I'm very liberal, considering Catholicism.

  • Thread starter Thread starter D0UBTFIRE
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I rather reform the Church from within than pick a sectarian group to belong to.
The Catholic Church is not a church that you can reform from within - it’s one that you either take, or leave, as is.

As for the fanatics, you will find them everywhere - and for the most part, they are simply very good at articulating certain aspects of the faith.

Some of them actually would vote in favour of nuclear annihilation, rather than risk voting for someone who approves of masturbation. Most Catholics would weigh the matter a little differently than that, and still be well within the boundaries of Church teaching - I doubt that anyone on this Forum would contemplate voting for Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, even though both of them are more pro-life than any political candidates in the western hemisphere - apart from being genocidal maniacs - and nobody would be excommunicated for not voting for them, if they were to be running for office.
 
The Catholic Church is not a church that you can reform from within - it’s one that you either take, or leave, as is.

As for the fanatics, you will find them everywhere - and for the most part, they are simply very good at articulating certain aspects of the faith.

Some of them actually would vote in favour of nuclear annihilation, rather than risk voting for someone who approves of masturbation. Most Catholics would weigh the matter a little differently than that, and still be well within the boundaries of Church teaching - I doubt that anyone on this Forum would contemplate voting for Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, even though both of them are more pro-life than any political candidates in the western hemisphere - apart from being genocidal maniacs - and nobody would be excommunicated for not voting for them, if they were to be running for office.
And we Catholics don’t intend on outlawing every sin. For example, I don’t think masturbation should be encouraged, but on the other hand I can’t think of a way you could outlaw masturbation and enforce that law.

Abortion and euthanasia are different issues because they kill innocent human life. Most people in our country agree that innocent human life needs to be protected, so it’s not out of the question to expect that our government should do that. Thus laws against abortion and euthanasia are for the good of all people and not a simple mandate to comply with Catholic teachings.
 
Wow.

LOL

Some thoughts…to those of you who keep responding to my OP, Thank You. I am still reading. 🙂

To those of you that appear to be completely fanatical fundamentalist, I have to say you are Scary with a capital S and you are my biggest turn off from Catholicism. Out of curiosity, were you Christian fundamentalist before you entered the Catholic Church or were you raised as fundamentalist within the Church?

To those of you who are curious, I’m reading a book titled “What Makes Us Catholic?” by Thomas H. Groome. It’s a great read so far!

To those of you that said maybe I should consider being Episcopalian, I looked into it and decided against it. I rather reform the Church from within than pick a sectarian group to belong to.
A truly inspired post. TNANKS:D

I understand “radical,” but what is your defination of a “fundementilist.”? I’m not saying your wrong, just trying to understand your point of view.

Your final paragraph in your post is inspired!👍

God bless you,

PJM m.c.
 
I rather reform the Church from within than pick a sectarian group to belong to.
This represents a rather profound misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church claims to be. It might well be possible to “reform” a Protestant denomination - after all, they have mostly re-formed their positions on contraception and homosexuality - but this is not the case with Catholicism. One of the more telling points in JPII’s short letter on why women cannot become priests was this observation: the Church has no authority to change what she believes Christ instituted. The Church won’t change because she cannot.

Individuals can certainly influence a particular parish and its position on prudential issues but if you expect to be able to change the Church’s moral stance on something you really don’t fully understand what you’re dealing with.

This is what she believes about herself and if you’re not willing to accept it as true then why would you want to become Catholic? That is, why would you want to belong to an institution who’s very basis for existence you reject?

“The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” (Dei Verbum 10)

The two significant parts of this statement are the claims that her interpretations are authentic and that she is the exclusive source. If her interpretation of God’s word is authentic, what is it you intend to reform? If her interpretation is inauthentic then she is not what she claims to be, her existence is a sham, and it makes no sense for anyone to believe what she says so why on earth would you want to belong to such an irrational organization?

Ender
 
Reply:
Catecheism of the RCC:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.** This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: ** (my friend this is saying that abortion Is an Intrinsic Evil!​

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. (Mortal Sin!) The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.​

CCC # 2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

My dear friend in Christ, if you find this insufficient, let me know and I will take the time to look in uo in the late Great Pope John Paul’s Enyclical Letter “The Gospel of Life.”

God bless you,

PJM m.c.
Here is further support. It’s just one of the numerous letters sent out by the Bishops of America prior to this past election:

prolifedallas.org/pages/Joint_Statement

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
jd
 
Wow.

LOL

Some thoughts…to those of you who keep responding to my OP, Thank You. I am still reading. 🙂

To those of you that appear to be completely fanatical fundamentalist, I have to say you are Scary with a capital S and you are my biggest turn off from Catholicism. Out of curiosity, were you Christian fundamentalist before you entered the Catholic Church or were you raised as fundamentalist within the Church?

To those of you who are curious, I’m reading a book titled “What Makes Us Catholic?” by Thomas H. Groome. It’s a great read so far!

To those of you that said maybe I should consider being Episcopalian, I looked into it and decided against it. I rather reform the Church from within than pick a sectarian group to belong to.
DOUBTFIRE:

The Church has had enough Reformers in its past. All that they succeded in doing was separating themselves from the Church that was begun by Christ Himself. He has His reasons for binding us in the manner He has. You would have been better served not coming to these forums and not learning what you have learned. You are now no longer invincibly ignorant. From this point forward, what you do is by your exquisite choice alone.

It is our (collective) task now to pray for you every day, or else we will have done you a terrible disservice. Please think your decision through very carefully.

You will be in my prayers,
jd
 
I disagree completely. I think the Church has been, should be and will be reformed. You’re all free to think otherwise, I don’t really care to debate it right now. But that reform from within is what I will strive for. Not on matters of faith, but social issues, that is. On matters of faith (Christology, Eucharist, Mary, etc.) I agree 100%. My faith is more Catholic than anything else, why would I go anywhere else? Because I don’t agree with EVERYTHING that the Pope says? I bet it’s safe to assume that the grand majority of Catholics don’t agree with him 100%. So, that’s not going to deter me.

Anyway, I’m done here for now. I was just letting you all know what I had decided in case you were curious.

Happy New Year!
 
Some of them (fanatics) actually would vote in favour of nuclear annihilation, rather than risk voting for someone who approves of masturbation.
An awfully bold assertion, my friend.
. . . . I doubt that anyone on this Forum would contemplate voting for Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, even though both of them are more pro-life than any political candidates in the western hemisphere - apart from being genocidal maniacs - and nobody would be excommunicated for not voting for them, if they were to be running for office.
Another, even bolder assertion. In fact, it is so bold that it makes me not believe it at all. Not knowing your motives, it is possible that you made this statement as absurd as possible precisely so as to disprove it. If you had said, “anti-abortion” as opposed to “pro-life”, I might have been good with at least part of what you assert.

Now, none of it makes sense - nor is it very helpful.

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
jd
 
I disagree completely. I think the Church has been, should be and will be reformed. You’re all free to think otherwise, I don’t really care to debate it right now. But that reform from within is what I will strive for. Not on matters of faith, but social issues, that is. On matters of faith (Christology, Eucharist, Mary, etc.) I agree 100%. My faith is more Catholic than anything else, why would I go anywhere else? Because I don’t agree with EVERYTHING that the Pope says? I bet it’s safe to assume that the grand majority of Catholics don’t agree with him 100%. So, that’s not going to deter me.

Anyway, I’m done here for now. I was just letting you all know what I had decided in case you were curious.

Happy New Year!
WELCOME!

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
jd
 
The Catholic Church is not a church that you can reform from within - it’s one that you either take, or leave, as is.
Ummmmm…raises handCouncil of Trent!
 
Originally Posted by TMC
My question was: “Where has the Pope said that intrinsic evils always outweigh other evils?”
reply, **Not only has no Pope made this claim,nor has the Catholic Magistrium, or the Bisops have not made this calim.****Three points: **
  1. By “intrinsic evil” the Pope and the RCC mean only that this action is always, reguardless of circumstance, a Grevious, Serious (both terms are sinomous) for Mortal sin.
2. Having said this this same agyust body has calimed and comtinues to Pontificate, that only when there exist a “proportionate” (meanging eural or exceeding the gravity of an “instrinic act” may one MORRALY make a choice, which would amount too selecting the "lesser evil."
  1. Abortion, artifical birth-control (conterception) and masterbation, are all covered as “intrinsic evils” by the 5th Commandment. Which is God’s law, and thus unchangeable my mankind.** What other issue is covered by one of God’s Commandments and has greater proportionate than MURDER? That is the basis for Catholic teaching on the topic.**
Please see JP II’s binding on ALL humanity, Encyclical, posted here…
"57. …Evangelium vitae, Pope John Paul II,

50
Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. 51

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. “Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action”.52

54 …
It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.

61
Throughout Christianity’s two thousand year history, this same doctrine has been constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church and by her Pastors and Doctors. Even scientific and philosophical discussions about the precise moment of the infusion of the spiritual soul have never given rise to any hesitation about the moral condemnation of abortion.
  1. The more recent Papal Magisterium has vigorously reaffirmed this common doctrine. Pius XI in particular, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, rejected the specious justifications of abortion. 65 Pius XII excluded all direct abortion, i.e., every act tending directly to destroy human life in the womb “whether such destruction is intended as an end or only as a means to an end”.66 John XXIII reaffirmed that human life is sacred because “from its very beginning it directly involves God’s creative activity”.67 The Second Vatican Council, as mentioned earlier, sternly condemned abortion: “From the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes”.68
62 Continued
Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable. 72 Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. 73

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church."

God bless you, keep asking good questions,
PJM m.c
 
Ummmmm…raises handCouncil of Trent!
The Council of Trent clarified the teachings of the Church - it did not change any of them. There was no “reform” going on, in the sense of getting rid of old beliefs and replacing them with new ones that are more palatable to the modern generation - it was a process of clarification, only.

The ages-old Apostolic faith remained intact, at the end of it.
 
What teachings of the Church did the Council of Trent change?
I wasn’t implying they changed their teachings necessarily, but just that it led to a significant degree of reformation, so changing the Church in at least some sense is possible. I guess it would depend on how you define “reform.”
 
Say hey to Gooba,naw,one can believe what ever one wants to…depends on the weather,who’s on first etc…no really…the reason why the RCC has lasted for over 2000 years is because it stands firm on the essential beliefs…the bible…ie Biblia…is a collection of thoughts,histories,diaries,etc from many people…there are things in there I dont believe in…care less about etc…re: the old or Hebrew testament…remember if Jesus,the Founder of Christianity wanted to leave His thoughts in written form He would have invented the printing press and lo and behold here we are…but instead He invented a special chair…and whomever sits in that chair,in Rome,speaks for Him and Him along! It is not easy to be a Catholic in this secular world…if you want popularity, cant stand being insulted by hollyweird and other pundits,dont join,but if you want to save your immortal soul…join the RCC today and stay with it…there is no other…bless…Nino
 
Ummmmm…raises handCouncil of Trent!
The Church acknowledges her need for constant vigilance and for reform-mainly due to various ways in which she’s not heeded her own gospel at times! But that gospel hasn’t changed, and, like other posters have said, the Church may need to clarify it better at times but never to alter it.

From the CCC:
**827 "Christ, ‘holy, innocent, and undefiled,’ knew nothing of sin, but came only to expiate the sins of the people. The Church, however, clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal."299 All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners.300 In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time.301 Hence the Church gathers sinners already caught up in Christ’s salvation but still on the way to holiness:
Code:
 The Church is therefore holy, though having sinners in her midst, because she herself has no other life but the life of grace. If they live her life, her members are sanctified; if they move away from her life, they fall into sins and disorders that prevent the radiation of her sanctity. This is why she suffers and does penance for those offenses, of which she has the power to free her children through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit.302
**
 
Quote:
(( It’s called “discussion” there, pardner, “discussion”… Keep the ball a’rollin’, if possible, keep it ROLLIN’, I say,… keep that puppy rollin’ rollin’ rollin’, get them doggies movin’,… rollin’ rollin’ rollin’,

Just out of sincere curiosity, are you referencing some form of literature in this phrase?
🙂

Yeah, it’s a rather weird juxtaposed reference to Foghorn Leghorn and the old TV show “Rawhide”.

Rollin’ rollin’ rollin’!

…I’ll try to keep my mind out of the gutter of “pop culture”, but I can’t say I’ll be very effective in that! 🙂

:shamrock2:
 
Because…
Maybe I am nitpicking here, and maybe it’s just me, but I really don’t see how nuclear war (to reference this specific example) could ever be seen as just.
Perhaps nuclear war CAN’T be “just war”.

But that’s not my contention. My contention is that IF nuclear war CAN BE “just war” then it is preferable to choose it over a certain evil (an intrinsic/inherent evil), such as masturbation.

Remember what we are discussing: Is an intrinsic evil deed EVER a “better choice” than a non-evil deed?

My answer is no.

(( With the stipulation that the “non-evil deed” really isn’t an evil deed. ))

:shamrock2:
 
So if a person decides with their informed conscience that a war is unjust, then that war has to be weighed against intrinsic evils when deciding who to vote for. Once you’ve determined that the war is unjust, it gets classified as an evil along with intrinsic evils. The distinction ‘intrinsic’ is no longer relevant to the evaluation.
Right. The modifier “INTRINSIC” is merely a flag, which says “This can’t be anything but an evil!”

It says nothing at all about any other characteristic of the so-labeled evil. 🙂

BUT, the decision as to the properly-formedness of one’s “informed conscience” is NOT the conscience-holder’s to make!

We CONFORM our conscience to that of the Church. The only decision we make is whether to have a properly formed conscience in conformity with the Church, or not to have a properly formed conscience (being not in conformity with the Church).

It is impossible to have a properly formed conscience not in conformity with the Church.

And, of course, if one’s conscience is not properly formed then a correct choice between supposed evils is just a dice-roll, or a “personal preference”!

:shamrock2:
 
Liberal does not mean pro abortion. One can be a liberal and a catholic rather easily.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top