc. What is his name - Newdow? I can’t recall precisely - anyway, he is of Jewish heritage and, like many others, is an atheist. Long story. This is not to say that I don’t have great admiration for Judaism as part of our Christian heritage. I also admire the fortitude and the achievments of the Jewish people.

 In the same way, I don't spend time fretting about Hindu traditions (I have spent time in India) or Buddhist traditions (I have spent time in Japan, Korea and China). I am a Christian and naturally focus attention upon Christianity, as I suspect you do as well.

2. It is true that the mainstream Protestant denominations have been losing in the US, as the evangelical Protestants have been far more aggressive. Mainstream Protestants are not nearly as aggressive because of their tendency to be less harsh in judging other faiths. Meanwhile, Catholicism has lost enormously in the USA, too, despite 'consistent figures'. Millions of Catholics have left the church - 30,000,000 it is reported. Millions of others remain Catholic on the books but disagree with the church on basic issues and rarely if ever attend mass. Also, Catholicism benefits from immigration. Nine out of ten legal Christian immigrants are Catholic and the large majority of illegal immigrants are Catholic.

 In much of the world Catholic figures are grossly inflated. It claims, for example, that 85% of the French are Catholic while maybe 5% attend mass faithfully. Italy is 97.5% Catholic - totally unrealistic. Etc. The increase among both Catholics and Protestants has been in the third world, especially Africa. Protestant evangelicals have grown manyfold in much of Catholic Latin America. Etc. Catholic countries like Spain and Argentina now permit same-sex marriage. I am especially well acquainted with Quebec, birthplace of my French-Canadian grandparents. There Catholicism has taken a very severe hit.  Too much on this subject to put more down on paper. But figures don't have much to do with truth, do they?  

3. I doubt if Fr. McBrien can be called pro-choice. He may be like I am. I am pro-life, but under certain extreme conditions I am not ready to judge those who seek an abortion. Let me present two quick examples I'm acquainted with and get your opinion.

 A young teenager with downs syndrome was gang-raped by other downs syndrome men and boys in a group home when supervision failed. She became pregnant. Her devoutly Catholic mother and father would have raised the baby, they said, except that the mother had developed severe physical problems of her own (MS) and could not possibly do it. They feared that no one would want to adopt a baby whose mother and father both had downs syndrome. Besides, they didn't want their daughter to go through the stress and pain etc. In any case, they decided on an abortion during the second month of pregnancy. They knew it was not right, but they felt to have the baby was even less right.

Or, this one. A mother of six young children (oldest 11), a good Catholic, used the church-approved method of 'birth control' to avoid pregnancy. It didn't work. The doctors had warned her that another pregnancy would likely mean her death and that of her new baby because of her major physical problems. She and her husband prayed and felt that God had approved of an abortion, promising them that the baby would immediately gain entrance into heaven. The grandparents, also Catholics, approved as well. They did not want to leave a husband a widower and six young children motherless. They arranged for an early abortion. When the woman confessed to her priest she was severely scolded. The couple left to become Episcopalian.

** God bless everybody, especially those like the parents above who face such difficult moral decisions. I will let God do any judging. **

 

[paul_c]

2. It is true that the mainstream Protestant denominations have been losing in the US, as the evangelical Protestants have been far more aggressive. Mainstream Protestants are not nearly as aggressive because of their tendency to be less harsh in judging other faiths. Meanwhile, Catholicism has lost enormously in the USA, too, despite 'consistent figures'. Millions of Catholics have left the church - 30,000,000 it is reported. Millions of others remain Catholic on the books but disagree with the church on basic issues and rarely if ever attend mass. Also, Catholicism benefits from immigration. Nine out of ten legal Christian immigrants are Catholic and the large majority of illegal immigrants are Catholic. 

 In much of the world Catholic figures are grossly inflated. It claims, for example, that 85% of the French are Catholic while maybe 5% attend mass faithfully. Italy is 97.5% Catholic - totally unrealistic. Etc. The increase among both Catholics and Protestants has been in the third world, especially Africa. Protestant evangelicals have grown manyfold in much of Catholic Latin America. Etc. Catholic countries like Spain and Argentina now permit same-sex marriage. I am especially well acquainted with Quebec, birthplace of my French-Canadian grandparents. There Catholicism has taken a very severe hit.  Too much on this subject to put more down on paper. But figures don't have much to do with truth, do they?

Exactly, Popular opinion has nothing to do with the truth. So why do you continue to bring them up.

3. I doubt if Fr. McBrien can be called pro-choice. He may be like I am. I am pro-life, but under certain extreme conditions I am not ready to judge those who seek an abortion. Let me present two quick examples I'm acquainted with and get your opinion.

 A young teenager with downs syndrome was gang-raped by other downs syndrome men and boys in a group home when supervision failed. She became pregnant. Her devoutly Catholic mother and father would have raised the baby, they said, except that the mother had developed severe physical problems of her own (MS) and could not possibly do it. They feared that no one would want to adopt a baby whose mother and father both had downs syndrome. Besides, they didn't want their daughter to go through the stress and pain etc. In any case, they decided on an abortion during the second month of pregnancy. They knew it was not right, but they felt to have the baby was even less right.

Why do you think its appropriate to kill a child for convenience? How did they know what the child could become?

Or, this one. A mother of six young children (oldest 11), a good Catholic, used the church-approved method of 'birth control' to avoid pregnancy. It didn't work. The doctors had warned her that another pregnancy would likely mean her death and that of her new baby because of her major physical problems. She and her husband prayed and felt that God had approved of an abortion, promising them that the baby would immediately gain entrance into heaven. The grandparents, also Catholics, approved as well. They did not want to leave a husband a widower and six young children motherless. They arranged for an early abortion. When the woman confessed to her priest she was severely scolded. The couple left to become Episcopalian.

** God bless everybody, especially those like the parents above who face such difficult moral decisions. I will let God do any judging. **

So she trusted her doctor’s opinion over the mercy of God? This is a tough choice to be sure, but the truly loving act would have been to see it through. Granted, most people would not have have this depth of faith. One who did, was St. Gianna Beretta Molla: catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=6985.

 

[Roy5]

In wartime, we have killed thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians by dropping horrendous bombs that incinerate them, causing the death of countless innocent children and babies still in the womb. If we can justify that sort of mass murder (‘just war?’) how can we be so pious and judgmental when it comes to saving the life of a devout wife who tried her best to follow the Catholic faith (no artificial birth control), and who, if she died, would leave a grieving husband and six motherless child? Tell me how that sort of contradiction reflects the love and justice of God.

 I** am ready to leave such matters, judgments, and decisions in the hands of God** and not throw stones. It appears that this is the path Jesus took. I am comforted by the knowledge and assurance that the innocent souls of little ones are safe in the arms of Jesus. I would feel much worse if that devoted wife and mother and her new baby had died, inflicting so much enduring pain upon so many. A tough decision, to be sure, but the relentness effort of Catholicism to paint all such decisions as evil and sinful is heartless. My personal love goes out to such people, and I share in their pain. "Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted." It's enough to lose a baby without indicting this sad mother (and father) who had to face such a traumatic decision. 

** A personal note.** My wife and I lost two wee ones by miscarriage. Needless to say, these were heartbreaking. Why did God permit this? Did God cause these deaths? Good reasons? I believe so. And this made me more open to accepting 'good reasons' when human beings are faced with similar wrenching decisions.

** This illustrates one reason why I developed such a problem with Catholicism**. It can seem so forbidding, quick to pompously and self-righteously condemn when circumstances are very complex. I am very much against abortion as a rule, but there are those rare exceptions to every rule. And I presume I have a little resentment that celibate clergy who take no responsibility for raising their own children too often serve as judges in all this. “Judge not that ye be not judged.” Wisdom from the Master.
**
God bless all his children, those on earth and those in heaven!**

 

[Cat_Herder]

In wartime, we have killed thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians by dropping horrendous bombs that incinerate them,

Evil. The Bomb should have been dropped offshore or on a purely military target

causing the death of countless innocent children and babies still in the womb.

This is part of what causes it to be evil.

If we can justify that sort of mass murder (‘just war?’)

You are confusing the morality of the whole Allied intervention (WW2) with the morality of individual acts within said war (Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)

how can we be so pious and judgmental when it comes to saving the life of a devout wife who tried her best to follow the Catholic faith (no artificial birth control), and who, if she died, would leave a grieving husband and six motherless child?

If aborting the child would probably save the mother that doesn’t justify the abortion as it would be exchanging one life for another. That’s like asking if a criminal should murder the sheriff or a deputy. Both acts are evil. Further the abortion may end up killing them both.

Also there is growing evidence linking birth control to cancer. That raises the same sheriff or deputy fallacy.

Tell me how that sort of contradiction reflects the love and justice of God.

Read the Declaration of Independence.

 I** am ready to leave such matters, judgments, and decisions in the hands of God** and not throw stones. It appears that this is the path Jesus took.

Jesus is God (And I think you deny this which is the root of all your confusion). So God came down from heaven and dealt with evil, but you won’t do the same even though the Lord commanded it.

** A personal note.** My wife and I lost two wee ones by miscarriage. Needless to say, these were heartbreaking. Why did God permit this?

I am sorry to hear this, however it has nothing to do with abortion or doctrine.

Did God cause these deaths?

No.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Roy5;7226119:

am ready to leave such matters, judgments, and decisions in the hands of God

and not throw stones. It appears that this is the path Jesus took. Yes–but that story went on. Jesus also said “Go and sin no more” We too leave the ultimate judgment to God–only God knows our hearts when we die. I am comforted by the knowledge and assurance that the innocent souls of little ones are safe in the arms of Jesus. I would feel much worse if that devoted wife and mother and her new baby had died, inflicting so much enduring pain upon so many. A tough decision, to be sure, but the relentness effort of Catholicism to paint all such decisions as evil and sinful is heartless. This sounds to me like a failure to leave judgment to God and kind of feels like you are tossing a stone. If one believes that someones action endangers their immortal soul and that unless they repent and ask Gods forgiveness they are in danger of suffering eternal damnation – is it more heartless to tell them its o.k. and let them run the risk of eternal damnation or to tell them they need to seek forgivness for their action? Which action is really heartless and uncharitable? In the early days of Christianity–Christians often went cheerfullly to their, often horrendous, deaths–looking forward to being with God in heaven. Yet today it seems that everything is justified if it lessens someones suffering–suffering is the great evil in the world–and we will tolerate sin and “lesser” evils if it lessens someones suffering. It it seems to make them happy here on earth for a litlle while. My personal love goes out to such people, and I share in their pain. “Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” It’s enough to lose a baby without indicting this sad mother (and father) who had to face such a traumatic decision.

A personal note. My wife and I lost two wee ones by miscarriage. Needless to say, these were heartbreaking. Why did God permit this? Did God cause these deaths? Good reasons? I believe so. And this made me more open to accepting ‘good reasons’ when human beings are faced with similar wrenching decisions. I am very sorry for your loss.

This illustrates one reason why I developed such a problem with Catholicism. It can seem so forbidding, quick to pompously and self-righteously condemn when circumstances are very complex. I am very much against abortion as a rule, but there are those rare exceptions to every rule. And I presume I have a little resentment that celibate clergy who take no responsibility for raising their own children too often serve as judges in all this. “Judge not that ye be not judged.” Wisdom from the Master. “Go and sin no more.” Additional wisdom from the master. The Church is not “quick” to condemn and it is certainly not pompous and self-righteous in its teachings. I am not sure why the Church seems so forbidding to you. The Church does tell us certain actions are sins–but it certainly does not pompously and self-righteously condemn us–NO–it calls us to seek Gods mercy and forgivness. That some may run into lay Catholics and clergy who are not well skilled in delivering or who may fail to deliver the message and call–is unfortunate–but that doesn’t change the call. Today many want to be confirmed in their sin, told its not really a sin, told its o.k.–that was not Christ’s message or teaching and it is certainly not love. No parent, who’s child came home and said, “Dad boy am I happy–this new drug Meth is just the greatest thing on earth” would affirm their child in that. No parent would say–“Hey that’s great”-- because they know down the road…it will lead to their childs death. Because the parent loves the child the parent tell the child about the dangers of the action–of doing meth and tries to get the child to stop–they do this because they love the child. Likewise the Church has a duty to tell when we are engagering our souls–something we all do thanks to our fallen nature–it does this not out of a pompous self-righteousness–but out of love and concern for our ETERNAL destiny. Christ came to call sinners to repentance and to his mercy and that is what the Church does, as well as helping us to try to live out a Christian life.

God bless all his children, those on earth and those in heaven! Amen

Peace,
Mark

 

[paul_c]

In wartime, we have killed thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians by dropping horrendous bombs that incinerate them, causing the death of countless innocent children and babies still in the womb. If we can justify that sort of mass murder (‘just war?’) how can we be so pious and judgmental when it comes to saving the life of a devout wife who tried her best to follow the Catholic faith (no artificial birth control), and who, if she died, would leave a grieving husband and six motherless child? Tell me how that sort of contradiction reflects the love and justice of God.

This is a deflection. the morality of war has nothing to do with the morality of abortion. Nevertheless, in life we undergo all kinds of tests to see whether we will chose good or evil, heaven or hell. Some are tested by prosperity and others by failure. Some are tested by health, others by sickness. Some are tested by death, others by new life. These challenges come and go for everyone. Suffering can lead to great love, both on the part of those that suffer and on those that help them… People chase confort like chasing the wind, but no one can control the tests they undergo. You can actually only find peace when you learn to accept and deal positively with the challenges in front of you.

 I** am ready to leave such matters, judgments, and decisions in the hands of God** and not throw stones. It appears that this is the path Jesus took. I am comforted by the knowledge and assurance that the innocent souls of little ones are safe in the arms of Jesus. I would feel much worse if that devoted wife and mother and her new baby had died, inflicting so much enduring pain upon so many. A tough decision, to be sure, but the relentness effort of Catholicism to paint all such decisions as evil and sinful is heartless. My personal love goes out to such people, and I share in their pain. "Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted." It's enough to lose a baby without indicting this sad mother (and father) who had to face such a traumatic decision.

Actually if you were honest with yourself, you would see that you are very quick to condemn those that don’t agree with you.

** A personal note.** My wife and I lost two wee ones by miscarriage. Needless to say, these were heartbreaking. Why did God permit this? Did God cause these deaths? Good reasons? I believe so. And this made me more open to accepting 'good reasons' when human beings are faced with similar wrenching decisions.

God does not see death as you see death. Death to him is just a transition to the next phase of existence. It is not a great evil, its just a stage of life. If you had sorrow for the death of your child, you were also exhibiting love, which may have been the point all along. And by the way, my wife and I also had two miscarriages so I can sympathize.

** This illustrates one reason why I developed such a problem with Catholicism**. It can seem so forbidding, quick to pompously and self-righteously condemn when circumstances are very complex. I am very much against abortion as a rule, but there are those rare exceptions to every rule. And I presume I have a little resentment that celibate clergy who take no responsibility for raising their own children too often serve as judges in all this. “Judge not that ye be not judged.” Wisdom from the Master.
**
God bless all his children, those on earth and those in heaven!**

The church isn’t judging, its teaching. You only feel resentment because it is telling you the same thing your conscience is telling you when you sin. But you can’t run away from the truth. It’s omnipresent. Instead, you must accept the truth if you want peace…

 

[diggerdomer]

Fr. McBrien is on record as opposing the bishops on pro-life issues. If official Catholicism (whatever that means) followed the teaching of Fr. McBrien it would certainly not be a “blessing” for the unborn.

Read the article you posted. It did not say Fr. McBrien opposes the Bishops on pro-life issues.

If you disagree, point out where in the article you refer to indicates Fr. McBrien disagrees with any pro-life teaching of the Catholic Church. Thanks.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Read the article you posted. It did not say Fr. McBrien opposes the Bishops on pro-life issues.

Uh, did you read the title?

Fr. McBrien attacks pro-life bishops in syndicated column
Look what a bishop has to say about him.

 

[PRmerger]

To assert that doctrine does not matter, is itself a doctrine. It is an assertion of what is believed to be true of the Christian message.

To say, for example, that all you need is love, is fine, but that is of course also a doctrine, and one which ultimately must be fully explicated in practice.

If doctrine does not matter, then there should be no denominations. But differences of doctrine lead to different denominations precisely because of differences in what is believed to be true of the Christian faith.

Is Christ a savior or merely a good man? Did he demand love or did he demand obedience to his commandments, or both? Did he establish a Church or did he write a book?

The answers to these questions and others constitute doctrine.
If doctrine doesn’t matter, well that’s a doctrine. And it’s a doctrine which minimizes the importance of truth or falsity.

'zactly!

Any time any Christian professes anything about Jesus and His church it’s a doctrine.

Thus: I only need me and my bible
is a doctrine

It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you’re a good person
is a doctrine

Jesus doesn’t care if you’re a Christian; he wants you to love your neighbor
is a doctrine.

 

[Cat_Herder]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

… This is also a doctrine.

 

[Roy5]

**Naturally, I don’t expect much agreement withn my position **(and that of other millions) on CAF. But I hope it causes a few hard-liners to soften their stanse a bit. A few points.

** 1. Sometimes certain forms of Catholicism seem to place a halo over suffering**…My own experience is that in the lives of many sufferers has led to depression, anger, even suicide or violence. True, suffering comes to everyone, but in my view one of the goals of Christianity should be to relieve suffering when and where possible. Isn’t that what - for example - Catholic Charities is attempting to do?

** 2. It never ceases to amaze me that some people become so hostile toward abortion even in extreme casees (I cited two) but seem to have so little problem with total warfare**. I have a pacifist inclination, frankly, and have a particular admiration for such peace groups as the Quakers and Mennonites. They try to follow the “thou shalt not kill” commandment literally and also echo the words of Jesus that we should even “love our enemies”. Christians generally all but ignore those words from the Sermon on the Mount. Some of the most fervent Catholics and Protestants seem ready to beat the war drums. There always are some ‘excuses’ to bless the warmakers. The reasons for war are complex, of course, but we should remember Ike’s warning against the ‘military-industrial complex’. Ike was in a position to know about that. I had suggested in an earlier posting that dropping the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaski was a serious mistake, when we could have chosen military targets to demonstrate their power. (Not to mention that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the Christian centers of Japan.) Etc. Actually, I’ve found myself moving more and more toward the position taken by conscientious objectors, based on the teachings of Christ, though I am much too old to be drafted, of course.

** 3. I love and admire Fr. McBrien.** Without people like him I might give up entirely on Catholicism. He is a voice of sanity amid so many who want to keep the church chained to immovable ancient and medieval precepts. Sadly, his column has been suspended recently because of his illness. Pray for him - a prophet in our time, trying his best to rescue Catholicism from those who resist each and every reform that needs to be made.

** 4. The Declaration of Independence is fine generally.** I am an avid patriot. On both sides (mainly French-Canadian and English Yankee) my forebearers crossed the Atlantic in the 1600s. An ancestral grandfather was at Bunker Hill and another fought with the Union army. Another was involved in the Patriots War against the English aristocracy in Quebec in 1837. Etc. However, Jefferson who wrote the Declaration and many who signed it were slaveholders. Women, of course, could not vote. In many states only land-holding males were permitted to vote. Often overlooked, too, is the reference to “merciless Indian Savages”. I am 1/16 Algonquin - not enough to run a casino, but enough to be annoyed by such racist stereotyping. The history of North and South America show that the European invaders acted ‘savagely’ at many times, too. So, the Declaration of Independence was a great document generally, but it did not reflect the reality in early America. It was a goal to be achieved, and we have come closer - thank God!

** 5. My continual theme is this: Catholicism needs to become a bigger tent.** Benedict XVI (whom I saw and heard at Yankee Stadium - I have seen and heard in person four Popes, by the way, so I have devoted considerable time thinking about faith concerns) has made it possible for ‘high-church Anglicans’ who object to women clergy to become part of the wider Catholic Church. If such accommodation can be made, perhaps the church could consider become more tolerant of a variety of views. Millions upon millions of Catholics ignore the church’s doctrines anyway. The majority of married Catholics approve of artificial birth control. I saw a poll that 43% of US Catholics don’t believe in transubstantiation. Etc. If such allowances were made, many people (like me) might be less attracted to ‘big tent’ Christianity as we observe in mainline Protestantism.

** 6. I do not for a moment demean those who don’t agree with me, as Paul c seems to suggest.** There always are those who respond to a message by casting aspersions on the messenger. I am simply advocating a different attitude within Catholicism, one less concerned about uniform doctrine, less criticial of those who can’t agree with the Magisterium on this or that matter, more true freedom to ‘think and let think’ - words of John Wesley. Most Catholics I know have that attitude already. I see the Catholic Church as involved in a momentous internal battle, which is not publicly acknowledged. There are those like John Paul II and Benedict XVI, brilliant and able men, but determined to reenforce the hard traditions of the past and repress those who, for example, may want to have a discussion of the marriage of clergy or the ordination of women Deacons. Then there are those (like Fr. McBrien) who are not afraid to challenge hard traditions and, like John XXIII, wish to open the windows of the church and let in more fresh air.

** God bless faithful people of every creed, color and country. Let us work together to make religion a bridge and not a barrier. **

 

[paul_c]

**Naturally, I don’t expect much agreement withn my position **(and that of other millions) on CAF. But I hope it causes a few hard-liners to soften their stanse a bit. A few points.

why are you so presumptuous as to think you represent millions?

** 1. Sometimes certain forms of Catholicism seem to place a halo over suffering**…My own experience is that in the lives of many sufferers has led to depression, anger, even suicide or violence. True, suffering comes to everyone, but in my view one of the goals of Christianity should be to relieve suffering when and where possible. Isn’t that what - for example - Catholic Charities is attempting to do?

We are called to relieve the suffering of others. Those are corporal works of mercy. That isn’t the point. The point is tha then you do suffer, recognize it for what is - one of life’s challenges. I you respond to that challenge with love, you will be greatly esteemed. If you give up hope and become depressed, angry, violent or suicidal, you are failing your test.

** 2. It never ceases to amaze me that some people become so hostile toward abortion even in extreme casees (I cited two) but seem to have so little problem with total warfare**. I have a pacifist inclination, frankly, and have a particular admiration for such peace groups as the Quakers and Mennonites. They try to follow the “thou shalt not kill” commandment literally and also echo the words of Jesus that we should even “love our enemies”. Christians generally all but ignore those words from the Sermon on the Mount. Some of the most fervent Catholics and Protestants seem ready to beat the war drums. There always are some ‘excuses’ to bless the warmakers. The reasons for war are complex, of course, but we should remember Ike’s warning against the ‘military-industrial complex’. Ike was in a position to know about that. I had suggested in an earlier posting that dropping the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaski was a serious mistake, when we could have chosen military targets to demonstrate their power. (Not to mention that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the Christian centers of Japan.) Etc. Actually, I’ve found myself moving more and more toward the position taken by conscientious objectors, based on the teachings of Christ, though I am much too old to be drafted, of course.

The reason that people are hostile to abortion is that it is by definition, taking an innocent life. The reason that some wars are justified is because they are protecting innnocent lives.

** 3. I love and admire Fr. McBrien.** Without people like him I might give up entirely on Catholicism. He is a voice of sanity amid so many who want to keep the church chained to immovable ancient and medieval precepts. Sadly, his column has been suspended recently because of his illness. Pray for him - a prophet in our time, trying his best to rescue Catholicism from those who resist each and every reform that needs to be made.

I have no animosity toward Father McBrien. But there is a difference between reform (which has to do with improving Church practice) and compromising core values which effects doctrine.

** 4. The Declaration of Independence is fine generally.** I am an avid patriot. On both sides (mainly French-Canadian and English Yankee) my forebearers crossed the Atlantic in the 1600s. An ancestral grandfather was at Bunker Hill and another fought with the Union army. Another was involved in the Patriots War against the English aristocracy in Quebec in 1837. Etc. However, Jefferson who wrote the Declaration and many who signed it were slaveholders. Women, of course, could not vote. In many states only land-holding males were permitted to vote. Often overlooked, too, is the reference to “merciless Indian Savages”. I am 1/16 Algonquin - not enough to run a casino, but enough to be annoyed by such racist stereotyping. The history of North and South America show that the European invaders acted ‘savagely’ at many times, too. So, the Declaration of Independence was a great document generally, but it did not reflect the reality in early America. It was a goal to be achieved, and we have come closer - thank God!

The point being made was that you do indeed support doctrines, just ones of your choosing.