So I met with the deacon of my parish today.
To paraphrase, he said:
- There is no requirement in Catholicism that we vote against SSM and abortion rights. If gay people love each other, they should be able to get civilly married. The only thing that is required for Catholics is that priests do not perform the sacrament of matrimony for a gay couple. (Which has been my thesis on CAF)
Cali - do you recall reading a document (from the relevant Vatican authority) posted on CAF that declared the obligations of Catholics in respect of these matters? Did the good Deacon mention that to you? I have trouble believing that a Deacon could be this ignorant, or would utter these ideas were he not ignorant of the facts.
*“10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.”*Source:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
- … Although Catholics are opposed to abortion, there is room for a policy that allows abortion in some circumstances, including protecting women from dangerous underground abortions. (Another thesis of mine on CAF)
This is expressed as a personal view. Did the good Deacon mention that the Church has never expressed such a view? Did he direct you to any authentic Church teaching on the subject, such as:
*14. Divine law and natural reason, therefore, exclude all right to the direct killing of an innocent man. However, if the reasons given to justify an abortion were always manifestly evil and valueless the problem would not be so dramatic. The gravity of the problem comes from the fact that in certain cases, perhaps in quite a considerable number of cases, by denying abortion one endangers important values to which it is normal to attach great value, and which may sometimes even seem to have priority. We do not deny these very great difficulties. It may be a serious question of health, sometimes of life or death, for the mother; it may be the burden represented by an additional child, especially if there are good reasons to fear that the child will be abnormal or retarded; it may be the importance attributed in different classes of society to considerations of honor or dishonor, of loss of social standing, and so forth. We proclaim only that none of these reasons can ever objectively confer the right to dispose of another’s life, even when that life is only beginning. With regard to the future unhappiness of the child, no one, not even the father or mother, can act as its substitute- even if it is still in the embryonic stage- to choose in the child’s name, life or death. The child itself, when grown up, will never have the right to choose suicide; no more may his parents choose death for the child while it is not of an age to decide for itself. Life is too fundamental a value to be weighed against even very serious disadvantages.[21]*Source:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html
See also: CCC 2270-2271
- People need to consult with their informed conscience when making decisions, including those about contraception. If their informed consciences lead them to a certain direction, it is okay, even if there is written doctrine elsewhere that says it is a sin.
Did the good Deacon suggest that an “informed conscience” can be diametrically opposed to Church doctrine of which you are fully aware? The following may guide you on this topic - you might like to read it, and the references it makes to the CCC and other documents.
cuf.org/2004/04/going-gods-way-the-churchs-teaching-on-moral-conscience/
4) The Church is a big church and there is room for conservative and liberal.
- All that matters is that we have a relationship with God, no matter what our faith is. This is because when we meet God when we die, God will not ask whether we were Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, etc. All He will ask is whether we lived a virtuous life. That is why cafeteria Catholicism is okay.
I don’t believe one is doomed for being in the “wrong” Church. That is not the same as choosing a Church on the wrong grounds, or departing from the moral principles that don’t suit.
- Vatican II was a much need liberalization of the Church, to bring in fresh air, according to John XXIII. Since then, conservatives have attempted to undermine it, and were almost successful with the election of Benedict. Benedict reversed much of the progress of Vatican II, and Francis is allowing the Church to move forward again. (The program directors are quite enthusiastic about Vatican II.)
Vatican II was in the early 60s. Many changes to various practice and disciplines were promulgated - doctrines were not changed. Some people strenuously object to the Mass not being always in Latin and there are “conservatives” who’d like to go back to that. So?
- In almost all divorce situations, one can make a finding that there never was a valid marriage to begin with, often due to immaturity and lack of knowledge of the sacrament of matrimony.
Another personal opinion I suppose?
I was really upset about #3, #5, and #6. Any thoughts? Told you this RCIA program was vanilla. If what this deacon said was true, was all the posting I’ve done on CAF over the last few years all for nothing??
The statements attributed to the Deacon depart from Catholic teaching in several ways.