Illinois bishop faces challenging audience at talk on same-sex marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Church has remained strong, and will continue to do so, by not allowing the questioners, or the questioning, to change the answer.

It will be the island that you swim back to in eventuality. But go ahead, you go for your swim.
My swim? I’m not sure I understand your metaphor here. Not asking questions and accepting everything without hesitation isn’t good faith – it’s blind and unreflective faith. Questioning strengthens faith. Or at least it can when one isn’t immediately branded heretical for raising his or her hand.

Why should any Catholic fear questions? CAF is full of posters who state that they know the Church will “win” the argument eventually. What’s there to be afraid of then?
 
Not asking questions and accepting everything without hesitation isn’t good faith – it’s blind and unreflective faith. Questioning strengthens faith. Or at least it can when one isn’t immediately branded heretical for raising his or her hand.

Why should any Catholic fear questions? CAF is full of posters who state that they know the Church will “win” the argument eventually. What’s there to be afraid of then?
A genuine seeking is honorable, but a contentious and belligerent spirit is not. We are to submit our intellect to Divine Revelation (which God has given to us through His Church) and faith (the free gift from God) aids our reasoning and brings us to God’s truth, **not our own. **
Authentic Christian faith does not limit human liberty and reason. Instead, “faith supports reason and perfection; and reason, illuminated by faith, finds strength to raise itself to the knowledge of God.”
~Pope Benedict XVI~
 
A genuine seeking is honorable, but a contentious and belligerent spirit is not. We are to submit our intellect to Divine Revelation (which God has given to us through His Church) and faith (the free gift from God) aids our reasoning and brings us to God’s truth, **not our own. **
I’m not advocating a contentious and belligerent spirit. In fact, in other threads, I’ve recommended an intensive and ongoing investigation into the Church’s teachings on a variety of subjects, counsel with a spiritual director and credible teachers, etc.

Of course, none of this means that one will ultimately be compelled to “submit,” but an informed conscience can be achieved this way nonetheless.
 
I can’t think how my personal views are relevant here. But if you can show that they are relevant, I’ll happily answer.
I’m just curious if you would make an effort to persuade someone who supports same-sex “marriage” that the Church’s teaching is correct.

I suspect that you wouldn’t, but that is just my opinion. If you don’t want to say one way or the other, and I am betting that you won’t, I’m ok with that. I’ll just continue with my belief that you oppose the Church.

I don’t need you to show me how my personal view on this topic is relevant, I’ll gladly tell you. There is no such thing as same-sex “marriage”. Any attempt to normalize a deviant behavior is sinful and cannot be supported by the Church. The only purpose of the efforts to make same-sex “marriage” legal is to normalize deviant behavior.

I really couldn’t care less what public polls say. Truth isn’t based on public opinion.

Peace

Tim
 
I’m not advocating a contentious and belligerent spirit. In fact, in other threads, I’ve recommended an intensive and ongoing investigation into the Church’s teachings on a variety of subjects, counsel with a spiritual director and credible teachers, etc.
Investigation? The Church has already clearly spoken on this matter and the subject is closed for those who assent to Truth. Do you understand what the Magisterium is? You may, of course, find spiritual directors, credible teachers, theologians and even dissident clerics who will agree with your opposition, but their opinion is just that. Individual opinion is not the teaching authority of the Church and never will be.
Of course, none of this means that one will ultimately be compelled to “submit,” but an informed conscience can be achieved this way nonetheless.
You are correct - the Lord has given us free will to indicate to Him our choice - whether to follow Him and His teachings or reject them.
 
I really couldn’t care less what public polls say.
👍

The Church doesn’t care either! I’ve never understood why those in such disaccord with her teachings think that because so many have deviated from the Lord’s path, that things will somehow change.
 
👍

The Church doesn’t care either! I’ve never understood why those in such disaccord with her teachings think that because so many have deviated from the Lord’s path, that things will somehow change.
Same here. Don’t get me wrong, I think polls can be very useful tools in gauging where people are at. But the results don’t inform the content of Catholic teaching. They just show us what areas we need to emphasize more in our catechetical and evangelistic efforts.
 
Investigation? The Church has already clearly spoken on this matter and the subject is closed for those who assent to Truth. Do you understand what the Magisterium is? You may, of course, find spiritual directors, credible teachers, theologians and even dissident clerics who will agree with your opposition, but their opinion is just that. Individual opinion is not the teaching authority of the Church and never will be.

You are correct - the Lord has given us free will to indicate to Him our choice - whether to follow Him and His teachings or reject them.
No investigation? You have a strange way of going about faith development. Without investigation, faith becomes indoctrination.
I’m just curious if you would make an effort to persuade someone who supports same-sex “marriage” that the Church’s teaching is correct.

I suspect that you wouldn’t, but that is just my opinion. If you don’t want to say one way or the other, and I am betting that you won’t, I’m ok with that. I’ll just continue with my belief that you oppose the Church.

I don’t need you to show me how my personal view on this topic is relevant, I’ll gladly tell you. There is no such thing as same-sex “marriage”. Any attempt to normalize a deviant behavior is sinful and cannot be supported by the Church. The only purpose of the efforts to make same-sex “marriage” legal is to normalize deviant behavior.

I really couldn’t care less what public polls say. Truth isn’t based on public opinion.

Peace

Tim
So curiosity is the reason for the question. I do believe that the Church’s teachings on homosexuality in general are seriously flawed. I’m well aware of the claims that follow such a statement here at CAF (“You’re not really Catholic!” “Get out of *my *Church!” “You’re advocating sin and damnation!”) so no need to repeat them all unless doing so makes you feel better. I answered your question so as not to be rude. But it truly has no bearing here. It’s still a mistake for the Church to expect the faithful to swallow their questions without engaging in discussion of them. I have investigated (sorry, Tigg) a number of issues in the Church that I was unsure of or unclear on – and in all but this one area, my investigations and discussions have led me to see the truth in the Magisterium. It is possible that someone may reject the Church after such discussions – but refusing to have them in the first place would make me flee the Church as an irrational institution that is more interested in indoctrination that catechesis.
 
Bishop Paprocki was interviewed on Sheila Liaugminas’ A Closer Look show earlier today. Haven’t listened to it yet. But here is MP3.
 
I speak only for myself here. There was period of time when I ignored the church and many of its teachings, at least, I understood that I ignored the teachings I was aware of. When the decision to return to the church was made before my marriage, I understood that to be part of the church I had to conform willingly to what the church taught and what I knew in my heart to be correct. To do this I read, approached my priest and joined CAF to increase my awareness of where I was going wrong and to bring myself in line with church teachings. I could never have come back to the church while thinking that any of its teachings were wrong, I could only return knowing mine were wrong and it was up to me to investigate why they were and change accordingly. While the road back has not always been easy, I thank God every day that I have especially as my husband became a Catholic after attending one Mass with me and the most joyous times is when we are all together as a family at Mass.
 
No investigation? You have a strange way of going about faith development. Without investigation, faith becomes indoctrination.

So curiosity is the reason for the question. I do believe that the Church’s teachings on homosexuality in general are seriously flawed. I’m well aware of the claims that follow such a statement here at CAF (“You’re not really Catholic!” “Get out of *my *Church!” “You’re advocating sin and damnation!”) so no need to repeat them all unless doing so makes you feel better. I answered your question so as not to be rude. But it truly has no bearing here. It’s still a mistake for the Church to expect the faithful to swallow their questions without engaging in discussion of them. I have investigated (sorry, Tigg) a number of issues in the Church that I was unsure of or unclear on – and in all but this one area, my investigations and discussions have led me to see the truth in the Magisterium. It is possible that someone may reject the Church after such discussions – but refusing to have them in the first place would make me flee the Church as an irrational institution that is more interested in indoctrination that catechesis.
Is the Church the authority or are you the authority?
 
No investigation? You have a strange way of going about faith development. Without investigation, faith becomes indoctrination.
I much prefer the words: prayer and study. Without prayer, studying can be flawed and one will never receive the grace to accept His teachings with faith .
I do believe that the Church’s teachings on homosexuality in general are seriously flawed.
Now we’re getting somewhere. My truth, My opinion, My own intellect!!

Sounds amazingly like moral relativism to me.
:rolleyes:
 
I speak only for myself here. There was period of time when I ignored the church and many of its teachings, at least, I understood that I ignored the teachings I was aware of. When the decision to return to the church was made before my marriage, I understood that to be part of the church I had to conform willingly to what the church taught and what I knew in my heart to be correct. To do this I read, approached my priest and joined CAF to increase my awareness of where I was going wrong and to bring myself in line with church teachings. I could never have come back to the church while thinking that any of its teachings were wrong, I could only return knowing mine were wrong and it was up to me to investigate why they were and change accordingly. While the road back has not always been easy, I thank God every day that I have especially as my husband became a Catholic after attending one Mass with me and the most joyous times is when we are all together as a family at Mass.
I think that’s great, Jacky! I’m genuinely happy for you that you’re in lockstep with the Church. This part of your response is most interesting to me: “I understood that to be part of the church I had to conform willingly to what the church taught and what I knew in my heart to be correct.” Again, I’m genuinely happy that what you know in your heart to be correct is also what the Church teaches. Regarding this single issue, I’m unable to say the same. It would be easier for me to change my fingerprints than to change my beliefs regarding homosexuality – I would have to violate my conscience to do so. Imagine if when you returned to the Church, you found that abortion was not considered immoral and was permitted. I imagine it would be impossible for you to accept the Church’s teachings in this area because doing so would be a deep violation of your conscience.

But regardless, I appreciate your witness. God bless.
I much prefer the words: prayer and study. Without prayer, studying can be flawed and one will never receive the grace to accept His teachings with faith .

Now we’re getting somewhere. My truth, My opinion, My own intellect!!

Sounds amazingly like moral relativism to me.
Code:
       :rolleyes:
But actually, we’re not getting somewhere. My personal views are not relevant to my point regarding the allowance of questioning. As I mentioned earlier, I answered the question about my views so as not to be rude – but it’s not what’s at issue here.

(And I do trust that everyone knows that relativism isn’t the natural opposite of Catholicism.)
 
(And I do trust that everyone knows that relativism isn’t the natural opposite of Catholicism.)
Not so much.
According to some, it appears that one no longer need acknowledge the enduring absoluteness of any moral value. All around us we encounter contempt for human life after conception and before birth; the ongoing violation of basic rights of the person; the unjust destruction of goods minimally necessary for a human life. Indeed, something more serious has happened: man is no longer convinced that only in the truth can he find salvation. The saving power of the truth is contested, and freedom alone, uprooted from any objectivity, is left to decide by itself what is good and what is evil. This relativism becomes, in the field of theology, a lack of trust in the wisdom of God, who guides man with the moral law. Concrete situations are unfavourably contrasted with the precepts of the moral law, nor is it any longer maintained that, when all is said and done, the law of God is always the one true good of man".

John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (1993), 84

In the political sphere, it must be noted that truthfulness in the relations between those governing and those governed, openness in public administration, impartiality in the service of the body politic, respect for the rights of political adversaries, safeguarding the rights of the accused against summary trials and convictions, the just and honest use of public funds, the rejection of equivocal or illicit means in order to gain, preserve or increase power at any cost — all these are principles which are primarily rooted in, and in fact derive their singular urgency from, the transcendent value of the person and the objective moral demands of the functioning of States.160 When these principles are not observed, the very basis of political coexistence is weakened and the life of society itself is gradually jeopardized, threatened and doomed to decay (cf. Ps 14:3-4; Rev 18:2-3, 9-24). Today, when many countries have seen the fall of ideologies which bound politics to a totalitarian conception of the world — Marxism being the foremost of these — there is no less grave a danger that the fundamental rights of the human person will be denied and that the religious yearnings which arise in the heart of every human being will be absorbed once again into politics. This is the risk of an alliance between democracy and ethical relativism, which would remove any sure moral reference point from political and social life, and on a deeper level make the acknowledgement of truth impossible. Indeed, “if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism”.

Ibid, 101

Since you appear to be confused on the subject, you may wish to read the entire encyclical, as it deals with Certain Fundamental Questions of the Church’s Moral Teaching.
 
Not so much.
According to some, it appears that one no longer need acknowledge the enduring absoluteness of any moral value. All around us we encounter contempt for human life after conception and before birth; the ongoing violation of basic rights of the person; the unjust destruction of goods minimally necessary for a human life. Indeed, something more serious has happened: man is no longer convinced that only in the truth can he find salvation. The saving power of the truth is contested, and freedom alone, uprooted from any objectivity, is left to decide by itself what is good and what is evil. This relativism becomes, in the field of theology, a lack of trust in the wisdom of God, who guides man with the moral law. Concrete situations are unfavourably contrasted with the precepts of the moral law, nor is it any longer maintained that, when all is said and done, the law of God is always the one true good of man".

John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (1993), 84

In the political sphere, it must be noted that truthfulness in the relations between those governing and those governed, openness in public administration, impartiality in the service of the body politic, respect for the rights of political adversaries, safeguarding the rights of the accused against summary trials and convictions, the just and honest use of public funds, the rejection of equivocal or illicit means in order to gain, preserve or increase power at any cost — all these are principles which are primarily rooted in, and in fact derive their singular urgency from, the transcendent value of the person and the objective moral demands of the functioning of States.160 When these principles are not observed, the very basis of political coexistence is weakened and the life of society itself is gradually jeopardized, threatened and doomed to decay (cf. Ps 14:3-4; Rev 18:2-3, 9-24). Today, when many countries have seen the fall of ideologies which bound politics to a totalitarian conception of the world — Marxism being the foremost of these — there is no less grave a danger that the fundamental rights of the human person will be denied and that the religious yearnings which arise in the heart of every human being will be absorbed once again into politics. This is the risk of an alliance between democracy and ethical relativism, which would remove any sure moral reference point from political and social life, and on a deeper level make the acknowledgement of truth impossible. Indeed, “if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism”.

Ibid, 101

Since you appear to be confused on the subject, you may wish to read the entire encyclical, as it deals with Certain Fundamental Questions of the Church’s Moral Teaching.
I don’t I think I made my point clear. I’m unsurprised that Blessed John Paul links relativism with a rejection of Catholicism. But of course, there is a centuries long philosophical tradition that also rejects relativism and is not rooted in Catholicism.
 
I don’t I think I made my point clear. I’m unsurprised that Blessed John Paul links relativism with a rejection of Catholicism. But of course, there is a centuries long philosophical tradition that also rejects relativism and is not rooted in Catholicism.
It is not simply a matter of JPII rejecting relativism, it is a staple of Catholic thought. For example: 7. However, this Agnosticism is only the negative part of the system of the Modernist: the positive side of it consists in what they call vital immanence. This is how they advance from one to the other. Religion, whether natural or supernatural, must, like every other fact, admit of some explanation. But when Natural theology has been destroyed, the road to revelation closed through the rejection of the arguments of credibility, and all external revelation absolutely denied, it is clear that this explanation will be sought in vain outside man himself. It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. Hence the principle of religious immanence is formulated. Moreover, the first actuation, so to say, of every vital phenomenon, and religion, as has been said, belongs to this category, is due to a certain necessity or impulsion; but it has its origin, speaking more particularly of life, in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sentiment. Therefore, since God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and the foundation of all religion, consists in a sentiment which originates from a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favourable circumstances, cannot, of itself, appertain to the domain of consciousness; it is at first latent within the consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where also its roots lies hidden and undetected.

Should anyone ask how it is that this need of the divine which man experiences within himself grows up into a religion, the Modernists reply thus: Science and history, they say, are confined within two limits, the one external, namely, the visible world, the other internal, which is consciousness. When one or other of these boundaries has been reached, there can be no further progress, for beyond is the unknowable. In presence of this unknowable, whether it is outside man and beyond the visible world of nature, or lies hidden within in the subconsciousness, the need of the divine, according to the principles of Fideism, excites in a soul with a propensity towards religion a certain special sentiment, without any previous advertence of the mind: and this sentiment possesses, implied within itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic cause, the reality of the divine, and in a way unites man with God. It is this sentiment to which Modernists give the name of faith, and this it is which they consider the beginning of religion.
  1. But we have not yet come to the end of their philosophy, or, to speak more accurately, their folly. For Modernism finds in this sentiment not faith only, but with and in faith, as they understand it, revelation, they say, abides. For what more can one require for revelation? Is not that religious sentiment which is perceptible in the consciousness revelation, or at least the beginning of revelation? Nay, is not God Himself, as He manifests Himself to the soul, indistinctly it is true, in this same religious sense, revelation? And they add: Since God is both the object and the cause of faith, this revelation is at the same time of God and from God; that is, God is both the revealer and the revealed.
Hence, Venerable Brethren, springs that ridiculous proposition of the Modernists, that every religion, according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural. Hence it is that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous. Hence the law, according to which religious consciousness is given as the universal rule, to be put on an equal footing with revelation, and to which all must submit, even the supreme authority of the Church, whether in its teaching capacity, or in that of legislator in the province of sacred liturgy or discipline.

Pius X, *Pascendi *(1907)
And the error goes back to the Old Testament:
[bibledrb]Judges 17:6[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Proverbs 12:15[/bibledrb]
 
It is not simply a matter of JPII rejecting relativism, it is a staple of Catholic thought. For example: 7. However, this Agnosticism is only the negative part of the system of the Modernist: the positive side of it consists in what they call vital immanence. This is how they advance from one to the other. Religion, whether natural or supernatural, must, like every other fact, admit of some explanation. But when Natural theology has been destroyed, the road to revelation closed through the rejection of the arguments of credibility, and all external revelation absolutely denied, it is clear that this explanation will be sought in vain outside man himself. It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. Hence the principle of religious immanence is formulated. Moreover, the first actuation, so to say, of every vital phenomenon, and religion, as has been said, belongs to this category, is due to a certain necessity or impulsion; but it has its origin, speaking more particularly of life, in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sentiment. Therefore, since God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and the foundation of all religion, consists in a sentiment which originates from a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favourable circumstances, cannot, of itself, appertain to the domain of consciousness; it is at first latent within the consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where also its roots lies hidden and undetected.

Should anyone ask how it is that this need of the divine which man experiences within himself grows up into a religion, the Modernists reply thus: Science and history, they say, are confined within two limits, the one external, namely, the visible world, the other internal, which is consciousness. When one or other of these boundaries has been reached, there can be no further progress, for beyond is the unknowable. In presence of this unknowable, whether it is outside man and beyond the visible world of nature, or lies hidden within in the subconsciousness, the need of the divine, according to the principles of Fideism, excites in a soul with a propensity towards religion a certain special sentiment, without any previous advertence of the mind: and this sentiment possesses, implied within itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic cause, the reality of the divine, and in a way unites man with God. It is this sentiment to which Modernists give the name of faith, and this it is which they consider the beginning of religion.
  1. But we have not yet come to the end of their philosophy, or, to speak more accurately, their folly. For Modernism finds in this sentiment not faith only, but with and in faith, as they understand it, revelation, they say, abides. For what more can one require for revelation? Is not that religious sentiment which is perceptible in the consciousness revelation, or at least the beginning of revelation? Nay, is not God Himself, as He manifests Himself to the soul, indistinctly it is true, in this same religious sense, revelation? And they add: Since God is both the object and the cause of faith, this revelation is at the same time of God and from God; that is, God is both the revealer and the revealed.
Hence, Venerable Brethren, springs that ridiculous proposition of the Modernists, that every religion, according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural. Hence it is that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous. Hence the law, according to which religious consciousness is given as the universal rule, to be put on an equal footing with revelation, and to which all must submit, even the supreme authority of the Church, whether in its teaching capacity, or in that of legislator in the province of sacred liturgy or discipline.

Pius X, *Pascendi *(1907)
And the error goes back to the Old Testament:
[bibledrb]Judges 17:6[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Proverbs 12:15[/bibledrb]
Again, I’m not being clear. There is a long philosophical tradition that rejects relativism and is not Biblically based.
 
Again, I’m not being clear. There is a long philosophical tradition that rejects relativism and is not Biblically based.
That is just fine…much of natural philosophy corresponds, in large, nicely with the natural law (that law which God wrote upon man’s heart).

However, I’m not sure how you get to that statement from the original one that you made upthread: (And I do trust that everyone knows that relativism isn’t the natural opposite of Catholicism.)
 
That is just fine…much of natural philosophy corresponds, in large, nicely with the natural law (that law which God wrote upon man’s heart).

However, I’m not sure how you get to that statement from the original one that you made upthread: (And I do trust that everyone knows that relativism isn’t the natural opposite of Catholicism.)
Those who are not Catholic (or Christian or even Jewish) are not ipso facto relativists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top