Is it just me...

[Burt_Macklin]

I find this website to be one of the most hostile I read, and see it as a “guilty pleasure.” Seething with passive aggression!

Naw, this place is pretty charitable as far as discussion forums go. You can have an unpopular opinion without your inbox filling up with people telling you to frig off.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Hello everyone,

This thread truly caught my attention and I want to state what I got out of it as I have been thinking much about the Law. Of course, in our Catholic Faith what we think as the Law is obviously the Doctrines of the Church. As the original poster said that there are those that have become very zealous or as our Holy Father mentioned it “fundamental”, whose only concern is with the Law and condemning the sinner.

While in today’s world, most Catholics continue to ignore the Law in regards to the teachings of contraception, abortion, support for gay marriage, etc and most zealous Catholics are using language that appears very much to condemn the other side that don’t follow the Law.

From what I have gotten, I have learned that we have different crosses to bear in which some will seem unbearable to others, others too light… But from the teachings of our Holy Father as well as other Holy Priests and Laymen, we must always seek to go out into the world and meet sinners where they are. We must show love for our neighbor as well as bring them back into the Church with that moment of encounter with Divine Grace as Bishop Robert Barron has said. From there, we come to show them the Law as to why it is important, yet we must always proclaim it with love. Truth in love is the phrase I like to use. In short, we must always have a balance when it comes to proclaiming issues with our Holy Faith, Love and Truth.

Did I get that right?? Or am I being a total idiot and missed the whole point of this thread??

I think you really did a good job with that. But I am currious. What does it mean to not condemn others in regards to the law? Why do we have the law? is it just to be used as a guideline? And how to we bring others to the church without a accountability of the law.

How can we preach the Gospel, the Good News without the repent part?

 

[on_the_hill]

True, but there’s so much misinformation about the pill/hysterectomy issue.

It’s probably the leading misunderstanding among faithful Catholics.

That is one of the reasons I stick around. I read things that seem, frankly, ridiculous, and I can’t bring myself to walk away.

Sort of to the point of the thread regarding CAF, one hand we are bordering on the Quiverfull notion, and on the other hand we elevate celibate people as Holier Than Thou.

 

[Art321]

I think you really did a good job with that. But I am currious. What does it mean to not condemn others in regards to the law? Why do we have the law? is it just to be used as a guideline? And how to we bring others to the church without a accountability of the law.

How can we preach the Gospel, the Good News without the repent part?

Thank you so much. With my limited knowledge, I suppose the answer to why we have the Law (Doctrines of the Faith) is very simple, yet gets complicated by many people. It is to show us the way to Heaven!

As Jesus said, “For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” John 18:37

And when we proclaim the truth, always with love. That is essential! And I believe that when you say that we must never condemn a person, we must always correct them! Not so with judgment on the soul, but their actions. We as Catholics always promote Confession as a sacrament that should always be used for the betterment of our souls.

One of the first things that I have learned from Pope Francis and Bishop Robert Barron from his videos is that we preach the Good News through that moment of encounter with God! From there will come the Law. It is easier said than done but I do believe this is the ideal! One of the best ways to proclaim the Good News I have seen is through words yes, but also through actions! We must draw people in by living our Sacred Faith and when we do so, we become radiant with joy and love like Pope Francis! Other examples would have been Mother Teresa, Saint Pope John Paul II, St. John Bosco, etc.

I have not read the encyclical by Pope Benedict but I have been told it is based on this very subject! It is called Caritas In Veritate! Eternal Love and Absolute Truth go hand in hand!

I do hope this helped! As I write this, I continue to live this out in my life. I haven’t perfected it yet, but I am sinner so it will take time. God bless!

 

[SWolf]

That is one of the reasons I stick around. I read things that seem, frankly, ridiculous, and I can’t bring myself to walk away.

Sort of to the point of the thread regarding CAF, one hand we are bordering on the Quiverfull notion, and on the other hand we elevate celibate people as Holier Than Thou.

Well, let’s not forget unmarried celibacy is considered higher than married life:

Matthew 19:10

Also, large families ARE considered the ideal for married couples to aspire to:

onepeterfive.com/pope-pius-xii-large-catholic-families/

Obviously myself, and most others here, could not handle celibacy, as we were not given that gift. Many of us were not capable of having large families either. There’s no perfection, but that shouldn’t make a difference in what we strive for.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Well, let’s not forget unmarried celibacy is considered higher than married life:

Matthew 19:10

Also, large families ARE considered the ideal for married couples to aspire to:

onepeterfive.com/pope-pius-xii-large-catholic-families/

Obviously myself, and most others here, could not handle celibacy, as we were not given that gift. Many of us were not capable of having large families. There’s no perfection, but that shouldn’t make a difference in what we strive for.

You are correct on both points!

 

[LongingSoul]

Also, large families ARE considered the ideal for married couples to aspire to:

onepeterfive.com/pope-pius-xii-large-catholic-families/

Obviously myself, and most others here, could not handle celibacy, as we were not given that gift. Many of us were not capable of having large families either. There’s no perfection, but that shouldn’t make a difference in what we strive for.

You’ve taken Pope Pius XII out of context to come up with a false standard. That is a demonstration of what the OP is noticing in my opinion.

The Catholic church is the champion of the family; there is no doubt about that. Throughout her 2000 years she has addressed things in the culture that diminish the value of the family or misrepresent the family which is rightly the microcosm of humanity. In that way, there is no hard and fast rule regarding the makeup of the family because there have been eras where humanity supported large families and eras where humanity has benefited by restraint in procreation.

Pope Pius XII was addressing a culture threatened by some emerging insidious theories of anti natalism and population control. Those are unnatural ideologies that should have no bearing human reproduction. On the other hand there will always be natural times of want, either on the physical or the spiritual plain of life that will affect the reproductive habits of human beings.

Pope Francis made it plainly clear early on that Catholics are not required to breed to an ideological agenda and officially the Church has forbidden people to disturb the intimate realm of the family makeup for that agenda.

Big families can be a blessing and great witness, but they are not intrinsically holy.

 

[SWolf]

You’ve taken Pope Pius XII out of context to come up with a false standard. That is a demonstration of what the OP is noticing in my opinion.

The Catholic church is the champion of the family; there is no doubt about that. Throughout her 2000 years she has addressed things in the culture that diminish the value of the family or misrepresent the family which is rightly the microcosm of humanity. In that way, there is no hard and fast rule regarding the makeup of the family because there have been eras where humanity supported large families and eras where humanity has benefited by restraint in procreation.

Pope Pius XII was addressing a culture threatened by some emerging insidious theories of anti natalism and population control. Those are unnatural ideologies that should have no bearing human reproduction. On the other hand there will always be natural times of want, either on the physical or the spiritual plain of life that will affect the reproductive habits of human beings.

Pope Francis made it plainly clear early on that Catholics are not required to breed to an ideological agenda and officially the Church has forbidden people to disturb the intimate realm of the family makeup for that agenda.

Big families can be a blessing and great witness, but they are not intrinsically holy.

No one is saying large families are intrinsically holy.

Nothing was out of context in Pius’ speech. He thought large families were the ideal to strive for. It’s very clear in the speech.

Humanae Vitae:

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

*From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. *The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)

Outside of serious issues, it is a married couple’s OBLIGATION to have more children. Hence why Pius XII had such praise for large families. They are a public witness to being fully open to life.

It’s a prudential matter of the spouses what constitutes a serious matter.

 

[StGerardMajella]

…or has Family Life at CAF been getting a little hyper-conservative as of late? A good case of “being more Catholic than the Pope?”

If you have a disagreement, debate your point respectfully and in a civil manner. There are multiple viewpoints and perspectives on Roman Catholic canon law, and theology in general.

You can agree to disagree, and allow the readers to judge and decide based on the arguments provided.

That is the purpose of a forum - to debate and to discuss, and to look at ideas and issues from multiple vantage points. If you cite an argument, you need to defend that argument with evidence.

Christ did not sit idly by when He saw issues in his day that needed to be addressed. He fought and contested with the authority figures of His day. If we are to be Christ-like, we are required to fight for our beliefs, regardless of whether they are “conservative” or might be “offensive” to others. You can make an argument and still be civil.

While you take offense to “conservative views”, others may choose to disagree. One of of the great parts about this forum is that people from all over the world are free to voice their (name removed by moderator)ut into various theological matters despite their different leanings.

There are Catholics of every leaning and stripe. We should not attempt to suppress discussion based on a single individual’s political leanings.

See all of StGerardMagella’s posts in this thread:

If you have a disagreement with a specific individual, debate that individual and make your argument in that particular thread. Let the readers decide based on persuasion, not (uncharitable) finger-pointing in another thread.

Yes rather than liberal/conservative I see it is the age old problem of legalism.

…or the failure of those who disagree to construct a cogent, logical argument. Either/or.

Any alternative view presented, if it doesn’t match to what certain posters want to hear, is immediately trampled, twisted, and harped upon. It isn’t right and some good people have been hurt. Quite a few have actually. Please stop. It can’t be good for anyone for this to continue.

Agreed.

People who disagree get slammed.
People with stats and facts get slammed.
Everything is hunky dory while people pat each other on the back. Have a difference of opinion? Not allowed.
People are being “mean” “uncharitable” “posting too much” etc.

Agreed.

 

[Xantippe]

Here are some more possible examples of legalism:

–Everybody ought to homeschool
–breastfeeding is mandatory
–cosleeping is mandatory
–natural childbirth is mandatory
–Mothers should never be away from their children
–Mothers (and fathers) don’t need any friends
–Mothers (and fathers) don’t need any breaks
–If a mother is exhausted and/or has postpartum depression, she just needs to pray more and work harder
–Preschool is evil
–School is evil
–CCD is evil
–College is evil
–doctors are evil
–therapists are evil–a good Catholic wouldn’t go to one
–it’s unspiritual to think about how one’s children will support themselves as adults
–wives ought to obey their husbands even in sin (don’t worry–God will make it work out OK somehow)

Good people can believe any of these, but I don’t think you’ll find any of them in the Catechism (at least not without serious qualification).

 

[Xantippe]

Here’s another one that is more common among fundamentalist Protestants, but occasionally pops up among Catholics.

–You don’t get to experience or express any negative emotions–ever. A real Christian woman is always merrily chirping like the birds in Snow White.

 

[Art321]

If you have a disagreement, debate your point respectfully and in a civil manner. There are multiple viewpoints and perspectives on Roman Catholic canon law, and theology in general.

You can agree to disagree, and allow the readers to judge and decide based on the arguments provided.

That is the purpose of a forum - to debate and to discuss, and to look at ideas and issues from multiple vantage points. If you cite an argument, you need to defend that argument with evidence.

Christ did not sit idly by when He saw issues in his day that needed to be addressed. He fought and contested with the authority figures of His day. If we are to be Christ-like, we are required to fight for our beliefs, regardless of whether they are “conservative” or might be “offensive” to others. You can make an argument and still be civil.

While you take offense to “conservative views”, others may choose to disagree. One of of the great parts about this forum is that people from all over the world are free to voice their (name removed by moderator)ut into various theological matters despite their different leanings.

There are Catholics of every leaning and stripe. We should not attempt to suppress discussion based on a single individual’s political leanings.

If you have a disagreement with a specific individual, debate that individual and make your argument in that particular thread. Let the readers decide based on persuasion, not (uncharitable) finger-pointing in another thread.

…or the failure of those who disagree to construct a cogent, logical argument. Either/or.

Agreed.

Agreed.

I wanted to talk about the part in bold. Although I do agree with you that there are many viewpoints that agree or disagree with Church teaching, I can’t imagine how it is true with regards to Catholic theology. Orthodox Catholic theology has always been in line with regards to what has always been taught throughout the universal Church. In what respects is Catholic theology different from what is taught in orthodox Catholic universities in America compared to those orthodox Catholic universities in Europe or the Philippines??

Regarding the differing viewpoints, I do suppose that is to be expected. Many do find the teachings to be very difficult. That is why proper catechesis with help from Catechism should help people understand why the Church teaches what she does. Many will still have them as I know I find some of them difficult but obedience, humility, and prayer will help. Discussion should always be allowed and promoted as the Church hopes that through this, many will come to accept the teachings.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

\

Regarding the differing viewpoints, I do suppose that is to be expected. Many do find the teachings to be very difficult. That is why proper catechesis with help from Catechism should help people understand why the Church teaches what she does. Many will still have them as I know I find some of them difficult but obedience, humility, and prayer will help. Discussion should always be allowed and promoted as the Church hopes that through this, many will come to accept the teachings.

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirite and life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

“This is a hard teaching who can accept it” has become the mantra of the modern era. But Jesus did not change the teaching, and he watched others walk away. He does not say “ok let me be merciful and change the teaching for you” Or add the qualifier, just do what you wish to" He shows us that even though we are being asked to accept something that we cannot understand, we are called to be faithful because ONLY the Church has the words of eternal life.

but not today, today Jesus would be viewed as a gasp* Legalsitic rigid law giver…

Oh the horror!

Those who have read the Bible over and over seem to understand that God has laws and those laws are to be followed…

 

[Art321]

Here are some more possible examples of legalism:

–Everybody ought to homeschool: I don’t think homeschooling should be looked down upon yet I can’t seem to fathom as to why everyone should do it. Whatever works best in the interest of the child.
–breastfeeding is mandatory:**Don’t see as to why it should be mandatory. Nothing proclaimed by the Church even comes close to this. It isn’t faith or morals. **
–cosleeping is mandatory: This is simple preference and again nothing to do with faith or morals. Whatever works best for the parents and their child.
–natural childbirth is mandatory: **I suppose I would recommend this but I don’t see the reason as to why C-section shouldn’t be used. If women are willing to put up with the scars, by all means!
–Mothers should never be away from their children: It only make sense that this will happen for a number of reasons. This isn’t realistic. Just make sure both men and women look after their children with love of course. **
–Mothers (and fathers) don’t need any friends: I don’t see why having good Catholic friends is a bad thing. Good people to be around that will encourage you in your spiritual life should always be welcomed!
–Mothers (and fathers) don’t need any breaks: **Breaks from each other?? Sure haha! I imagine that they would be on each other’s nerves if they didn’t! **
–If a mother is exhausted and/or has postpartum depression, she just needs to pray more and work harder: If anyone has depression, they need to be around good people that will listen to them. Exhaustion is another thing that I would recommend with plenty of rest and sleep! Does the trick!
–Preschool is evil: Nonsense!
–School is evil: No! What in the world?? Education is a good and beautiful thing! It should always be promoted, yet parents should always do their best so that their children are not exposed to anti-Catholicism. **
–CCD is evil: Nope! Though I will say that most CCD classes today do every little to properly teach the Faith to Catholics. Most teachers truly have poor catechesis and a poor understanding of our immense rich theological and historical roots. **
–College is evil: Same as education! **
–doctors are evil: Wrong, yet sadly many doctors are not pro-life as we would like them to be. **
–therapists are evil–a good Catholic wouldn’t go to one: There are good and bad ones. Same are everything else. Shop around for a good one and if he or she is not Catholic, just make sure they are understanding of our Faith!
–it’s unspiritual to think about how one’s children will support themselves as adults: I fail to see how this is a bad thing…
–wives ought to obey their husbands even in sin (don’t worry–God will make it work out OK somehow): Never follow anyone into sin period!!

Good people can believe any of these, but I don’t think you’ll find any of them in the Catechism (at least not without serious qualification).

 

[Art321]

“This is a hard teaching who can accept it” has become the mantra of the modern era. But Jesus did not change the teaching, and he watched others walk away. He does not say “ok let me be merciful and change the teaching for you” Or add the qualifier, just do what you wish to" He shows us that even though we are being asked to accept something that we cannot understand, we are called to be faithful because ONLY the Church has the words of eternal life.

but not today, today Jesus would be viewed as a gasp* Legalsitic rigid law giver…

Oh the horror!

Those who have read the Bible over and over seem to understand that God has laws and those laws are to be followed…

Nicely said. Yet when we have these discussions, we must hear people out! Truth in love as I said before! Best way to get the message across!

 

[LongingSoul]

Nicely said. Yet when we have these discussions, we must hear people out! Truth in love as I said before! Best way to get the message across!

Art321, which position do you espouse? That couples with 4 or less children are by default unholy barring some fatal condition… or that people should keep having as many children as their fertile lifecycle allows without family planning naturally according to your personal vocation?

 

[pianistclare]

Art321:
Ummm…she wasn’t espousing those.
They were examples of the legalistic opinions that people post.
Are you agreeing with the list, or countering the list?

 

[Xantippe]

“This is a hard teaching who can accept it” has become the mantra of the modern era. But Jesus did not change the teaching, and he watched others walk away. He does not say “ok let me be merciful and change the teaching for you” Or add the qualifier, just do what you wish to" He shows us that even though we are being asked to accept something that we cannot understand, we are called to be faithful because ONLY the Church has the words of eternal life.

but not today, today Jesus would be viewed as a gasp* Legalsitic rigid law giver…

Oh the horror!

Those who have read the Bible over and over seem to understand that God has laws and those laws are to be followed…

I think there is a distinction here:

1. actual “hard sayings” and actual difficult teachings of the Church
2. people making stuff up

We’re primarily talking about category #2 in this thread and Jesus dealt a lot with it, too.

Again, I think there’s often an OCD/scrupulous flavor to #2, and it seems to have the effect of distracting people from other stuff. It’s not that the OCD/scrupulous person has no sins, but that they keep plugging away at the one area where things are more or less OK.

 

[on_the_hill]

While everyone is expected to adhere to the Magisterium, and the doctrine, CCC, etc., there are also debates about these things within the hierarchy itself. So how does this work?

Someone will post a contrary position to CAF and get criticized for not being a good Catholic. Yet we know that priests, bishops, cardinals, theologians have been arguing with each other for the past 2,000 years.

I dunno. Just pointing that out.

 

[Art321]

Ummm…she wasn’t espousing those.
They were examples of the legalistic opinions that people post.
Are you agreeing with the list, or countering the list?

I assume that you were referring to me. I went through the list because I just wanted to offer my opinion on what she wrote. Frankly, none of the items on that list had to do with the Catholic Faith or morals. It is very wise to be prudent but many people take it way too far.