From a Moral standpoint

[guanophore]

I’m sure that the Vatican’s canon lawyers know their work very well and I am sure they have researched the issue exhaustively and made it clear to the Pope that there is still a bit of wiggle room regarding the teaching on contraception should the church ever see the need to change it, a loophole that I’m sure the Church is reluctant to close.

If you are willing to make such assertions on a public Catholic forum, then you need to back them up with some evidence. I look forward to reading all the evidence that makes you so “sure” of yourself in this matter.

Also, I am curious what purpose there would be for a “loophole”. On the one hand, you claim that the Church is morally rigid and intractible, now you are claiming the church wants to leave a “loophole”. So, which is it?

I firmly believe that if the Church were to declare either through an ecumenical council or by an ex cathedra statement that the teaching on contraception is infallible and non-negotiable, most Catholics would either accept the teaching and follow it or leave the Church for good.

So, you are admitting that those who refuse to follow the instruction that exists are in a state of rebellion, and have already left the Church by their actions, and only cling to their identity as “Catholic” to prevent themselves from facing the consequences of their actions?

What you don't understand is that most Catholics have no idea what Humanae Vitae is.  I could literally ask 1000 Catholics and less than 100 would have ever heard of it.  Most Catholics simply believe that the teaching on contraception is a discipline and that is reaffirmed by most priests who just tell people to do what they think is right.  I'm 34 and I believed this up until about 5 years ago.

Yes. I agree.

The fact is that if the teaching on contraception IS infallible (which I do not believe, but for the sake of argument…) the only reason the Church doesn’t just formally declare it as such is because they fear the backlash from Catholic parishioners.

HOgwash. The Church is already experiencing the backlash of the rebellion and disobedience of the parishioners.

About 90% of married Catholics practice contraception when they don’t wish to conceive. If it IS an infallible teaching, the Church should come out and say it, and saying that it wouldn’t do any good Guanophore is really just a cop-out.

What do I have to “cop out” on? I am not trying to look for reasons that the Teaching of the Church can be dsobeyed.

 

[guanophore]

The teaching on heresy is quite clear. If a person lives in heresy…they are a heretic by their own words and actions.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

Yes, I agree that the teaching on heresy is quite clear. However, just because a person embraces heresies, that does not qualify them to be a heretic. Some people embrace and live heretical positions because they don’t know any better. T-One just gave a good example above about the Church’s teaching on contraception. She did not understand the nature of the prohibition. I bet she is also right that maybe 10% of Catholics have read Humanae Vitae.

You have stated that you feel entitled to label people as heretics, but you cannot read the heart of a person. It is not for you to say whether they are willful and obstinant. All you can know is that they appear to act and speak as if they are. For all you know, they could be role playing here.

 

[guanophore]

You can preach this until the cows come home guan but it is not true. You don’t need to judge a persons heart to judge their actions. They are separte things entirely.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

I would not go so far as to say they are “entirely” separate. I mean, He did say we will know them by their fruits.

However, I do agree that a person may embrace heresies, and their actions may reflect that, and yet, they may not be heretics.

To call someone a “heretic”, you must be able to determine that they are willful and obstinant in their denial. It seems that you believe you are divinely empowered, gifted, and commissioned with this responsibility, and therefore are uniquely qualified to label others accordingly.

…help me out here. What do you call people who claim to be faithful Catholics that do not believe one or more of the dogmas of the faith?

Why do you have to “call them” anything?

What is to be served by calling names to people?

These terms convey a meaning. A cafeteria-Catholic simply is one that picks and chooses what articles of faith they will believe.

Yes, they do. But who are you to determine the source of their actions? How do you know the person you are accusing is not just play acting for effect?

If a Catholic fails to accept all that has been proposed by the Church, they place themselves outside the Church.

This is just not accurate, Mike. There are many reasons for failure to accept, the most common being a state of poor catechesis. I can testify to this because I lived in that state for decades before I took it upon myself to learn my faith. I was blissfully ignorant. I embraced doctrine I did not even realize was heresy. Such people cannot be charged with the sin of separation, because it does not emanate from willful obstinance, but from ignorance.

For them to present themselves as faithful Catholics in-spike of their dissent spreads scandal and may mislead people who are less well formed in their faith that you can dissent and remain a Catholic in good standing…that is not possible.

Yes, I agree. I vigorously entreat those that come here not to self identify as Catholics for that reason.

 

[guanophore]

MY comprehension? You are the one failing to grasp the secondary object of infallibility after being told about it numerous times. That, or you are being deliberately obtuse.

Anyway, let’s take it slowly and see if you can understand Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was written by PJP as a means of reaffirming to the public the idea that the teaching on the ordination of women had been infallibly taught by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.

IF it had not already been taught infallibly (which many people still argue), Ordinatio Sacerdotalis WOULD NOT constitute on its own an ex cathedra (and therefore infallible) statement that women cannot be ordained. You, on the other hand, were claiming that it would be sufficient, as you used this writing as an example of an ex cathedra statement earlier on, which it is NOT.

For what it is worth, T-One, I agree with you. My point is, since Catholics refuse this infallible teaching from the ordinary Magesterium that hs been held from the time of the Apostles, they will still rebel even if it was expressed differently by the church.
Pope Benedict, in his writings, has made it very clear that he sees the teaching on the ordination of women to be an infallible one by the UOM and not through an ex cathedra statement by PJP II as some (including yourself earlier in this thread) have claimed.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Thoughtfulone;7555794:
I am not in dissent on this issue. I have never studied it, so I really don’t know if it’s an infallible teaching or not and the Magisterium hasn’t said one way or the other (this has been my only argument-that the magisterium needs to be clearer on issues that are hotly debated to put all of this to rest!) I personally don’t think there should be woman priests, so I have never had a real cause to look further into the issue.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

guanophore:
I see your point Guanophore. I guess I am just of the opinion that the Church needs to take some of these issues that are so hotly debated by Catholics and put them to rest once and for all if they really believe these teachings to be infallible. I think that there are a good number of Catholics who think that because something is not defined as infallible, they don’t have to adhere to it (contraception, homosexuality, even abortion!). If the Church would define these things publicly once and for all, it would put all doubt to rest and force these people to confront their beliefs and to confront the fact that perhaps they are practicing the wrong faith if they cannot accept certain teachings. I think that since some Catholics believe that a teaching just MIGHT change one day (or be interpreted differently or expanded) that they are justified in their actions. I know I still hold onto a glimmer of hope that the teaching on contraception or sterilization within marriage will eventually change, and although I adhere to Church teaching, many people with the same hope do not because they see it as an inevitabliity that the Church will someday modify this teaching.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

If you are willing to make such assertions on a public Catholic forum, then you need to back them up with some evidence. I look forward to reading all the evidence that makes you so “sure” of yourself in this matter.

Also, I am curious what purpose there would be for a “loophole”. On the one hand, you claim that the Church is morally rigid and intractible, now you are claiming the church wants to leave a “loophole”. So, which is it?

The cop-out is in saying that the reason the Church won’t declare this teaching to be infallible is because it wouldn’t do any good. The real reason is more likely either 1.) The teaching is NOT in fact infallible and the Church knows that it will eventually be likely to be modified (my personal belief) or 2.) The teaching IS infallible but the Church is reluctant to lose 50% of its parishioners, 50% of its money and doesn’t want to alienate people who are contributing members to their parishes and to Catholic causes simply because they use contraception.

 

[maurin]

Got Humanae Vitae?

 

[guanophore]

I see your point Guanophore. I guess I am just of the opinion that the Church needs to take some of these issues that are so hotly debated by Catholics and put them to rest once and for all if they really believe these teachings to be infallible. I think that there are a good number of Catholics who think that because something is not defined as infallible, they don’t have to adhere to it (contraception, homosexuality, even abortion!).

I agree with you, but this is really a problem with catechesis, rather than ex cathedra statements. The faithful need to be brought to understand that Jesus appointed authority to care for the sheep, and that we are expected to follow the direction of those shepherds. These are issues of accepting authority and obedience. It is not just Catholics who have problems with these areas. It is human nature. God also guides the ordinary magesterium so that they can guide us. It is our responsibility to listen to them and follow their direction.

 If the Church would define these things publicly once and for all, it would put all doubt to rest and force these people to confront their beliefs and to confront the fact that perhaps they are practicing the wrong faith if they cannot accept certain teachings.

It think there is plenty of clarity. People don’t want to hear it. They don’t want to let the “church” into the bedroom. They don’t want to let God be Lord of their reproductive lives.
They suffer from the ubiqutious human condition of “I want what I want when I want it”.

I think that since some Catholics believe that a teaching just MIGHT change one day (or be interpreted differently or expanded) that they are justified in their actions.

And this is the real root of the problem. Disobedience is never justifiable. Even if it were a matter of discipline, we are still expected to follow it.

I know I still hold onto a glimmer of hope that the teaching on contraception or sterilization within marriage will eventually change, and although I adhere to Church teaching, many people with the same hope do not because they see it as an inevitabliity that the Church will someday modify this teaching.

God will bless obedience to authority, even when that authority is missing the mark. It is up to Him to guide the Church into all truth. The faithful are not the ones who have been given the duty to provide the guidance. In short, by disobedience we put ourselves out of His order.

The cop-out is in saying that the reason the Church won’t declare this teaching to be infallible is because it wouldn’t do any good.

Well, think about what you are saying. You already established that the Church’s position on this is considered part of the infallible teaching of the ordinary magesterium. Why do you suppose that this seems to have no effect on people?

 The real reason is more likely either 1.)  The teaching is NOT in fact infallible and the Church knows that it will eventually be likely to be modified (my personal belief)

I think your own quotes of the Holy Father above have demonstrated this is not the case.

or 2.) The teaching IS infallible but the Church is reluctant to lose 50% of its parishioners, 50% of its money and doesn’t want to alienate people who are contributing members to their parishes and to Catholic causes simply because they use contraception.

The Church is more damage spiritually by members of the body living in mortal sin. This prevents the evangelistic mission of the church from going forward, and brings scandal to the faith. God has never been dependent upon the parishioners money to make His church succeed, and He is not now.

Besides, it is not a “simple” matter of usign contraception, it is a much deeper problem related to an attitude of rebellion and disobedience. This attitude is more likely to harm the eternal state of these souls of which the Church has charge. The Church’s first duty is to their souls, not their contributions.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I agree with you, but this is really a problem with catechesis, rather than ex cathedra statements. The faithful need to be brought to understand that Jesus appointed authority to care for the sheep, and that we are expected to follow the direction of those shepherds. These are issues of accepting authority and obedience. It is not just Catholics who have problems with these areas. It is human nature. God also guides the ordinary magesterium so that they can guide us. It is our responsibility to listen to them and follow their direction.

Most Catholics don’t even know what the magisterium is. An ex cathedra statement or an ecumenical council on the matter would have the effect of immediately catechizing the entire world. The problem is that the Church can’t do this because the teaching isn’t infallible.

It think there is plenty of clarity. People don’t want to hear it. They don’t want to let the “church” into the bedroom. They don’t want to let God be Lord of their reproductive lives.
They suffer from the ubiqutious human condition of “I want what I want when I want it”.

I think the Church feels it can better serve the souls of her people by embracing them, warts and all, and I agree. Face it, most priests know that people don’t want to come to Sunday church and hear all about how those who are contracepting are living in sin, so they just don’t talk about it. The reasons are two-fold: 1.) A good number of priests don’t believe in the teaching 2.) Those that do don’t want to lose parishioners over it

 

[guanophore]

Most Catholics don’t even know what the magisterium is.

Yes, and this is the crux of the problem. This is a matter of catechesis. People need to understand that they are to be receptive and obedient to the ordinary Magesterium. It is absurd to demand ex catehedra statements be made over issues just because they are controversial.

The HS guides the Magesterium. If the faithful do not submit to this, then they don’t understand their obligations as CAtholics, or they are in rebellion.

An ex cathedra statement or an ecumenical council on the matter would have the effect of immediately catechizing the entire world. The problem is that the Church can’t do this because the teaching isn’t infallible.

They don"t WANT to, no. But if the Church really thinks this is an infallible teaching and that this is what it takes to be a Catholic, then they are doing a disservice to the people by not emphasizing that and making it unquestionably clear.

How do you suppose that it is “unquestionably clear” to those of us that receive the Teaching from the Magesterium?

When a receptive person reads Humanae Vitae, there is not ambiguity present.

I disagree here. We are thinking human beings, made in God's image. If the Church leaders are missing the mark, it is up to us to make them aware of it, not to just blindly obey. WE are also the Church and we will be held responsible for our own choices regardless of what the Church authorities tell us.

Yes, we are thinking human beings, but our initial position needs to be that God is infallibly leading the Magesterium through the HS, as He promised. That is why I say that people who don’t accept the Teachings don’t trust Jesus. they don’t trust Him to keep His promises to guide the Church into “all Truth”. They think He has become weak, or disinterested, and has left them "orphaned’ contrary to what He promised.

There is a difference between dealing with 'church leaders" in reference to local authorities, and the leadership of the Magesterium, which functions through the Apostolic Succession. It is not the duty of the laity to “make them aware of their mistakes”. Especially before one has educated oneself, and prayerfully been obedient to their instruction.

All the saints have been censured by the Church authorities. Most of those with extraordinary gifts of healing, prophesy etc. were directed to be silent or withdrawn from ministry while their gifts were being investigated for authenticity. All of them submitted to the direction of their authorities, even when they KNEW they were right. They obeyed, and God blessed their obedience with guiding the leadership to see what He hasd revealed to the individual.

NO. I do not think this teaching is considered to be infallible. It is my contention that the Church knows it is not.

Perhaps we are reading Cardinal Ratzinger differently.

God may not be dependent on the $ of parishioners, but the Church sure is. Look at the massive wealth of the Vatican alone.

That is absurd. The vast majority of the Vatican assets are in property, just like they are here in the US. They have museum peices, artwork, etc. Whether or not people contribute would change nothing. They would be less able to provide missionary work.

I think the Church feels it can better serve the souls of her people by embracing them, warts and all, and I agree.

No, the Holy Father was clear that the Church is better served by a faithful few. He is all in favor of a smaller, leaner Church that is pure in belief and actions. He has no use for nominal and cafeteria catholics.

Face it, most priests know that people don’t want to come to Sunday church and hear all about how those who are contracepting are living in sin, so they just don’t talk about it. The reasons are two-fold: 1.) A good number of priests don’t believe in the teaching 2.) Those that do don’t want to lose parishioners over it

I agree, but this is a pastoral problem, not a doctrinal problem. The priests are disobedient, and sometimes, the bishops are as well. Here in my area I am blessed with faithful bishops and many faithful priests who are not afraid to get up and preach it every chance they get.

If they are not going to fulfill their vows to teach according to the deposit of faith, then they need to be reassigned.

If the truth is being withheld out of fear, then they are not walking by the Spirit, but according to the flesh. Unless and until we stop this, then the Church will not function as God intended.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Yes, and this is the crux of the problem. This is a matter of catechesis. People need to understand that they are to be receptive and obedient to the ordinary Magesterium. It is absurd to demand ex catehedra statements be made over issues just because they are controversial.

The HS guides the Magesterium. If the faithful do not submit to this, then they don’t understand their obligations as CAtholics, or they are in rebellion.

Who knows what directives the Vatican gives to the local priests and bishops about what issues to focus on and what issues to just let go? They may be being told flat-out not to focus too much on issues such as contraception for very specific reasons. I think that if the Vatican were to tell the priests once and for all that they had to place this issue at the forefront, they would most certainly do it

 

[Pondero]

Uhhhh WOW…

Some of the stuff I see around this “Christian” forum never ceases to amaze me…

Regarding Debora 123’s criticism of my post:
The only thing we have in common Debora 123 is that we both live or have spent time on Floridas beaches, I just returned from S.W. Florida this weekend after a month of living there. I spent many happy hours on the sands of Nokomis beach - and have wonderful memories of the place.

 

[guanophore]

Who knows what directives the Vatican gives to the local priests and bishops about what issues to focus on and what issues to just let go?

What makes you think this happens at all? The Magesterium gives direction to the bishops, and they to their diocese. I can assure you that there are no directives from “the Vatican” (not sure what you think that means) to ignore sin, or to fail to confront mortal sin in the congregation.

They may be being told flat-out not to focus too much on issues such as contraception for very specific reasons.

No, T-One. But by making such assertions, it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence.

I think that if the Vatican were to tell the priests once and for all that they had to place this issue at the forefront, they would most certainly do it

It no more needs to be in the “forefront” than any other areas of people’s lives that require sanctification. It seems to be in your forefront, for some reason.

 

[guanophore]

Regarding Debora 123’s criticism of my post:
The only thing we have in common Debora 123 is that we both live or have spent time on Floridas beaches, I just returned from S.W. Florida this weekend after a month of living there. I spent many happy hours on the sands of Nokomis beach - and have wonderful memories of the place.

I think you both claim to be Catholic. That is another thing you have in common.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Yes, I agree that the teaching on heresy is quite clear. However, just because a person embraces heresies, that does not qualify them to be a heretic. Some people embrace and live heretical positions because they don’t know any better. T-One just gave a good example above about the Church’s teaching on contraception. She did not understand the nature of the prohibition. I bet she is also right that maybe 10% of Catholics have read Humanae Vitae.

You have stated that you feel entitled to label people as heretics, but you cannot read the heart of a person. It is not for you to say whether they are willful and obstinant. All you can know is that they appear to act and speak as if they are. For all you know, they could be role playing here.

Guan…

We’ve been down this road. It’s too bad that you can’t distinguish the difference between action we all can observe from thoughts that none can see.

You view in this regard are extreme and wrong.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

This is a statement I did not make. I have studied Ordinatio Sacerdotilis fairly extensively and it is indeed infallible as is the underlying teaching of Apostolic Tradition and the constant teaching of the ordinary and universal Magesterum.

Please be more careful to make clear who is saying what.

Thanks,

Iowa Mike

 

[guanophore]

Guan…

We’ve been down this road. It’s too bad that you can’t distinguish the difference between action we all can observe from thoughts that none can see.

You view in this regard are extreme and wrong.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

And that is just the point, isn’t it, Mike? In order to pronounce someone an heretic, you must be able to read their thoughts. You must be able to make a discernment that they are willful and obstinant.

That is why Jesus taught us not to try to uproot the weeds, but to let them grow together until the harvest, and HE will sort them out.

Pronoucing someone a heretic is the same as saying they are hellbound.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Yes, I agree that the teaching on heresy is quite clear. However, just because a person embraces heresies, that does not qualify them to be a heretic. Some people embrace and live heretical positions because they don’t know any better. T-One just gave a good example above about the Church’s teaching on contraception. She did not understand the nature of the prohibition. I bet she is also right that maybe 10% of Catholics have read Humanae Vitae.

You have stated that you feel entitled to label people as heretics, but you cannot read the heart of a person. It is not for you to say whether they are willful and obstinant. All you can know is that they appear to act and speak as if they are. For all you know, they could be role playing here.

It’s not my label…they label themselves. If you believe in abortion and obstinately and persistantly oppose the teachings of the Church. In the process you posture that you are an ardent and faithful Catholic…you fit the defiinition of a heretic.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[guanophore]

It’s not my label…they label themselves.

No, they don’t, Mike. It is true that a heretic does condemn themselves by their actions, but I think if you were to look into the history of this term, you would find that the vast majority of persons so guilty do not think of themselves, or label themselves heretics. It becomes your label when you apply it to another person.

You seem to feel a strong need to call names to such persons.

If you believe in abortion and obstinately and persistantly oppose the teachings of the Church. In the process you posture that you are an ardent and faithful Catholic…you fit the defiinition of a heretic.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

It certainly appears to outsiders as that is the case, no doubt. What do you hope to gain by trying to pull up such weeds?