I appreciate the clarification on this. In regards to your claim that my comments were baseless - my comments should have been directed to the writer of the original article as opposed to the OP. However, that doesn’t change the claim that the writer chose those words for dramatic effect as opposed to accuracy.
I agree, and have wondered if perhaps the title was chosen by someone who dislikes the Catholic Church. It seems to follow the common tactic of painting the Church as harsh and rigid.
It wasn’t only being tolerated, they were arrogant about it (1 Cor 5:2). That is why I talk about “scandal.”
. (If it wasn’t a modern fact, they weren’t interested.) This shatters a commonly held (mis)belief, perhaps even on CAF, that it’s only heterodox or lapsed Catholics who are undereducated about Catholicism, have misunderstandings about teachings, etc.If it’s any consolation, I was raised going to church and ccd regularly. I attended right along with the rest of my relatives, only to find, what was taught and experienced only remained with me and me alone. The exposure even though not supported or discussed outside of church settings “and barely within it”, was very helpful to me. So, being raised in the cultural Catholic setting, some of the children will get it, even though the parents and the rest of their siblings will not. I stand alone with the faith at present, not a single family member attends mass, not a single one has a strong conviction about the church, the bible, or God for that matter, yet here I am, very much on fire, very much dedicated to the Church and our Lord.
Do you know many that fit that description? I don’t.
I’m quite familiar with the term, but that wasn’t quite the emphasis that described this parish (and a few others I’ve been aware of in my life). These attend every Sunday, not “twice a month,” and they make sure the children attend all CCD classes (or alternately go the parish school, which is more likely, and was almost totally true in this case).
Then why be Catholic if you disagree with the teaching? You can do all those things listed above outside the Church.
exactly! I always wondered about people like this.
Okay…I’ve not noticed the financial status in our parish (we’re all equally poor
), but the social registry thing I totally get. Never mind the fact that you have an obedient orthodox priest, if your life-long friends prefer the liberal parish down the street that’s cause for switching your allegiance.I am sure that, like with any sinner , he wants them to repent and thn come and enjoy the Sacraments in their fullness
Many hold themselves out to be Catholic because they believe it gives the more credibility when they post dissent from church teachings. I personally no longer respond to people who claim to be Catholic but are obviously not. I would much rather deal with people who are honest about their faith whether they be Catholic or not.
Perhaps because they were raised Catholic? Or because they became Catholic, and only years later will they come to the conclusion that there is an issue or two which they can not accept?
Unfortunately, the Church does not agree with you.
I don’t have a problem with all of somebody remaining in the church even though they disagree with some or all of its doctrines. That is between them and God. What I do have a problem with is when they publicly announce their dissent and try to convince others that it’s perfectly acceptable. You see it all the time-catechism is full of suggestions all of which are trumped if one’s conscience tells them differently… Letting this kind of dissent go unchallenged can put other souls at risk.Unfortunately, the Church does not agree with you.
No matter how differently, how badly, how lukewarmly, etc. Catholics are practicing their faith (or not practicing it entirely), they remain Catholic in identity. Only if they convert to another religion through a formal process, or notify the bishop in writing that they wish to renounce their membership in the faith, or declare themselves in public to be an apostate (literally, not indirectly through disagreement) are they then considered no longer Catholic. The Catholic himself cannot divest himself of his identity passively (through non-practice), and least of all can any other person do so on his behalf.
On Tigg’s point, I do agree (and also baffled by the phenomenon) that a Catholic passionately opposed to a key doctrine (i.e., a true activist) would want to remain an uncomfortable member. I see why those with doubts/concerns want to remain in the fold, because it’s not essential to be internally enthusiastic about every item of doctrine in order to benefit from sacramental life and church attendance, as long as there is no active intention to subvert. Also, lots of people do not really understand, or remain confused intellectually about some aspects of the faith, but that does not distract them from sincere participation.
This was basically the point I was trying to make.
At yet you still continue to post opposite Church teaching yourself when you say “I personally no longer respond to people who claim to be Catholic but are obviously not.” They are obviously not Catholic? To you maybe but not to the Church.
I agree with this part. I’m glad you clarified. What it mostly produces (I think) is someone very conflicted about membership and thus not benefiting much from what is available as a member. They may lead some others astray, but frankly I’ve never seen anyone lead others astray who were not already in almost as much conflict & unhappiness. But at the very least what it mostly does is waste a lot of time for the unhappy activist. And unattended to, it can cause scandal if the person insists on acting out the dissent in some visible fashion, as opposed to discussing concerns privately with a priest, etc.