Moral Dissident Marches On In Rochester, NY

  • Thread starter Thread starter contemplative
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Catholic29:
Now that his ideological archnemesis Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is now the Fisherman, I think he and his ideologues who occupy higher Catholic acedemia in America are now beginning to see the writing on the wall.
But, if B16 doesn’t excommunicate him or any of the others, as I doubt that he will, it’ll be business as usual. Keep in mind that even the far more influential Hans Kung was never excommunicated and was banned only from teaching as a Catholic theologian.
 
Even if he is excommunicated, I don’t think that’s going to stop him. He’s already excommunicated himself.
 
40.png
bones_IV:
Even if he is excommunicated, I don’t think that’s going to stop him. He’s already excommunicated himself.
I don’t believe the last is correct. He hasn’t dissented from any infallible doctrines or dogma. Even Evangelium Vitae was not promulgated as infallible, which JPII wanted, because Cardinal Ratzinger did not consider that it was such.
 
What I meant is that by committing a mortal sin you excommunicate yourself.
 
40.png
bones_IV:
What I meant is that by committing a mortal sin you excommunicate yourself.
And for which, he as well as all the rest of us, can go to Confession.

I, however, do not have the power to read Fr. Curran’s soul and to say what state it is in. If I tried to do so, that sort of presumption would be, no doubt, a sin itself.
 
Arba Sicula:
I don’t believe the last is correct. He hasn’t dissented from any infallible doctrines or dogma. Even Evangelium Vitae was not promulgated as infallible, which JPII wanted, because Cardinal Ratzinger did not consider that it was such.
How do we get our point across if the argument is hey, I’m not dissenting from infallible doctrines or dogma? If for example you were to confront someone with these ideas and they reponded in that way what is the best way to state our case?
 
The place to contact concerning Fr. Curran and his visit to Rochester would be the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (better known in much better former days as the inquisition)
I took a look around on the Vatican website for an e-mail link but could not find one. Can any person, more clever than I, find a way (perhaps via the clergy who always seem to have contacts in Rome) to e-mail the congregation. Snail mail is said to take months to get a response.

Also, to draw a small distinction, I think some people might be confused between Fr. Curran, the disident theologian, and Fr. Callan, the schismatic priest who started his own parish here in Rochester and has a female Co-Priest
spirituschristi.org/
 
Arba Sicula:
I don’t believe the last is correct. He hasn’t dissented from any infallible doctrines or dogma. Even Evangelium Vitae was not promulgated as infallible, which JPII wanted, because Cardinal Ratzinger did not consider that it was such.
The Church’s teaching concerning the evils of abortion is infallibly taught through the ordinary magisterium, and Fr. Curran has dissented from this teaching - so he has dissented from infallible doctrines. A doctrine does not have to be ex cathedra to be infallible.

In Christ,
Irenaeus
 
40.png
Pistor:
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (better known in much better former days as the inquisition)
An email address would be the fastest and easiest way to get information through.
 
40.png
irenaeus1:
The Church’s teaching concerning the evils of abortion is infallibly taught through the ordinary magisterium
If that were so, then why did Cardinal Ratzinger have any “infallibility language” removed from Evangelium Vitae? I think it’s because there is some question about its infallibility. Also, I’ve not seen any Church documents stating that it is infallibly taught through the ordinary Magisterium. Not to say that there might not be such, but I’ve seen nothing to that effect.
 
Arba Sicula:
If that were so, then why did Cardinal Ratzinger have any “infallibility language” removed from Evangelium Vitae? I think it’s because there is some question about its infallibility. Also, I’ve not seen any Church documents stating that it is infallibly taught through the ordinary Magisterium. Not to say that there might not be such, but I’ve seen nothing to that effect.
He dissents form Humanae Vitae. That is infallible and even if these issues were not infallible he still needs to assent to them. Abortion and contraception are intrinsically evil and may never be done.

This priest may be in some sort of juridical communion with the Church, but that in no way means he is not teaching error or leading others in a direction they ought not go. It only means the Church has decided not to publicly excommunicate him.
 
Arba Sicula:
If that were so, then why did Cardinal Ratzinger have any “infallibility language” removed from Evangelium Vitae? I think it’s because there is some question about its infallibility. Also, I’ve not seen any Church documents stating that it is infallibly taught through the ordinary Magisterium. Not to say that there might not be such, but I’ve seen nothing to that effect.
** The Gospel Of Life
**I say infallibly taught not because Pope John Paul II has assumed in the special prerogative recognized for individual papal teachings in the First Vatican Council, but rather because he has called attention explicitly to the fact that Catholic teaching on abortion has been an infallible doctrine of the Church by virtue of the universal ordinary Magisterium, recognized for the teachings of the Pope and worldwide college of bishops together by the Second Vatican Council.
It should be clear, then, that every Catholic is required to accept this teaching as a matter of faith, and that any Catholic who would deny it would separate himself from the unity of Catholic faith and practice which is the fundamental condition for Church membership. Here I note by way of aside that Catholic “membership,” unlike that of some other religious bodies, is not a matter of “enrollment” but rather of “belonging” to the Body of Christ, whose condition is the full profession of Catholic faith and the reception of Baptism as the beginning of a life of sacramental worship and moral living in accord with the teachings of Christ. **Archbishop William J. Levada
**
**He dissents form Humanae Vitae. That is infallible and even if these issues were not infallible he still needs to assent to them. Abortion and contraception are intrinsically evil and may never be done.

This priest may be in some sort of juridical communion with the Church, but that in no way means he is not teaching error or leading others in a direction they ought not go. It only means the Church has decided not to publicly excommunicate him.
**

**
 
Nothing surprises me here with this church hosting the speaker.
I attended this very church for 4 years until the Holy Spirit moved me elsewhere for worship.

All I can do is shake my head and pray hard as I drive past this church daily! 😦
 
fix said:
****
That is infallible

On the basis of Levada’s statement?
and even if these issues were not infallible he still needs to assent to them.
And, if not infallible, then he is not dissenting from infallible doctrine.
This priest may be in some sort of juridical communion with the Church, but that in no way means he is not teaching error or leading others in a direction they ought not go. It only means the Church has decided not to publicly excommunicate him.


Sure, like the SSPX people or the O’Briens.
 
Arba Sicula:
Dissident, yes, but hardly obsolete. I would not at all be surprised to find out that more Catholics use birth control than not. And I don’t imagine that the percentage will get any lower.

In certain areas, there’s not a hair’s difference between the practices of Catholics and non-Catholics.
Many prominent Catholic observers believe that the pendulum is making a corrective swing back as the JPII generation of priests, educators, and lay Catholics advance more into positions of influence across the spectrum of the personal and professional. Here is a sampling of one academic’s observation:

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0308/opinion/mcshea.html

The aspirations of these two crowds could not have been more different. Since the 1960s, the first crowd [graying, upper-middle-class liberal women of the baby-boom generation]has sought to seize power from the leaders of the Catholic Church, to recast the Church in the image of modern, liberal society, and to purge it of all distinctions, not only between male and female, but also between priest and people, and even between mankind and God Himself. By contrast, the second crowd [young, conservative Catholic graduate students and professionals, evenly divided by sex, and of visibly diverse ethnic backgrounds] turns away from the moral and philosophical confusions of the sixties toward the leaders of the Church—particularly toward a Pope who asserts without blushing his divinely ordained authority to define what is right and wrong. They embrace a view of the world that has a privileged place for lasting and binding conceptions of natural and divine law, and for the traditional authorities that continue to expound such teachings despite the world’s resounding rejection of them.

Having been a student at Harvard for five years—first as an undergraduate, now as a Master’s candidate in religious studies—I have observed a growing chasm between the aspirations of the generation that is teaching us and those of more and more of my peers who are returning not merely to traditional ways of thinking, but in a remarkable number of cases, to the orthodox Christianity many of their parents rejected in their youth. While it would be misleading to say that such students make up anything more than a small minority at Harvard, their numbers are undeniably growing, in large part because of their infectiously hopeful spirit.

These are exciting times for the Catholic Church in America, as the eventful April weekend at Harvard proved to me and my friends in abundance. There is a generational struggle afoot, and it is not at all what the 1960s generation would have predicted it would be. Young men and women are turning to the ancient wisdom of the Church—even at Harvard University.

Bronwen Catherine McShea is a Master of Theological Studies candidate at Harvard Divinity School and a 2002 graduate of Harvard College.
 
Arba Sicula:
On the basis of Levada’s statement?
I was referring to Humanae Vitae which is infallible. Also, the issues which he dissents form are infallible regardless of the documents involoved.
And, if not infallible, then he is not dissenting from infallible doctrine.
Please chesck the CCC as one starting point, along with footnotes. By his words he is dissenting from the teaching authority of the church. Which of the issues that he claims a license to dissent from are considered noninfallible? Even issues, such as disciplines, one is obliged to obey while in place under pain of sin.
Sure, like the SSPX people or the O’Briens.
I am not familiar with your reference to the O’Briens? SSPX clergy are in formal excommunication.
 
40.png
fix:
I was referring to Humanae Vitae which is infallible.
What document declared it to be infallible? I’m not arguing that it isn’t so, but something has to say that it is. Is it HV itself or some other promulgated statement?
Also, the issues which he dissents form are infallible regardless of the documents involoved.
Those documents do matter. Something has to say that those issues fall under infallibility.
Which of the issues that he claims a license to dissent from are considered noninfallible?
The question should be, “which are infallible?”
Even issues, such as disciplines, one is obliged to obey while in place under pain of sin.
Agreed. He has an obligation to obey even if none are infallible.
SSPX clergy are in formal excommunication.
I didn’t know that JPII formally excommunicated them. They deserved it.
 
Arba Sicula:
What document declared it to be infallible? I’m not arguing that it isn’t so, but something has to say that it is. Is it HV itself or some other promulgated statement?
Here is one piece to see:

ewtn.com/library/Theology/AUTHUMVT.HTM
Those documents do matter. Something has to say that those issues fall under infallibility.
The ordinary magisterium of the Church teaches infallibly. There are many documents that show these issues are wrong.
I didn’t know that JPII formally excommunicated them. They deserved it.
Apostolic letter of Pope John Paul II given on July 2, 1988.
cin.org/users/james/files/ecclesia.htm
 
40.png
fix:
The ordinary magisterium of the Church teaches infallibly.
Where is this infallibly stated?
There are many documents that show these issues are wrong.
No doubt and I agree they’re wrong. I just would like to see where these are infallibly said to be so.
 
I just called the information telephone number (585-670-0667) listed in the announcement above.
A woman answered (must be a private number, not a church office number). As of today, Curran will be speaking in Rochester. She stated that Curran is a priest in good standing in the Diocese of Rochester. Why am I not surprised? I expressed my dissatisifaction in a simple and concise way. I hope more people do the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top