Now What? The Future of the Church After 2020

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarysLurker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MarysLurker said:
There is no reason to shoot the messenger. The fact that the messenger was nevertheless accused of making up the message and then shot, speaks volumes–in light of the fact that my whole argument was that such messengers were actually in danger of getting shot in the future.
Click to expand...
OH, but this is one of the favorite games played on CAF. You have to expect it whenever you write something “controversial”.
 
Maximian said:
Im baffled by the objections to your thread.

I find it a reasonable analysis and a good starting point for a fair discussion.
Click to expand...
Valid research requires an ethics pass, then it requires informed permission from those involved after permission has been granted to conduct it by the host web owners.
It is unethical and dishonest to do other.
Best not to call it research, a model, or use it as research or a model, because we dont want an unethical or dishonest thread that later gets published as research without our permission do we.
That leads to all sorts of law suits for the author and the web site. Words matter .

I suspect marys lurker used the terms research and model incorrectly and does not plan to publish opinions she or he garners on here.
He or she is forming personal opinions is my take on things.

I reiterate, we must be honest about our threads , and be pedantic about our terminology, purposes and the sources for thread creation. I am sure everyone would agree with this.

@Pug @Tis_Bearself I am doing the absolute happy dance, we get to start Mass back up this week and are allowed 20 people per Mass inside. Most Victorians have not had Mass since well before Easter.
 
Last edited:
umamibella said:
I suspect marys lurker used the terms research and model incorrectly and does not plan to publish opinions she or he garners on here.
He or she is forming personal opinions is my take on things.
Click to expand...
That is correct.
 
For my opinion, now I am Australian so bear that in mind, not sure of your country.
I also have grown children and hope to be a granny soon.

The Church here in my state in Victoria has gone through a lot of turmoil due to pedophile priests and religious. Its at its lowest point possible. Due to covid we have all been in one of the longest lockdowns on earth. No Mass since before Easter.

We are concerned with picking up the Church and the faithful after both those events.
They are the big ticket issues.

We also dont place too much capital in what some movie director claims someone said. That just smells strongly of cow manure on the cow manure detector. We will wait to find out the truth, the real story.

Sure some secular pro ssm groups here are racing around saying Pope Francis endorsed ssm but that just exemplifies their lack of knowledge of the Catholic Church doesnt it.

Marriage, matrimony in the Catholic church means man and woman become one flesh, ssm can never mean that, never will and the Pope would not endorse civil ssm anymore then he would endorse abortion or female priests.
 
Last edited:
@MarysLurker, your model suffers from a number of deficiencies and I doubt it will be useful, even to you. Groups 1, 2, and 3 are not based on objective criteria but on your own world view. If you sort people into three bins that you have defined, then your model will have a strong tendency to support your prejudices and not lead to greater understanding.

People’s responses to Pope Francis are much more varied than you describe, more like a continuum of humanity than three distinct tribes. @ErikaSpirit16 suggested a fourth response, and I could suggest still other responses which are fully consistent with a saintly Catholic life.

You are correct, of course, that people do have different responses, but you should not reduce people to simplistic caricatures and then judge them. Maybe you could design a model that respects and seeks to understand and serve those you disagree with.
 
Last edited:
Adamek said:
OH, but this is one of the favorite games played on CAF. You have to expect it whenever you write something “controversial”.
Click to expand...
You’re right. This is the second time that this has happened to me here. Shame on me for trying to find peace through understanding what is happening to all of us.

I felt like I had a duty to share my thoughts in order to help anyone in the same situation. I did that, so I have a clean conscience. But I am so tired of being faslely accused and personally attacked.

I think it is best to give up on this thread. There is a similar, better discussion here: What are we to do as Catholics?
 
Last edited:
umamibella said:
I am doing the absolute happy dance, we get to start Mass back up this week and are allowed 20 people per Mass inside. Most Victorians have not had Mass since well before Easter.
Click to expand...
That is super! I’m so happy for you, plus there will be other people to see there as well, and that is always uplifting. :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:
 
So everyone in any group other than the one you identify with is crazy/irrational?
 
MarysLurker said:
40.png
FrankFletcher:
So everyone in any group other than the one you identify with is crazy/irrational?
Click to expand...
How many times do I have to deny this?
Click to expand...
I didn’t write your first post — you did. That’s what it sounds like to me. I didn’t read the rest of the thread.
 
FrankFletcher said:
I didn’t write your first post — you did. That’s what it sounds like to me. I didn’t read the rest of the thread
Click to expand...
That is what it sounds like to everyone who wants to find a nonexistent agenda. But my point is that this is basically exactly how respectful dissenters will be treated in the future. By the very fact of asserting there is division in the Church, one becomes persona non grata.
 
Last edited:
You describe group #1 as “When presented with evidence that the Church’s teachings have not changed, they will simply ignore the evidence” and group #3 as the “lunatic fringe.” So again, anyone who doesn’t agree with you is either irrational or crazy. I don’t know where I stand on this topic but if I had to choose between your three choices, I’d only have one option that isn’t poisoned by the language you use to describe them.
 
FrankFletcher said:
You describe group #1 as “When presented with evidence that the Church’s teachings have not changed, they will simply ignore the evidence
Click to expand...
And then I went on to say that this was because of inadequate formation, not irrationality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top