New poll confirms widespread dissent from Church moral teachings among US Catholics [CC]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomdstone said:
I am not sure that your proposal is feasible at least for now. Does your proposal mean that Catholics will accept SS marriage of bishops and women bishops?
Click to expand...
Please understand that my “proposal” is not serious. And if the Catholic Church did a merger which involved the ability for everyone, or even a regional bishop’s conference, to change doctrine at will, then it wouldn’t much matter what particular individuals accepted, since their religion would have become a dead letter.

As an example, let me take the case of artificial contraception. For nearly 2,000 years of Catholic history and 400 years of Protestant history, both Catholics and Protestants had the same teaching on artificial contraception–that it was contrary to God’s law. Every Protestant church taught the same as did the Catholic Church on the issue.

That remained the case until 1930, when the Anglican church, under pressure from those favoring birth control, in the Lambeth Conference that year, decided that artificial birth control could be allowable for married couples for serious reasons. That broke the dam, and other denominations followed. A constant teaching was changed, and it enabled the sexual revolution which followed, having broken the connection between sex and procreation.

Actions have consequences. Rejection of divine law has serious consequences. That’s why we won’t see any change in Catholic teaching on contraception, abortion, marriage, or extramarital sex.
 
Thomas_White said:
"8. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time…

“This tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.”

–Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Die Verbum, Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on November 18, 1965

Die Verbum is one of the most important documents of Vatican II.
Click to expand...
I would urge everyone to read the documents of Vatican II, including Dei Verbum. Of course doctrines can come to be better understood over the course of time. That is not the same thing as coming to decide that doctrines must be changed or rejected.
 
JimG said:
I would urge everyone to read the documents of Vatican II, including Dei Verbum. Of course doctrines can come to be better understood over the course of time. That is not the same thing as coming to decide that doctrines must be changed or rejected.
Click to expand...
What it means is Catholic teaching is not necessary constant and can advance.
 
JimG said:
Please understand that my “proposal” is not serious. And if the Catholic Church did a merger which involved the ability for everyone, or even a regional bishop’s conference, to change doctrine at will, then it wouldn’t much matter what particular individuals accepted, since their religion would have become a dead letter.

As an example, let me take the case of artificial contraception. For nearly 2,000 years of Catholic history and 400 years of Protestant history, both Catholics and Protestants had the same teaching on artificial contraception–that it was contrary to God’s law. Every Protestant church taught the same as did the Catholic Church on the issue.

That remained the case until 1930, when the Anglican church, under pressure from those favoring birth control, in the Lambeth Conference that year, decided that artificial birth control could be allowable for married couples for serious reasons. That broke the dam, and other denominations followed. A constant teaching was changed, and it enabled the sexual revolution which followed, having broken the connection between sex and procreation.

Actions have consequences. Rejection of divine law has serious consequences. That’s why we won’t see any change in Catholic teaching on contraception, abortion, marriage, or extramarital sex.
Click to expand...
Didn’t a Pope assign a committee the task of determining whether or not the teaching on ABC could be changed? If the teaching on ABC could not be changed, what was the purpose of calling the committee?
 
Thomas_White said:
What it means is Catholic teaching is not necessary constant and can advance.
Click to expand...
Well, if anyone is hoping for “advancement” on the issues of contraception, same sex marriage, same sex relations, extramarital relations and other serious moral issues, I think they will be disappointed, especially if by advancement is meant increased moral laxity.
 
CaptFun said:
Mark Twain.

Boy does it apply here. This is an anti-Catholic “poll”. Pe-ew!

Look at trickery per “should the Church allow contraception?” WHERE is the word artificial? Most people know the Church allows NFP within what it permits. Abstinance too … 100 % effective … though only allowed “for a time” not forever if one is a partner in a marriage.

The dirty little jab in the headline about Church going Catholics being “less accepting” is a class warfare cultural assault and a false witness. I can’t believe it is passive and accidental. I don’t want to be a false witness myself here … but my antennae are up and and the message coming in looks like …

“Call Shenanigans!”

Church critics: Open minded … tolerant …* yadda yadda*

Church goers: More intolerant … on the “losing side of history” …*** double yadda yadda ***

JUST before Eve fell … she was quizzed on her theology by a tempter. FIRST he put the case wrong. She corrected him (correctly) … but she had entered into a conversation and he was through the barrier now.

After achieving the “we’re in dialogue” stage, the snake (who’d given Eve nothing) then posed the possibility that God … (who’d given her everything she had) … was actually selfish, bullying her with an unjust prohibition, and holding her BACK. She CONSIDERS all that … instead of dismissing it as the nonsense that it was. < I just fell for the same stuff in taking this poll seriously even as an intellectual exercise.

I was a bit like Eve in going through the next steps too. She LOOKS at the (forbidden) fruit … it SEEMS to her to be not only OK but in all probabillty good for eating AND the promised kinowledge … and what if he snake was right and she could be “like God”?

Soon after she ropes her husband into the same mess. And here I am still commenting upon this with all of you.

👋 No more … PEW!
Click to expand...
Capt Fun, you’re the best! 👍👍👍

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

👋
 
Tomdstone said:
Didn’t a Pope assign a committee the task of determining whether or not the teaching on ABC could be changed? If the teaching on ABC could not be changed, what was the purpose of calling the committee?
Click to expand...
The purpose was to study “the pill” as a contraceptive. I think there were allegations by some that it was not really artificial contraception. The fact that Paul VI, not a particularly strong willed individual, maintained the traditional teaching in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, is, I think, evidence of the protection of the Holy Spirit. His predictions of the potential negative effects of accepting contraception have been on target, although relatively mild compared to the devastation that has actually occurred.
 
_Abyssinia said:
I assume by ‘hold views contrary to the Church’ you mean on issues like, abortion, contraception, having sex outside of marriage? But if they engage in mortal sins, they are in mortal sin and unless they seek forgiveness they can’t have the Eucharist.

If you engage in grave moral sins, you place yourself at odds with the Church. You can’t fully participate in Church life if you don’t seek forgiveness.
Click to expand...
This!👍
 
Thomas_White said:
What it means is Catholic teaching is not necessary constant and can advance.
Click to expand...
No, that is not quite what it means, although I confess that I don’t really understand what “not necessarily constant and can advance” means either, with regards to Church doctrine and teaching. What Dei Verbum is saying, if I understand it correctly, is that our understanding of Divine Revelation can be augmented and deepened over time, but always in fidelity to the Magisterium and in the continuity with the deposit of faith. That is one thing. “Doctrinal backflips,” as Cardinal Pell puts it, are another.

Consider this, from Dei Verbum:

“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. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously, and explaining it faithfully by divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed."
 
AKDee said:
I’m not surprised with some of the dissent, but yesterday I read there is a group called “Catholics for choice” who apparently are pro-choice about abortion. While I can see how some areas might be up for question, I simply cannot understand how any Catholic group could support abortion.
Click to expand...
We said, I agree. I would also add any sanctioned death for that matter, including the death penalty.
 
seaton2005 said:
We said, I agree. I would also add any sanctioned death for that matter, including the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Add what you like, but the Church does not consider the death penalty an intrinsic evil. There are clearly instances, however rare, that the Church allows that the death penalty may be morally permissible.

I also oppose the death penalty, just to be clear, but to couple it with abortion in terms of “what no Catholic could ever support” cheapens the evil of abortion and misunderstands the moral reality of the death penalty as taught by the Church.
 
Tomdstone said:
Didn’t a Pope assign a committee the task of determining whether or not the teaching on ABC could be changed? If the teaching on ABC could not be changed, what was the purpose of calling the committee?
Click to expand...
I would think it likely it was because Pope Paul VI knew very well the teaching could be changed. A change was in fact what the committee recommended, but it was Pope Paul’s decision to make. That’s all. It was some year’s later when Humanae Vitae was finally promulgated.
 
DrTaffy said:
Sure. That is both his opinion and presumably the ‘teaching’ of the Catholic Church.

But since Catholics, at least here, affirm so strongly that Catholicism is not not a democracy, the aim of a poll of self identified ‘Catholics’ cannot, surely, be to identify the ‘teaching’ of the Church as opposed to what ‘Catholics’ actually believe.
Click to expand...
“Presumably”.
 
Colorad007 said:
Add what you like, but the Church does not consider the death penalty an intrinsic evil. There are clearly instances, however rare, that the Church allows that the death penalty may be morally permissible.

I also oppose the death penalty, just to be clear, but to couple it with abortion in terms of “what no Catholic could ever support” cheapens the evil of abortion and misunderstands the moral reality of the death penalty as taught by the Church.
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree my friend. I believe they are both wrong.
 
Colorad007 said:
No, that is not quite what it means, although I confess that I don’t really understand what “not necessarily constant and can advance” means either, with regards to Church doctrine and teaching. What Dei Verbum is saying, if I understand it correctly, is that our understanding of Divine Revelation can be augmented and deepened over time, but always in fidelity to the Magisterium and in the continuity with the deposit of faith. That is one thing. “Doctrinal backflips,” as Cardinal Pell puts it, are another.
Click to expand...
Dei Verbum simply means what it says:

“For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.” –Dei Verbum, 8

It means that we do not yet know “the fullness of divine truth” and cannot know it before the end of time when the full revelation is revealed. It is thus an error to believe that we already know all there is to known concerning divine truth, and this includes the Magisterium. But there is no need for either alarm or dispute. It is dogma. Pope Benedict also said that to each generation more of revelation is revealed. --[God in the World*
Colorad007 said:
Consider this, from Dei Verbum:

“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. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously, and explaining it faithfully by divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed."
Click to expand...
This is not questioned. It is what has been “written or handed on” that is further revealed as “the centuries succeed one another as the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth…” It is that this process constantly occurs that is Catholic dogma, and it hardly means that it is Church teaching that remains constant. Revelation involves a process where “the Church constantly moves forward toward divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.” Dei Verbum teaches that revelation is not exclusively reserved for the Magisterium but rather that it also “happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience…” The Church can thusly be informed by divine truth.
 
ComplineSanFran said:
Sy Noe, you are very good at reminding us of this fact. Thank you.

I wonder if people here would feel more comfortable with different labels for 76 million US Catholics. That way they can keep track of the rules for everyone according to the box they fit in. I’m thinking:

Observant and Conservative/Traditional Catholic
Traditionalist
Conservative and not so observant Catholic (misses Mass a couple times a month)
Divorced and Remarried Catholic
Gay married or in a relationship Catholic
Uses birth control Catholic
Goes to Mass but sins and doesn’t care Catholic
Baptized Catholic and who knows WHAT they believe Catholic

and the list goes on.
Click to expand...
Actually it’s much easier:

Non-heretical Catholic - Includes the ignorant Catholics that don’t know what the Church teaches but comes in line once they do
Heretical Catholic - Openly rejects one of more parts of the faith. Some of these just prefer to participate in multiple heresies

There are not different rules for Catholics.Heresies don’t allow you to follow a different set of rules.
 
Usige said:
Actually it’s much easier:

Non-heretical Catholic - Includes the ignorant Catholics that don’t know what the Church teaches but comes in line once they do
Heretical Catholic - Openly rejects one of more parts of the faith. Some of these just prefer to participate in multiple heresies

There are not different rules for Catholics.Heresies don’t allow you to follow a different set of rules.
Click to expand...
Ok. That makes it very black and white. I’d like to hear from people in other situations what their identifications might be.
 
ComplineSanFran said:
Sy Noe, you are very good at reminding us of this fact. Thank you.

I wonder if people here would feel more comfortable with different labels for 76 million US Catholics. That way they can keep track of the rules for everyone according to the box they fit in. I’m thinking:

Observant and Conservative/Traditional Catholic
Traditionalist
Conservative and not so observant Catholic (misses Mass a couple times a month)
Divorced and Remarried Catholic
Gay married or in a relationship Catholic
Uses birth control Catholic
Goes to Mass but sins and doesn’t care Catholic
Baptized Catholic and who knows WHAT they believe Catholic

and the list goes on.
Click to expand...
why is a pro-gay “Anglican” on this site? you have to wonder.:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top