My viewpoint on Conservative versus Liberal Catholic: The faithful v the fake

[hu324b]

The church was established to bring sinners to Christ - what is the point of a church full of self-righteous people - never going to happen - Christ’s words - I came to save sinners not the righteous - even the pope says the church should be like a triage ready to treat sinners and that doesn’t happen over night.People fall in their faith and some people here want them kicked out - I disagree we should be helping them back to understanding - kicking them out isn’t going to do that and helps in no way.Get off your self-righteous horse and show a little compassion and start helping those in error. We don’t just abandon them.

In Christianity you could look at Catholics as being the feminine side of the faith - we follow Mary,s example we pray pray and them pray some more for all those in need that God will intervene and thats everyone not just laymen as someone commented
Protestants follow the fire and brimstone preaching style of St. Paul which would be the masculine side of the faith.

Gandhi’s remark that he made of Christ hits the nail on the head for some Christians
" I like your Christ , I do not like your Christians Your Christians are so unlike Christ". .

 

[triumphguy]

Nobody is disagreeing with your faith. Just your propensity to ACCURATELY TALK ABOUT WHAT IT TEACHES.

You positively asserted that your Governor had been excommunicated because he was pro-choice. You even went so far as to say he was “toast”, “with no paperwork required” (a pretty flippant way to talk about someone suffering Hell for eternity), which is obviously beyond Church teaching (the Church who refuses to categorically state that ANYONE, even Judas, is in Hell)

…

Actually, just because someone is excommunicated doesn’t mean they are consigned to hell. It means that the church officially recognizes that their behaviour or statements place them out of communion with the church.

 

[christofirst]

I would suggest you instead compare this sentiment to that of St. Paul when dealing with apostates in the Church. He recommends they be thrown out, and when they decide to repent and live accordingly, readmitted to the Church. The same example is given by Christ with the moneychangers in the Temple. He kicked them out because they were behaving scandalously within the Temple. It doesn’t mean they can’t come back, but when they do come back, they can’t do those scandalous things any longer.

What you refer to is mercy and charity for all men. Yes, we should have mercy and never give up on saving those people who violate the faith so terribly as some of these politicians have done. But that doesn’t mean we have to continue allowing them to pollute the Church.

You and the other “hardliners” here apparently think that this “tough love” approach of excommunication will make the “fake” Catholics see the error of their ways and repent. This might happen, or there might be a much smaller Church were the survivors can happily remain in smug satisfaction. Either way, it does not seem like the Church shares your desire for more frequent excommunications. Such formal declarations are prudently rare, for now, as I think they should be.

 

[CrossBro]

The point is that the reference to Christ’s mercy for all men is inapplicable to what we should do about Christians who continue scandalous behavior within the Church. Both Christ and St. Paul provide us with the same example: kick them out and let them return when they repent.

The fact that you seem to believe St. Paul and Christ conflict on this matter speaks to the heart of the problem addressed in this thread.

I think Bill that you must pick and choose your own Christianity, anyone with even the slightest objectivity to scripture would take into account that Jesus encountered Paul personally on the road to Emmaus and this is something the Church celebrates whole heartedly. Saint Paul and Jesus conflict on nothing. Jesus said that hell exists and it is a lake of fire. Remember the rich man and Lazarus. God sent the rich man to hell for simply not adhering to the spirit of the corporal works of mercy.

That in mind, think of what is most likely in store for governor Sandoval who believes in the right to kill a son or daughter in the womb by tearing them limb to limb, even though Jesus said whatever you do to the least you do to me.

When it comes to Jesus and Saint Paul, Jesus was the one who made a whip and used it.

 

[Moonbug]

Moonbug, I have read the same. One only has to look around the pews during Mass and see the 1 to 3 children accompanying parents to Mass. And if one has been going faithfully for decades, they will notice, same said children never increase to 4 or 5 and 9 times out of 10 never over 5. Why is that? I have attended many Catholic weddings, family, friends… and it always comes up at the reception, "when will you be starting a family?’ Every…and I mean every answer was as follows…“well, we are planning on a two year wait before we have children?” Why is that? Out of 8 cousins married in the Church, only 3 of them have 2 children (adults now) and one never had children. Out of my dad (born in 1927, the year is important, pre Vat ii), 5 sisters, only one had 2 kids, the rest had 1. His brother, my uncle, had 1 biological (three of them are step children). My dad had the highest number a whopping 3. And this was wayyyyyyy before birth control. Had to be total abstinence in their case…or logically, they didn’t want to have any more kids.

I noticed this comment was not answered. I taught CCD for a decade…saw the same families, same children, grow in, up and out of CCD. No more than 3 to a family. Medium size parish. All but 2 moms of the 30 kids I had in class worked outside the home. I worked at a Catholic School for 10 yrs…out of the 300 families…only one had 5 children. The average was 2.

Could it be…naww…the economy? But that is for another thread.

Julianna, You are seeing the situation clearly. During the Middle Ages and in Europe and America up until approximately 1900, children were An asset in a rural economy. By the time they were 8 or 9, and often much younger, the boys were in the barn milking cows and herding them out to pasture. then there was feeding the pigs and helping as much as possible in the fields. The girls helped cook and wash dishes, care for the hen house, did housekeeping and washed clothes. They were cheap labor for the farm. Added to this was a high death rate because of the primitive state of medicine.

With the coming of the Industrial Revolution all that changed. Farm machines made the labor on farms more efficient and removed the need for child labor. Children that were assets in the past now became liabilities. And you must remember that 98% of the American population lived on farms prior to 1900. Today, that population statistic is reversed. Presently, only 2% of the American population still live on farms. The aim in most families was to have no more children than you could clothe, feed and educate to where they could stand on their own. A Catholic child today needs so much more social neutering both in his community and in his family than was required before the Industrial Revolution. Catholic women today are far more educated and attuned to the outside world than their mothers or grandmothers ever were.

There are few Catholic women, if any, in these times who are completely unconcerned about the future of their children and the well being of their families. They look to the third world countries and see where children have no more future than a life of virtual slavery or prostitution. No mother wants that for her child.

 

[CrossBro]

Julianna, You are seeing the situation clearly. During the Middle Ages and in Europe and America up until approximately 1900, children were An asset in a rural economy. By the time they were 8 or 9, and often much younger, the boys were in the barn milking cows and herding them out to pasture. then there was feeding the pigs and helping as much as possible in the fields. The girls helped cook and wash dishes, care for the hen house, did housekeeping and washed clothes. They were cheap labor for the farm. Added to this was a high death rate because of the primitive state of medicine.

With the coming of the Industrial Revolution all that changed. Farm machines made the labor on farms more efficient and removed the need for child labor. Children that were assets in the past now became liabilities. And you must remember that 98% of the American population lived on farms prior to 1900. Today, that population statistic is reversed. The aim in most families was to have no more children than you could clothe, feed and educate to where they could stand on their own. A Catholic child today needs so much more social neutering both in his community and in his family than was required before the Industrial Revolution. Catholic women today are far more educated and attuned to the outside world than their mothers or grandmothers ever were.

There are few Catholic women, if any, in these times who are completely unconcerned about the future of their children and the well being of their families. They look to the third world countries and see where children have no more future than a life of virtual slavery or prostitution. No mother wants that for her child.

And I stand outside an abortion clinic at least two days out of every week and see couples driving in all the time in new SUVs and sports cars with the dealer plates still on them. They will kill a son or daughter to ensure that next new toy is within reach when they want it. That is why Mother Theresa said that abortion is warfare against the child, that it teaches people to kill to get what they want.

 

[CrossBro]

You and the other “hardliners” here apparently think that this “tough love” approach of excommunication will make the “fake” Catholics see the error of their ways and repent. This might happen, or there might be a much smaller Church were the survivors can happily remain in smug satisfaction. Either way, it does not seem like the Church shares your desire for more frequent excommunications. Such formal declarations are prudently rare, for now, as I think they should be.

Pope Francis excommunicated an Australian priest in September for false preaching for female ordination. So, brace yourself, he might start dealing out excommunications like a dealer at the poker table given his recent comments about telling bishops not to distribute communion to prochoice politicians.

If you think this Pope is for some reason going to be more flexible on the moral dogma of this Church you are in for a big surprise.

 

[christofirst]

Pope Francis excommunicated an Australian priest in September for false preaching for female ordination. So, brace yourself, he might start dealing out excommunications like a dealer at the poker table given his recent comments about telling bishops not to distribute communion to prochoice politicians.

If you think this Pope is for some reason going to be more flexible on the moral dogma of this Church you are in for a big surprise.

When and if that ever happens, I will continue to trust in the truth and wisdom of Holy Mother Church. But I will take no joy in seeing any of us “fake” Catholics thrown out. You might not either (take joy in seeing anyone excluded), but the tone of your post suggests otherwise: mostly anger and a wish for vengeance. I hope if we were talking face to face it would seem different. I know by your very pro-life statements and actions that you mean well. I just disagree that excommunications and loyalty oaths are the answer.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Pope Francis … given his recent comments about telling bishops not to distribute communion to prochoice politicians.

Which specific comments are you referring to?

 

[CrossBro]

When and if that ever happens, I will continue to trust in the truth and wisdom of Holy Mother Church. But I will take no joy in seeing any of us “fake” Catholics thrown out. You might not either (take joy in seeing anyone excluded), but the tone of your post suggests otherwise: mostly anger and a wish for vengeance. I hope if we were talking face to face it would seem different. I know by your very pro-life statements and actions that you mean well. I just disagree that excommunications and loyalty oaths are the answer.

Because unfortunately the fake catholics are trying to get a foothold in the Church.

Take excerpts from this article for instance:

3 Reasons Pro-Choice and Pro-LGBT Folks won’t leave the Catholic Church:

1. Church positions have changed through its history.

1. The majority of practicing Catholics (and even the church hierarchy) don’t agree on official church position.

1. You can’t create a progressive and inclusive Catholic Church if you’re not part of the community.

The article summarizes:

perhaps since the Catholic and Christian communities have such an influential place in American politics it would be arguably undesirable if not irresponsible to let those who are less progressive take control without a fight.
Author: Nicole Polizzi

So there you have it. The agenda.

 

[CrossBro]

Which specific comments are you referring to?

This comment that the Pope made back in May:

“[people] cannot receive Holy Communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the commandments, particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged. This responsibility weighs particularly over legislators, heads of governments, and health professionals.”

“These are the guidelines we need for this time in history,” the pope wrote to the bishops.
Source: Lifesitenews

 

[Michael57]

Julianna, You are seeing the situation clearly. During the Middle Ages and in Europe and America up until approximately 1900, children were An asset in a rural economy. By the time they were 8 or 9, and often much younger, the boys were in the barn milking cows and herding them out to pasture. then there was feeding the pigs and helping as much as possible in the fields. The girls helped cook and wash dishes, care for the hen house, did housekeeping and washed clothes. They were cheap labor for the farm. Added to this was a high death rate because of the primitive state of medicine.

With the coming of the Industrial Revolution all that changed. Farm machines made the labor on farms more efficient and removed the need for child labor. Children that were assets in the past now became liabilities. And you must remember that 98% of the American population lived on farms prior to 1900. Today, that population statistic is reversed. Presently, only 2% of the American population still live on farms. The aim in most families was to have no more children than you could clothe, feed and educate to where they could stand on their own. A Catholic child today needs so much more social neutering both in his community and in his family than was required before the Industrial Revolution. Catholic women today are far more educated and attuned to the outside world than their mothers or grandmothers ever were.

There are few Catholic women, if any, in these times who are completely unconcerned about the future of their children and the well being of their families. They look to the third world countries and see where children have no more future than a life of virtual slavery or prostitution. No mother wants that for her child.

Hmmm…I’ve heard this somewhere before…but where?

Oh, yeah, it was as a justification for birth control and abortion.

But that’s not what you meant, right?

 

[Starrsmother]

Hmmm…I’ve heard this somewhere before…but where?

Oh, yeah, it was as a justification for birth control and abortion.

But that’s not what you meant, right?

I sort of took it just the opposite. It’s a statement of fact. Along with our increase in education and wealth and reduction of hard labor for everyone in the west–including basically the abolishing of any form of “child labor” heavier than a kid wiping off his X-Box now and then–has come a societal belief in reducing the number of kids a family should have. It’s almost as if children have met the same fate as the plow horse in Europe and the USA–they are seen as archeaic and superfluous. In Africa for instance–where even simply feeding their kids–much less keeping them alive–are often difficult–children are still treated as a treasure and wanted–perhaps because they are not weighed against whether a fancier new car would be a preferable investment for a man and woman to make. And, because the children are wanted more, though given less in material things–the children seem happier in general and that includes happiness with the simple act of playing. Hmmm–you don’t suppose a truly revolutionary idea could evolve from a 3rd world country do you?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I sort of took it just the opposite. It’s a statement of fact. Along with our increase in education and wealth and reduction of hard labor for everyone in the west–including basically the abolishing of any form of “child labor” heavier than a kid wiping off his X-Box now and then–has come a societal belief in reducing the number of kids a family should have. It’s almost as if children have met the same fate as the plow horse in Europe and the USA–they are seen as archeaic and superfluous. In Africa for instance–where even simply feeding their kids–much less keeping them alive–are often difficult–children are still treated as a treasure and wanted–perhaps because they are not weighed against whether a fancier new car would be a preferable investment for a man and woman to make. And, because the children are wanted more, though given less in material things–the children seem happier in general and that includes happiness with the simple act of playing. Hmmm–you don’t suppose a truly revolutionary idea could evolve from a 3rd world country do you?

The reason children are wanted more in underdeveloped contries is that they provide the only form of social security. And since infant and childhood mortality is so high, you have to have more children just to make sure a few, maybe just one, makes it to adulthood to take care of you in your old age.

 

[Starrsmother]

The reason children are wanted more in underdeveloped contries is that they provide the only form of social security. And since infant and childhood mortality is so high, you have to have more children just to make sure a few, maybe just one, makes it to adulthood to take care of you in your old age.

Undoubtedly that is the underlying principle–but it still speaks to how shallow we become as humans the easier life is for us.

 

[Joe_5859]

On the contrary, sir! It is you who doesn’t have his facts straight. Your “Catholic Vote. Org” group is a very conservative political action committee working out of Chicago whose sole aim is to get conservative Catholics elected to office. Since 1995 the group has changed its name four times. The statistic this group has tried to lay at the feet of the Obama Administration is completely bogus.

Reuters News Service carried an article on this very subject in the Boston Globe Newspaper on April 13, 2011. The story reported that 98 percent of Catholic women have used contraceptive methods banned by the Catholic Church. The story adds, “The new report from the Guttmacher Institute shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, EVEN THOSE WHO REGULARLY ATTEND CHURCH, rely on natural family planning. The latest data shows practices of Catholic women are in line with women of other religious affiliations and adult American women in general.”

The Boston Globe story goes on to add, “The findings nearly match previous NSFG (National Survey of Family Growth) data from 2002, which showed that 97 percent of Catholic women were using contraceptives , and is consistent with a trend tracked over the last decade.”

As for the reliability of the Guttmacher Institute, it is considered one of the best statistical data gathering organizations in the world, Almost all of the statistical research done for the United Nations is done by the Guttmacher Institute. The United Nations Assembly has cited them in the past for their reliable work. The “Catholic Vote.org” story is an attempt to twist the facts. Get the Boston Globe story and read it for yourself.

You can also go to C.A.R.A. (Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate) at Georgetown University. Their statistical data will verify the Boston Globe statistics.

Did you read the article beyond the URL? It’s a logical fallacy to dismiss an argument based solely on where it came from rather than by actually looking at the argument. The CatholicVote article was just the one I bookmarked. They are pretty much just reiterating an article from someone else. If you have some objection to the facts they point out, you can certainly present those.

But I fear we’re getting off topic. If it’s that important to you that the 98% figure be considered accurate, I can take the claim at face value for the sake of argument. Considering Catholic morality is not something that is voted on nor determined by majority practice, it really does not matter if the number is 0% or 100%. Catholic teaching is still Catholic teaching.

 

[christofirst]

So there you have it. The agenda.

There can be more than one agenda in the slippery world of politics.

A politician might claim to be pro-life, but their true agenda is promoting the interests of the wealthy. A sudden increase of excommunications might play right into the hands of such politicians, making the Church another pawn in a game of politics. Sincere pro-lifers who close their eyes to this possibility might do well to remember the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man. There is more than one offense which cries for justice.

Exercise your right to vote, keep trying to change hearts and minds thereby winning souls for Christ, but leave the excommunications to the Church.

 

[CrossBro]

There can be more than one agenda in the slippery world of politics.

A politician might claim to be pro-life, but their true agenda is promoting the interests of the wealthy. A sudden increase of excommunications might play right into the hands of such politicians, making the Church another pawn in a game of politics. Sincere pro-lifers who close their eyes to this possibility might do well to remember the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man. There is more than one offense which cries for justice.

Exercise your right to vote, keep trying to change hearts and minds thereby winning souls for Christ, but leave the excommunications to the Church.

Sincere Catholics do not have a seamless fabric view of social issues. This is classic Chapult versus Bernadin viewpoint here.

Homelessness and poverty are serious issues, but yesterday over 3300 babies were taken to designated places and lawfully had their limbs severed and were torn from the womb and discarded like trash.

When they start shooting the homeless and the poor than it will be an equally valid issue.

 

[christofirst]

Sincere Catholics do not have a seamless fabric view of social issues. This is classic Chapult versus Bernadin viewpoint here.

Homelessness and poverty are serious issues, but yesterday over 3300 babies were taken to designated places and lawfully had their limbs severed and were torn from the womb and discarded like trash.

When they start shooting the homeless and the poor than it will be an equally valid issue.

I see that I should not have used the example of the wealthy and the poor. My liberal, red letter “F” was shining so bright I was blinded.

The point I hope you take away is this:

If you claim there are “fake” Catholics among us, you should also be willing to accept the possibility of “fake” pro-lifers, especially in the political realm. The Church does well not to let the power of excommunication become a tool in their hands.

 

[Moonbug]

Did you read the article beyond the URL? It’s a logical fallacy to dismiss an argument based solely on where it came from rather than by actually looking at the argument. The CatholicVote article was just the one I bookmarked. They are pretty much just reiterating an article from someone else. If you have some objection to the facts they point out, you can certainly present those.

But I fear we’re getting off topic. If it’s that important to you that the 98% figure be considered accurate, I can take the claim at face value for the sake of argument. Considering Catholic morality is not something that is voted on nor determined by majority practice, it really does not matter if the number is 0% or 100%. Catholic teaching is still Catholic teaching.

You say you fear we are getting off topic, yet you seem to obfuscate the facts that are most central to the issue. You dismiss the question with a cavalier wave of the hand of whether 0% or 100% of American Catholic women have used birth control; in the past. What this means is that 98% of all the Catholic women in America have committed the mortal sin of practicing contraception, not only in their lives, but the lives of all Catholic women for the past forty years. That’s how far the statistics go back documenting this accepted practice among Catholic women. Now, is that true?

SENSUS FIDELIUM is the theological principle that what the great majority of Catholics believe or reject over time is, If this is in direct opposition to a teaching of the magisterium, then "Sensus Fidelium prevails. This doctrine embodies the promise of Christ to protect us from error with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Church hierarchy has taught what to believe, accept, and reject, but always with the corrective response by theologians and the faithful even from the very beginning. (Acts 15)