Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[JMJSHJ]

I for one never said I was or would vote for a Republican the rest of my life, But I will tell you I will NEVER for vote anyone no matter which party affiliation he/she holds that hold the views in support of evil as Barrack Obama holds.

You can make no argument that a vote for Obama was a vote which Catholic Moral Theology allows. You can make an opinionated partial argument, but not a theological and sound moral argument.

The only way you can is to pick and choose which statements ond phrases in a document, or documents in this case, to support your opinions. This, my friend, is the definition of party loyalty before Church loyalty.

As long as we stay loyal to liberal/conservative ideology, or democrat/republican party, this destructive division will continue to exits. The question for defenders of both sides is this; when do we together start defending and living by the Church FIRST? Drop what Rush Limbaugh tells us as “true conservatives” to believe; likewise, stop taking orders from MSNBC like a “good liberal” should. Our leader is Pope Benedict the XVI. He has issued this document to us, the Church of the Diocese of the United States of America. He has issued statements before, ’04 and also March of this year; when do we hear his message and not OUR own opinion of his message? This is the challenge that must be accepted; do you accept it???

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20120330_nota-farley_en.html

On a specific note with this document, if you find yourself aligned with the likes of Sr. Margaret Farley, please pay close attention!

Al Moritz would be wise to follow this post as I read his analysis of proportionate reasoning and it does lack serious moral theological basis.

Al, you basically say that because you mistrust Romney and the Republicans and consider conservatives the equivalent of a battered wife that justifies voting for Obama. Even if everything you said about Republicans were true, that doesn’t justify voting for Obama. You may not have voted for Obama because of abortion but that doesn’t stop him from enacting more abortions through legislative means.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ll fix it for you, “…on a careful mis-reading of the documents…” There ya go…:thumbsup:

Wouldn’t a ‘careful misreading’ be intentional? What does that do what Chaput and Burke said about ‘not very clear’ and ‘confusion’?

 

[ProVobis]

The choice was Romney or a no vote or a third party.

My pastor spent an entire sermon bombasting Romney as well as Obama. He started with “What are we do now?” And the sermon got applauded, one of the rare times anything gets applauded in the EF Mass.

 

[Lapey]

Really? Read Cardinal Ratzinger again. It is quite obvious for those able to read what he actually says, instead of interpreting into his words what they want him to have said.

You are basing the condition of your immortal soul to a political ideology and a footnote to a document which cannot stand alone; it must be taken in context of the entire document and more importantly, the entire deposit of truth. The Church does not support your view of this footnote.

 

[Lapey]

How can you claim that I haven’t addressed the issue, when in your previous post you conceded that you haven’t read through the entire thread? I have addressed the issue at length on page 6 of the thread.

I have…you have not.

Me, I have read the entire thread and many more where you have made this statement.

You have not laid out the “other” proportionate reasons that the Church has sates that are equal to abortion; statements from bishops or documents to support claims are required.

 

[Lapey]

The vagueness argument seems to have ground according to Burke and Chaput. Chaput said the document was not very clear, and Burke stated it was confusing. Read back through the thread and you’ll see links to those prominent Catholics view of the teaching from the hierarchy.

The condemnation is evident to the objective eye, I assure you. There are those who are pushing others away, to great extents.

Too many are clinging to only parts of a message from any man of the Church, and for what seems to be the ‘conservative vs liberal’ purposes. People cling to what they can use in arguments and ignore anything else. Let’s just look at what the topic of this thread addresses. The Papal nuncio ‘laments’. No where is he calling for a separation in the Church. No where does he address the ‘not very clear’ or ‘confusion’ as Chaput and Burke has done, so therefore it must not exist? Is that how it’s supposed to work?

No room to compromise? No one asks for compromise. That doesn’t mean we shut down on each other. No solution will be found that way.

What we have is a group that demands, justifies, and argues for the right to condemn others, and drop all charity in the process. There is no attempt to understand nothing, not even the possibility that some could be working from a conscience that is not well formed, through no fault of their own. I believe you’ve see that said, but it’s not a part of your discussion. Why is it preferred to lay a blame for not having a well formed conscience? Why is it to be automatically assumed to be ‘intentionally’ rejecting Church teaching?

As I said, some latch on to a few things said and it’s case closed, while ignoring everything that is said by them, or other men of the Church.

Burke and Chaput are not the issue here. Neither is confusion of Church teaching. It is totally about remaining outside of Her teaching, no matter which party you call home. As far as reading back, I have, and all I see is general statements about portions, try reading all of the statements of all of the truth; then after this, realize it is then that you and I are called to conform our consciences to Mother Church.

The condemnation is only given by the soul who “in arrogance chooses” to ignore the truth and stay in disobedience; the souls condemns itself according to the CCC;

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60
Now if the soul is truly in ignorance of the wrong and from no fault of their own make that choice, there is no sin. Two separate people can choose the same exact act and one be in mortal sin, and the other completely innocent; don’t you agree?

I agree with you on some only using some parts of the fullness of truth. Although I come up with a completely different view of who is doing this than you would. There is the separation, the division; we are required to seek out everything, not just the footnotes.

The last point I will make to your post, there is no compromise in intrinsic evils, and they are always evil. How do we compromise?

 

[Lapey]

This might take the wind of the staunch partisans…

Archbishop Chaput sees election days as ‘tough times’ for Catholics

This is what I’ve been arguing since prior to the election, while people told me I must vote and I must vote for Romney. You support Obama to write in a third party candidate, they told me, or I was ‘wasting’ a vote. Seems the Archbishop understands those who could not/cannot accept the major party candidates.

I have never said you or anyone “had to vote Romney”. Although I have said a Catholic in good conscience cannot vote for Obama. If you choose to not vote for either, there were other choices, a no vote or a pro-life third party.

I did say if you take the election like I did, only a two horse race, then the choice was the lesser of two evils. The dem is disqualified by the party’s platform and his record.

There may be partisans in this argument, it is not me; I vote and preach Catholic!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano has told the University of Notre Dame that there is a concrete “menace” to religious liberty in the U.S. that is advancing in part because some influential Catholic public figures and university professors are allied with those opposed to Church teaching.

Sad to say, but this is because the Church lost moral credibility with the sex scandal, and although Catholics may listen to Influential Catholic Public figures and university professors, however, more than anything they ignore all, both the Catholic Hierarchy and anyone associated with the religion.

It was said by another Cardinal that the damage the sex abuse scandal caused to the Church, will take generations to recover from.

Jim

 

[wynnejj]

He cited Catholics’ duties to be disciples of Christ, not elements of a political or secular ideology. He lamented the fact that many Catholics are publicly supporting “a major political party” that has “intrinsic evils among its basic principles.”

Talking about being vague and confusing, is it an indication of our loss of religious freedom already when you can’t call out “a major political party” by name? Is this a minor infraction of our 501c3 agreements? Are there members of another “major political party” that for a moment pause to think “Who’s he talking about?”. Psst, Psst … translate “a major political party” to “not the other major political party” … nudge, nudge, wink, wink, he said knowingly.

 

[Mickey]

The dem is disqualified by the party’s platform and his record.

The dem is always disqualified by the paltform. And it is very rare to find a dem with a pro-life record.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Burke and Chaput are not the issue here. Neither is confusion of Church teaching. It is totally about remaining outside of Her teaching, no matter which party you call home. As far as reading back, I have, and all I see is general statements about portions, try reading all of the statements of all of the truth; then after this, realize it is then that you and I are called to conform our consciences to Mother Church.

The condemnation is only given by the soul who “in arrogance chooses” to ignore the truth and stay in disobedience; the souls condemns itself according to the CCC;

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60
Now if the soul is truly in ignorance of the wrong and from no fault of their own make that choice, there is no sin. Two separate people can choose the same exact act and one be in mortal sin, and the other completely innocent; don’t you agree?

I agree with you on some only using some parts of the fullness of truth. Although I come up with a completely different view of who is doing this than you would. There is the separation, the division; we are required to seek out everything, not just the footnotes.

The last point I will make to your post, there is no compromise in intrinsic evils, and they are always evil. How do we compromise?

Who has said compromise? I am talking about how to approach the problem so that all Catholics understand the same. Whether one wants to recognize the Faithful Citizenship or not, many Catholics view it as just that, a teaching from the men of the Church. When the men of the Church state that the document is ‘not very clear’, or ‘confusion’, it seems everyone could agree that there is a problem. To deny the problem does not offer a solution. Ostracizing those whose opinions are different does not offer a solution. Condemning those with a different opinion does not explain the intentional participation of evil they are accused of.

To say, ‘I agree with some are using only parts of the truth, but my view is different, so you are wrong’, is not an explanation of the differences and where they are wrong.

The men of the Church have recognized the problem, seems we should at least meet in agreement with what they recognize. Of course this means we have to stop the insinuations of partisanship, or rejecting Church teachings intentionally, or other condemnations, that have appearances arrogance.

I know I’m not perfect and seek counsel from God and His Church constantly. I am no better than anyone else.

The Church is obligated to speak clearly and as one. Christ didn’t write, or have anything scribed, yet there are those who subscribe to the thought that one must search over 2000 years of documents for His truth so that they have a well formed conscience. It’s not meant to be complicated. If the men of the Church say ‘not very clear’ and ‘confusion’, they are centering on the problem, which does not signify ‘intentional’ on everyone’s part. We are not equal intellectually, or spiritually. We do not all have the same resources, or time, to research every detail.

Through ‘not very clear’, and ‘confusion’, errors can occur. If those errors come from instructions that are not very clear, and confusion, who is at fault, and who is complicit?

So I disagree that Burke and Chaput’s thoughts on this subject are not the issue, because through that confusion some are in error, and to be perfectly honest, I’m not sure who is in the error. I became Catholic to avoid the thousands of directions of truth in the Christian world today. I did not become Catholic to have to sort through the men of the Church to find some who share my view. I will adhere to the clear instructions of the Church, as a whole. All the teachings from the Church are that way, with the exception of how one is ‘supposed’ to vote. No one has named another teaching that is the center of debate as voting is, and voting has no ‘infallible’ teaching.

With Archbishop Chaput’s most recent article, I am more than comfortable placing all my faith in God and being apolitical in reference to the partisanship of politics. His message reflects understanding and guidance through what Christ taught. I haven’t seen that from any political party of the secular world.

 

[Lapey]

Number one, I wrote in a solid pro life candidate. No where does the Church teach that a Catholic must vote for only one candidate.

Number two, does everyone have the same intellect, or are they equally informed about political events, or Church teachings? No, of course not. Please share with us the 3 conditions for an occasion of sin to exist.

I am not going after the shepherds of the Church, and sincerely wonder why that specific wording was chosen?

The men of the Church are divided, admittedly through some of the men of the Church. That signifies a significant problem for those who apply intentional rejecting Church teachings to millions of Catholics, they don’t even know personally, much less what is in their hearts.

Tell me Lapey, what other teaching of the Church is of such debate as voting? If there are none, then something lacks in this ‘teaching’.

1. If you voted a pro-life candidate, then how do we differ??? That is what we are called to do, vote in a way that will not endanger innocent life.
2. Also agreed; and here are the three factors; free will, full knowledge, grave matter. Now the question becomes, if a person, possibly reading this thread, has heard it many times not to vote a pro-abortion candidate not only here, and they disagree but do nothing to inform themselves of the truth, they are dealing with all three. If the ignorance is not of their own doing then the culpability can be less but this does not change the grave matter of the situation. Also, if a person knows the truth and still decides to vote for a person in favor of the IE and furthermore because of that IE, then there is mortal sin. You will not find a bishop who goes against this. On the other hand, to say a person can just pinch their nose and vote however he/she wants because of other issues and not be in grievous error is mistaken. That “if” is not that big.
3. The wording I used simply means you are constantly putting blame on the shepherds for the confusion. I’m sorry to be the one to tell you this, we are required to learn and seek knowledge; not sit and wait for the bishop to tell us word by word on how to live. The scripture is there for that, go and seek your answer I say to everyone. Please do it before the next election.
4. As far as the men of the Church, as you put it, being divided, is this proved by the way they did not update the FC document?

It’s not just voting, it’s what the vote does. 50% of Catholics voted for a man who has in deed, word and record proven to align himself with the entire dem platform which supports many IEs. I couldn’t care less whom those millions of votes went to as long as they did not go for a pro-abortion candidate. I would also qualify this statement by saying, many Catholics would not vote for Romney because of the unclear message he put forth on this issue, I cannot disagree with this. However, no matter how much you may disagree with Romney or be confused by his positions, there is nothing but partisan politics and ignorance that would allow a Catholic to vote for Obama.

Simply put; partisan politics can = grave sin; ignorance of no fault of their own = no grave sin.

There are many writings of the Church that give direction, simply reading the CCC and Scripture will let you know what the Church teaches about supporting killing of innocent life. Now take the knowledge of these documents and apply them to the FC and Ratzinger document, and throw away the outside influences and all will see the message clearly. There is no need of further clarification, it is there.

 

[Lapey]

Uh, I think Roe, as well as Doe, ARE part of the present world. And FWIW Cicero, whose moral code was adopted by many Church fathers, condemned abortion before the Church did. As did the Mosaic law which condemned murder, adultery and by extension fornication. So it’s not only the Church whose principles are being scoffed at here.

Abortion has been around for thousands of years. I’m trying to do my part by supporting pregnant women in distress. I will not support the squandering of money used to support or attack political candidates or parties, who exploit us for political gain. After 40 years, enough is enough.

How is voting Catholic, promoting voting Catholic, exploiting an issue for political gain? We are required to oppose evil. No one here is saying abandon pregnant women, the Catholic Church is the largest participant in any charitable work, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Talking about being vague and confusing, is it an indication of our loss of religious freedom already when you can’t call out “a major political party” by name? Is this a minor infraction of our 501c3 agreements? Are there members of another “major political party” that for a moment pause to think “Who’s he talking about?”. Psst, Psst … translate “a major political party” to “not the other major political party” … nudge, nudge, wink, wink, he said knowingly.

Ok, now we’re supposed to act on ‘nudge, nudge, wink, wink’? If people are truly to place all things behind the important issues, isn’t the Church obligated to do the same and speak clearly? It seems you’re suggesting that we can’t speak clearly as to guide Christ’s flock because we might lose our tax exemption. Is the tax exemption equal to the issues we discuss?

 

[Lapey]

Wouldn’t a ‘careful misreading’ be intentional? What does that do what Chaput and Burke said about ‘not very clear’ and ‘confusion’?

It was a weak attempt by a Cajun to bring humor in…

 

[Lapey]

My pastor spent an entire sermon bombasting Romney as well as Obama. He started with “What are we do now?” And the sermon got applauded, one of the rare times anything gets applauded in the EF Mass.

That is a valid view; there were no pro-life candidates of the two viable ones running. I believe this is precisely why many Catholics did not vote for Romney. But, none of these points would allow a vote to go to Obama because his record is much much worse than Romney’s. That is just simple fact.

 

[BroomWagon]

I think it is disingenuous to compare Romney to Obama per as “abortion” candidates and those that do have a loathesome outlook.

They are not living in the real world, everyone knows this can’t be done in one swoop and by the Catholics numbers, I don’t see hope that people did not vote for Romney because it wasn’t a 100% deal. This might have just as much been to his detriment because Obama’s campaign attacked Romney with this exact issue in negative ads and so did Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood is the Democrats milk cow, is the biggest abortionist in the United States, those who are ignorant of this or choose to ignore it and talk down Romney, speak up for abortion and multiply abortions in this country by involvement of the Federal Government.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Sad to say, but this is because the Church lost moral credibility with the sex scandal, and although Catholics may listen to Influential Catholic Public figures and university professors, however, more than anything they ignore all, both the Catholic Hierarchy and anyone associated with the religion.

It was said by another Cardinal that the damage the sex abuse scandal caused to the Church, will take generations to recover from.

I actually agree with that, in the sense that the subjective moral authority was severely damaged. However, not the objective moral authority. Catholics who do know their faith are supposed to be able to distinguish between the two, and to understand that the Holy Spirit speaks through flawed human beings leading the Church.

This is nothing new. God chose many flawed human beings among the ancient Jews to lead His People. Some were heavy sinners.

Thus, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not tarnished or compromised in its magnificence because it is celebrated by a sinful priest, which would be 100% of priests. Objective truth and unwavering doctrine are one thing; a morally wavering human being proclaiming that doctrine is something else entirely. Any Catholic who believes that the validity of doctrine rests on the person speaking that doctrine has been seriously under-catechized, or very possibly is rationalizing dissent or “disagreement.”

 

[Lapey]

Who has said compromise? I am talking about how to approach the problem so that all Catholics understand the same. Whether one wants to recognize the Faithful Citizenship or not, many Catholics view it as just that, a teaching from the men of the Church. When the men of the Church state that the document is ‘not very clear’, or ‘confusion’, it seems everyone could agree that there is a problem. To deny the problem does not offer a solution. Ostracizing those whose opinions are different does not offer a solution. Condemning those with a different opinion does not explain the intentional participation of evil they are accused of.

To say, ‘I agree with some are using only parts of the truth, but my view is different, so you are wrong’, is not an explanation of the differences and where they are wrong.

The men of the Church have recognized the problem, seems we should at least meet in agreement with what they recognize. Of course this means we have to stop the insinuations of partisanship, or rejecting Church teachings intentionally, or other condemnations, that have appearances arrogance.

I know I’m not perfect and seek counsel from God and His Church constantly. I am no better than anyone else.

The Church is obligated to speak clearly and as one. Christ didn’t write, or have anything scribed, yet there are those who subscribe to the thought that one must search over 2000 years of documents for His truth so that they have a well formed conscience. It’s not meant to be complicated. If the men of the Church say ‘not very clear’ and ‘confusion’, they are centering on the problem, which does not signify ‘intentional’ on everyone’s part. We are not equal intellectually, or spiritually. We do not all have the same resources, or time, to research every detail.

Through ‘not very clear’, and ‘confusion’, errors can occur. If those errors come from instructions that are not very clear, and confusion, who is at fault, and who is complicit?

So I disagree that Burke and Chaput’s thoughts on this subject are not the issue, because through that confusion some are in error, and to be perfectly honest, I’m not sure who is in the error. I became Catholic to avoid the thousands of directions of truth in the Christian world today. I did not become Catholic to have to sort through the men of the Church to find some who share my view. I will adhere to the clear instructions of the Church, as a whole. All the teachings from the Church are that way, with the exception of how one is ‘supposed’ to vote. No one has named another teaching that is the center of debate as voting is, and voting has no ‘infallible’ teaching.

With Archbishop Chaput’s most recent article, I am more than comfortable placing all my faith in God and being apolitical in reference to the partisanship of politics. His message reflects understanding and guidance through what Christ taught. I haven’t seen that from any political party of the secular world.

Not to equate anyone, especially you or the Bishops to Judas, but to say that “the men of the Church” have said it so that makes it so is like saying Judas has betrayed Jesus so all of the Apostles have betrayed Him.

I do not disagree that a few have talked of confusion and the vague wording which may have caused it. But I reject that the non-action on changing the message means nothing. It means quite a bit. I have also posted that if these were the only two documents governing this topic I too would be confused as they are vague in that light. But in the light of the Gospels and the remaining deposit of truth the message is not vague.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1. If you voted a pro-life candidate, then how do we differ??? That is what we are called to do, vote in a way that will not endanger innocent life.

I did vote for a solid pro life candidate; however, I am not taking a stand to condemn others for how they voted. I fully admit, I cannot see the intent of another person’s heart. I believe people can err, without it being a sin.

1. Also agreed; and here are the three factors; free will, full knowledge, grave matter. Now the question becomes, if a person, possibly reading this thread, has heard it many times not to vote a pro-abortion candidate not only here, and they disagree but do nothing to inform themselves of the truth, they are dealing with all three. If the ignorance is not of their own doing then the culpability can be less but this does not change the grave matter of the situation. Also, if a person knows the truth and still decides to vote for a person in favor of the IE and furthermore because of that IE, then there is mortal sin. You will not find a bishop who goes against this. On the other hand, to say a person can just pinch their nose and vote however he/she wants because of other issues and not be in grievous error is mistaken. That “if” is not that big.

The problem here is the recognition by Chaput and Burke of ‘not very clear’ and ‘confusion’, specifically addressing the points you’re arguing everyone should know.

1. The wording I used simply means you are constantly putting blame on the shepherds for the confusion. I’m sorry to be the one to tell you this, we are required to learn and seek knowledge; not sit and wait for the bishop to tell us word by word on how to live. The scripture is there for that, go and seek your answer I say to everyone. Please do it before the next election.

The shepherds teach us. You are constantly blaming millions of the flock. The flock follows the shepherds, How are they being led when there are opposing views, or admissions of confusion in the documents they provide?

1. As far as the men of the Church, as you put it, being divided, is this proved by the way they did not update the FC document?

From the article:

Jesuit Fr. Thomas Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University in Washington, cites two reasons for the bishops’ decision not to revise the text. “First, they think their 2007 statement is a balanced, intelligent approach, which is faithful to Catholic teaching. Remember, it passed overwhelmingly,” Reese said. “Second, they did not want a bloody decisive debate exposing their disagreement with a minority of bishops who wanted a stronger attack on pro-choice Democrats.”

It’s not just voting, it’s what the vote does. 50% of Catholics voted for a man who has in deed, word and record proven to align himself with the entire dem platform which supports many IEs. I couldn’t care less whom those millions of votes went to as long as they did not go for a pro-abortion candidate. I would also qualify this statement by saying, many Catholics would not vote for Romney because of the unclear message he put forth on this issue, I cannot disagree with this. However, no matter how much you may disagree with Romney or be confused by his positions, there is nothing but partisan politics and ignorance that would allow a Catholic to vote for Obama.

Simply put; partisan politics can = grave sin; ignorance of no fault of their own = no grave sin.

There are many writings of the Church that give direction, simply reading the CCC and Scripture will let you know what the Church teaches about supporting killing of innocent life. Now take the knowledge of these documents and apply them to the FC and Ratzinger document, and throw away the outside influences and all will see the message clearly. There is no need of further clarification, it is there.

Again, these are based on the ‘not very clear’ and ‘confusion’ statements in the Faithful Citizenship.

I have yet to see anyone who said they voted for Obama because they support abortion, euthanasia, pro gay marriage, etc. They understand they must be against those things. Where the disagreement arises is from the language used by the men of the Church.

Last time I’ll ask this, it seems to be overlooked each time. What other teachings from the Church are the center of debate such as voting is? I can think of none as all other teachings are clear and without a possibility of error in the interpretation.