How to Answer Catholics who want reforms such as a married priesthood etc

[Zeno11]

Would be grateful if anyone could help me answer these points, as I am trying but not doing very well!

This person is arguing that when all the" ‘liberal’ priests and ‘progressive’ religious and those members of the general laity who, in good conscience, cannot accept certain teachings of the Magesterium, cannot force themselves to cease their own reflecting and bow to the ways thinking and acting that are acceptable to “head office” leave the church, it will be a small, fundamentalist sect, rather than catholic and inclusive’".

They go on to say:
"I cannot see eye to eye with thinking, reflective people who believe that any institution can have the authority to order other thinking, reflective people “You must believe this. You must accept this and you can’t even talk about it. If you cannot force your conscience into accepting it, you are wrong and you don’t belong here” and finally

"When all the liberals have left, here is tremendous relief, first of all. The people who sit in the pews can feel confident that those on either side of them share their world view. They do not have to worry that some day they might have to attend a Mass that is celebrated by a married man, or a woman! They do not have to fear that there may be “failed” Catholics, who are living in sin by cohabiting, going up to receive Communion. And they certainly don’t have to concern themselves with the horror that there might be practicing homosexuals among the ranks participating in the Sacraments!’

Well, when I have tried to answer these points, I have been accused of being against freedom of thought and expression, an unthinking drone, and someone who wants the church to be an exclusive, pure religion with no room for freedom of thought or expression, and even against Christ and sinners. Help!
’

 

[bilop]

Would be grateful if anyone could help me answer these points, as I am trying but not doing very well!

This person is arguing that when all the" ‘liberal’ priests and ‘progressive’ religious and those members of the general laity who, in good conscience, cannot accept certain teachings of the Magesterium, cannot force themselves to cease their own reflecting and bow to the ways thinking and acting that are acceptable to “head office” leave the church, it will be a small, fundamentalist sect, rather than catholic and inclusive’".

They go on to say:
"I cannot see eye to eye with thinking, reflective people who believe that any institution can have the authority to order other thinking, reflective people “You must believe this. You must accept this and you can’t even talk about it. If you cannot force your conscience into accepting it, you are wrong and you don’t belong here” and finally

"When all the liberals have left, here is tremendous relief, first of all. The people who sit in the pews can feel confident that those on either side of them share their world view. They do not have to worry that some day they might have to attend a Mass that is celebrated by a married man, or a woman! They do not have to fear that there may be “failed” Catholics, who are living in sin by cohabiting, going up to receive Communion. And they certainly don’t have to concern themselves with the horror that there might be practicing homosexuals among the ranks participating in the Sacraments!’

Well, when I have tried to answer these points, I have been accused of being against freedom of thought and expression, an unthinking drone, and someone who wants the church to be an exclusive, pure religion with no room for freedom of thought or expression, and even against Christ and sinners. Help!
’

I’m not sure which points you are actually trying to rebut.

However, I will point out one thing; ordaining married men is not of a kind with other things “progressives” favor (e.g. women “priests”, changing rules on sexuality, etc.).

The Church currently ordains married men in most non-Latin Churches, and in the Latin Church for converting Protestant ministers. The Pope could allow the unfettered ordination of married men tomorrow, if he thought that was a good idea. Celibacy for the clergy is strictly a disciplinary matter, subject to change at the Pope’s discretion.

The other things are doctrine and dogma, not up to debate.

God Bless

 

[Mary_Fleurdelis]

Celibacy for the clergy is strictly a disciplinary matter, subject to change at the Pope’s discretion.

The other things are doctrine and dogma, not up to debate.

That’s what I have a problem explaining to people. Many Catholics do not know the difference between the laws of the Church and the laws of God. Or whenever I say words such as “Catechism” or “New Covenant”, people look at me like I’m speaking in tongues.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

That’s what I have a problem explaining to people. Many Catholics do not know the difference between the laws of the Church and the laws of God. Or whenever I say words such as “Catechism” or “New Covenant”, people look at me like I’m speaking in tongues.

That’s when you know you’re not going to get anywhere in an argument. Just walk away.

 

[Bballer32]

I have a few answers on the Married Priests…

Show them 1 Corinthians 7:32-34

Now, if you wanna hear the answer coming from a former protestant pastor read passage below

Jeff Cavins, who is a great defender of the faith, was a former prostestant pastor for about 10 years. When he and his wife converted to Catholicism, he was given the option of becoming a priest and remaining married. He told the Church that he would think about it.

A few days later, while praying, a thought came to his head. A married man has many challenges that a priest doesn’t have, and a priest has many challenges that a married man doesn’t have. So, he came to the conclusion that each person should only have one vocation due to the physical, mental, and spiritual stress that these numerous challenges can bring upon a double vocationed man.

And for something on homosexuality, just tell them to read the bible.

 

[sw85]

Would be grateful if anyone could help me answer these points, as I am trying but not doing very well!

This person is arguing that when all the" ‘liberal’ priests and ‘progressive’ religious and those members of the general laity who, in good conscience, cannot accept certain teachings of the Magesterium, cannot force themselves to cease their own reflecting and bow to the ways thinking and acting that are acceptable to “head office” leave the church, it will be a small, fundamentalist sect, rather than catholic and inclusive’".

They go on to say:
"I cannot see eye to eye with thinking, reflective people who believe that any institution can have the authority to order other thinking, reflective people “You must believe this. You must accept this and you can’t even talk about it. If you cannot force your conscience into accepting it, you are wrong and you don’t belong here” and finally

"When all the liberals have left, here is tremendous relief, first of all. The people who sit in the pews can feel confident that those on either side of them share their world view. They do not have to worry that some day they might have to attend a Mass that is celebrated by a married man, or a woman! They do not have to fear that there may be “failed” Catholics, who are living in sin by cohabiting, going up to receive Communion. And they certainly don’t have to concern themselves with the horror that there might be practicing homosexuals among the ranks participating in the Sacraments!’

Well, when I have tried to answer these points, I have been accused of being against freedom of thought and expression, an unthinking drone, and someone who wants the church to be an exclusive, pure religion with no room for freedom of thought or expression, and even against Christ and sinners. Help!
’

In other words, you have been accused by liberals of not being liberal enough. Who cares? Forget those idiots and walk away.

Look, it’s like this. None of the Church’s dogmas, doctrines, or disciplines popped out of the vacuum. The Church’s intellectual tradition goes back 2400 years or so. It includes pre-Christians like Aristotle and Plato. It’s the product of centuries upon centuries of thought by thousands of holy men, theological doctors, saints, and martyrs, who were consecrated by God and devoted their lives to prayerful contemplation of truth, and at least one of whom was blessed for his labors with a miraculous encounter with God Himself. But move over, everyone! Father Flake is here – he’s thought about eternity for all of 25 minutes and boy does he have some insight to share!

pfffth Who cares? He’s an ignoramus prejudiced by the spirit of the age. He’s no Aquinas, no Augustine, no Gregory the Great. To think the Church, protected from error by Christ, has gotten everything wrong for 2400 years and you alone have it all figured out is monstrous, monumental hubris. I immediately shut my mind to such idiots the moment they open their mouths.

As for “free-thinking,” pfeh. I pray daily for an increase in everything the infanticidal and sexually depraved modern world hates, including intolerance, prudishness, and narrow-mindedness, and God sees fit to grant me these gifts (for He is so generous, and whosoever asks shall be rewarded). “Free thinking” is invariably the cat-call of the abortionist. To Hell with it – literally.

 

[Zeno11]

Thanks for your answers. I am trying to refute these arguments:
These people think the church is misogynistic for not allowing women priests, and that it is un-Christ-like to not allow people to receive Communion if they are living with a partner or a practising homosexual, or using contraception etc, because Jesus welcomes all at His table, and free thinking intellectuals like themselves will abandon the Church and reduce us to a fundamentalist sect. My response was that if you consider yourself to be a Catholic, you should be striving to follow the teachings of Christ; that sin does exist, and that although Christ wishes us all to be saved, that means we keep his commandments etc. They accused me of being intolerant and against freedom of speech and thought, and say they just want to be accepted with their views as part of the Catholic family, and that for them to be denied that right means the church is no longer universal and therefore ‘anti-Christ’.
Maybe I should just leave them to it, but I think a lot of people are being swayed by their arguments, so I would like to present a strong case.

 

[Zeno11]

In other words, you have been accused by liberals of not being liberal enough. Who cares? Forget those idiots and walk away.

Look, it’s like this. None of the Church’s dogmas, doctrines, or disciplines popped out of the vacuum. The Church’s intellectual tradition goes back 2400 years or so. It includes pre-Christians like Aristotle and Plato. It’s the product of centuries upon centuries of thought by thousands of holy men, theological doctors, saints, and martyrs, who were consecrated by God and devoted their lives to prayerful contemplation of truth, and at least one of whom was blessed for his labors with a miraculous encounter with God Himself. But move over, everyone! Father Flake is here – he’s thought about eternity for all of 25 minutes and boy does he have some insight to share!

pfffth Who cares? He’s an ignoramus prejudiced by the spirit of the age. He’s no Aquinas, no Augustine, no Gregory the Great. To think the Church, protected from error by Christ, has gotten everything wrong for 2400 years and you alone have it all figured out is monstrous, monumental hubris. I immediately shut my mind to such idiots the moment they open their mouths.

As for “free-thinking,” pfeh. I pray daily for an increase in everything the infanticidal and sexually depraved modern world hates, including intolerance, prudishness, and narrow-mindedness, and God sees fit to grant me these gifts (for He is so generous, and whosoever asks shall be rewarded). “Free thinking” is invariably the cat-call of the abortionist. To Hell with it – literally.

Thank you I know this is true. The reason it’s upsetting me so much is that this debate is currently going on in Ireland, my homeland, in a debate for ‘reform’ of the church there. I only wish they were crying out for a reform to the traditional church, but it seems to be completely the other way. A lot of people are being led into serious error and I find it quite heart breaking.

 

[Hokomai]

I think there are a number of trends in the Church which are best described as ‘cult tendencies’. (And I mean that in the modern sense of cult: a group requiring non-thinking obedience, and a strong distinction between those inside and those outside). These tendencies exist among so-called liberals and among so-called traditionalists. You can see plenty of evidence on this and other Catholic discussion forums. A particular manifestation is the phenomenon of intense concern and speculation about others’ sex lives, and the degree to which elaborate rituals are carried out. I don’t have particularly strong views about whether ‘cult’ beliefs and practices are to be referred more or less than other religious beliefs but from the outside these tendencies are easy to observe. The OP’s friends are seeing the same thing, and they are certainly right that in cults, people get happier the more they develop the sense of ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’.

 

[Heuchler]

Just to put it simply, you’ll have to use logic or the Bible. You can point out that celibacy is considered better than married life and things like that or make a logical argument against married priests. However, I am not against the idea of married priests. This is simply a ritual within the latin rite of Catholicism and is not as serious as something like if Mary was born of a virgin birth or not. In fact, Eastern Catholicism has married priests. However, I will never go against Mother Church and will always trust her decisions for the Latin rite especially in the decisions concerning her priests. So, good luck God bless, see you around.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I think there are a number of trends in the Church which are best described as ‘cult tendencies’. (And I mean that in the modern sense of cult: a group requiring non-thinking obedience, and a strong distinction between those inside and those outside). These tendencies exist among so-called liberals and among so-called traditionalists. You can see plenty of evidence on this and other Catholic discussion forums. A particular manifestation is the phenomenon of intense concern and speculation about others’ sex lives, and the degree to which elaborate rituals are carried out. I don’t have particularly strong views about whether ‘cult’ beliefs and practices are to be referred more or less than other religious beliefs but from the outside these tendencies are easy to observe. The OP’s friends are seeing the same thing, and they are certainly right that in cults, people get happier the more they develop the sense of ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’.

I want to know why you are here. Calling our faith a cult is against forum rules.

 

[livingwordunity]

It’s harder to accept that bread becomes the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit than it is to believe in any of the other teachings of the Church. That’s why I’ve noticed that those who reject the authority of the Church to teach on things like ordination or morality also have a lack of faith in the Real Presence. It would make no sense to believe that the Holy Spirit gives power to the bishops and priests of the Catholic Church to confect the Eucharist but not believe that the same Holy Spirit gives infallible teaching authority to the same Church.

 

[EricFilmer]

I think there are a number of trends in the Church which are best described as ‘cult tendencies’…

A particular manifestation is the phenomenon of intense concern and speculation about others’ sex lives…

Hmmm, this happens in many court trials as well.

…and the degree to which elaborate rituals are carried out.

And this also happens in our courts (as well as with the rest of our government). So by your definition, the U.S. judicial system is a cult. Who would have thought!

 

[highcalling]

The Church has always ordained married men in every generation. However they must maintain monogamy and not marry after ordination. So as has been said, this issue should not be lumped into the desires of the modernists without proper clarification.

Would be grateful if anyone could help me answer these points, as I am trying but not doing very well!

This person is arguing that when all the" ‘liberal’ priests and ‘progressive’ religious and those members of the general laity who, in good conscience, cannot accept certain teachings of the Magesterium, cannot force themselves to cease their own reflecting and bow to the ways thinking and acting that are acceptable to “head office” leave the church, it will be a small, fundamentalist sect, rather than catholic and inclusive’".

They go on to say:
"I cannot see eye to eye with thinking, reflective people who believe that any institution can have the authority to order other thinking, reflective people “You must believe this. You must accept this and you can’t even talk about it. If you cannot force your conscience into accepting it, you are wrong and you don’t belong here” and finally

"When all the liberals have left, here is tremendous relief, first of all. The people who sit in the pews can feel confident that those on either side of them share their world view. They do not have to worry that some day they might have to attend a Mass that is celebrated by a married man, or a woman! They do not have to fear that there may be “failed” Catholics, who are living in sin by cohabiting, going up to receive Communion. And they certainly don’t have to concern themselves with the horror that there might be practicing homosexuals among the ranks participating in the Sacraments!’

Well, when I have tried to answer these points, I have been accused of being against freedom of thought and expression, an unthinking drone, and someone who wants the church to be an exclusive, pure religion with no room for freedom of thought or expression, and even against Christ and sinners. Help!
’

 

[aicirt]

Thanks for your answers. I am trying to refute these arguments:
These people think the church is misogynistic for not allowing women priests, and that it is un-Christ-like to not allow people to receive Communion if they are living with a partner or a practising homosexual, or using contraception etc, because Jesus welcomes all at His table, and free thinking intellectuals like themselves will abandon the Church and reduce us to a fundamentalist sect. My response was that if you consider yourself to be a Catholic, you should be striving to follow the teachings of Christ; that sin does exist, and that although Christ wishes us all to be saved, that means we keep his commandments etc. They accused me of being intolerant and against freedom of speech and thought, and say they just want to be accepted with their views as part of the Catholic family, and that for them to be denied that right means the church is no longer universal and therefore ‘anti-Christ’.
Maybe I should just leave them to it, but I think a lot of people are being swayed by their arguments, so I would like to present a strong case.

I don’t want women priests. I think it is pagan. And I don’t see the Church putting women down. What other Church has statues to women? Has three as Doctors of the Church. Have women who have founded orders, run hospitals, run schools and universities.

If they disagree with the Church, there are many others to chose from. And if push comes to shove and they don’t like the rules there, they’re free to form their own churches. Since the Protestant Reformation 500 years ago, those churches have splintered into 30,000 in the US alone.

No you are not free to participate in communion if you have not confessed your sins. It is in the Bible. You must go to confession before receiving in a Catholic church.

If they don’t like the rules, why do they want to come to communion?

Hetrosexuals commit sin. It can be of lust, inappropriate sexual behavior, adultery,fornication, and/or perversion. All must be confessed. Why do they think a homosexual gets a free pass? Just as a man is guilty of sin if he lusts after another man’s wife, so a homosexual is guilty of sin if he lusts after another man. Both have problems and both have to stop. The idea that a homosexual is born that way is moot. A hetrosexual is born with certain inclinations and must act against them. Same for the homosexual.

 

[Hokomai]

Hmmm, this happens in many court trials as well.

And this also happens in our courts (as well as with the rest of our government). So by your definition, the U.S. judicial system is a cult. Who would have thought!

Well yes, so it appears and often, to much of the rest of the world. good point.

 

[Hokomai]

I want to know why you are here. Calling our faith a cult is against forum rules.

I have explained many times why I am here and a quick search of my posts will remind you. If you want more detail, please PM me, as I am sure others have grown tired of my replies. I did not call the Catholic Church a cult, and nothing I said may be reasonably interpreted in that way.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I have explained many times why I am here and a quick search of my posts will remind you. If you want more detail, please PM me, as I am sure others have grown tired of my replies. I did not call the Catholic Church a cult, and nothing I said may be reasonably interpreted in that way.

I don’t really feel like searching your posts. I want to know why someone who is “Not a believer” is haunting a Catholic forum IMPLYING that the Catholic Church is a cult. Your info says you have been a member since 2004. That’s 8 years of your life, are you ready to convert yet?

 

[Hokomai]

I don’t really feel like searching your posts. I want to know why someone who is “Not a believer” is haunting a Catholic forum IMPLYING that the Catholic Church is a cult. Your info says you have been a member since 2004. That’s 8 years of your life, are you ready to convert yet?

Well, at the risk of annoying those who have heard this many times: I am interested in belief: what it is, how it happens, and what relationship it has to observable reality. This is a good place to come for two reasons. First, people are willing to talk about their beliefs. Secondly, because I was raised as a Catholic (and knew quite a bit about it when I believed), it is easier for me to understand the beliefs expressed here. I also have an abiding interest in the Catholic Church and its activities, even though I am not a believer. I also like Catholics as people (on average more than people who are not Catholics, but no, not all of them!) and still find some usefulness in (some) Church thought as a guide to moral thinking. So should I ever be ready I will be a revert, rather than a convert. And, of course, nothing I have said has implied that the Catholic Church is a cult, or could reasonably be taken to infer this. A sign of the fact that it is not a cult is that I am welcomed on CAF.