Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

I cannot believe how often I have to clarify against some of the apparent misunderstandings of what I say, and how comparisons are made. Good thing I know my intent.

A part of the men of the Church is not the whole of the Church, and that’s not blaming anyone, or insinuating anyone is liken to Judas. It is not saying which side of the debate is wrong or right, it is saying the men of the Church have work to do to deliver one message to the flock, so that we’re all going in the same direction.

The problem is, non action is being interpreted by both sides of the debate as they are right in their view. Nothing solved.

 

[Lapey]

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.

Good for you, I chose to look at it like a two horse race and voted the lesser of two evils, Romney. No one is taking the stand to condemn anyone either, surely I am not. Pointing out sin and what it is and means is charity not judgment; be careful not to confuse that.

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.

I agree with these two Bishops, however it does not represent all of the “men of the Church”.

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?

I blame the vague message, yes; however we are required to do some work on our own as well. We will be held accountable even if the message was/is vague if we do nothing more than wait for clarification. Sorry, it is required of us to participate in our faith journey and grow in knowledge, this is a life long task.

From the article:

Not a credible nor authoritative source.

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

Okay, now go find more information to build a better foundation in order to vote. Don’t just sit there satisfied with not being sure. Don’t just sit there and wait for the bishops to clarify.

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.

Again, voting for someone because of their stance on IEs is not the only way that a person can be in sin of grave level. If I vote in ignorance or because of no fault of my own I have an ill-formed conscience there is no sin. But if I reject what has been presented about the teachings and vote for the pro-choice candidate anyway, even though I reject the IEs, I participate in the evil. We are required to inform our consciences and conform to the truth of teachings, not just wait in confusion of the FC and ’04 Ratzinger document.

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.

Marriage, contraception, divorce, re-marriage, homosexuality, Mass required every Sunday and Holy Days; etc. go to the “Moral Theology” forum and you will see all of these topics and others being debated by Catholics daily.

 

[Lapey]

I cannot believe how often I have to clarify against some of the apparent misunderstandings of what I say, and how comparisons are made. Good thing I know my intent.

A part of the men of the Church is not the whole of the Church, and that’s not blaming anyone, or insinuating anyone is liken to Judas. It is not saying which side of the debate is wrong or right, it is saying the men of the Church have work to do to deliver one message to the flock, so that we’re all going in the same direction.

The problem is, non action is being interpreted by both sides of the debate as they are right in their view. Nothing solved.

I guess you’ll have to continue to teach me, because if you say “the men of the Church” that means the men of the Church and not a few men of the Church. My analogy is quite accurate. It is like saying the sand of the beach was on my sandwich. That must be a large sandwich. Anyone who has ever been to the beach and tries to eat a sandwich without having a few grains of sand on it knows this is impossible.

So let’s say that the document is changed, who should it read, and do you think this would silence all of the “men of the Church”?

I would bet there would still be a few grains of sand on the sandwich.

Now remember please, I am not arguing the FC document is not vague. I agree here, it is just that I will not agree that this is the end all of Catholic Moral teaching, in fact I would say this document is not even needed and shouldn’t even exist. If it would have never been written, would there be less or more confusion?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Good for you, I chose to look at it like a two horse race and voted the lesser of two evils, Romney. No one is taking the stand to condemn anyone either, surely I am not. Pointing out sin and what it is and means is charity not judgment; be careful not to confuse that.

Lesser of two evils is comparable to ‘lukewarm’. God does not grade us on a curve. We cannot do a ‘little’ evil so that good may come from it. That’s my thoughts on the lesser of two evils.

I agree with these two Bishops, however it does not represent all of the “men of the Church”.

It may be strange but, I often think of Noah and the ark and that only 8 were ‘saved’. It’s not a numbers game; however, we have over 170 Bishops in the US. Did we have 10 percent speak out the same? It’s attributable to ‘confusion’, whatever the numbers play out to be.

I blame the vague message, yes; however we are required to do some work on our own as well. We will be held accountable even if the message was/is vague if we do nothing more than wait for clarification. Sorry, it is required of us to participate in our faith journey and grow in knowledge, this is a life long task.

In a hierarchy, we each have our place. Laypersons cannot make authoritative declarations. As we, Catholics, move up the ‘chain of command’ we end up at the one voice all Catholics must, or should, listen to. His note is part of the language the Bishops have said is, ‘not very clear’ and ‘confusion.’ It’s for them to sort out, for those of us down low on the chain of command in authority.

Not a credible nor authoritative source.

Why? Because a priest you prefer to disagree with said it? I apologize if that’s an incorrect assumption, but you didn’t provide a lot of reason to find it not credible. It’s not authoritative, with the exception of those things that the authoritative men of the Church state. If those things are without authority, this whole discussion is without authority, unless we have a unified guidance.

Okay, now go find more information to build a better foundation in order to vote. Don’t just sit there satisfied with not being sure. Don’t just sit there and wait for the bishops to clarify.

Aren’t the Bishops obligated to lead the flock as opposed to the flock trying to find their own way? I don’t mean that wrong in any respect. I know the great difficulty I have in reading some things written by the men of the Church.

Again, voting for someone because of their stance on IEs is not the only way that a person can be in sin of grave level. If I vote in ignorance or because of no fault of my own I have an ill-formed conscience there is no sin. But if I reject what has been presented about the teachings and vote for the pro-choice candidate anyway, even though I reject the IEs, I participate in the evil. We are required to inform our consciences and conform to the truth of teachings, not just wait in confusion of the FC and ’04 Ratzinger document.

Here’s the problem. When there are divisions in a teaching, one can follow the wrong one with a good intent. It’s not rejecting the right one, but inadvertently following the wrong one. Now, if one can inadvertently follow the wrong one and be in sin, are the leaders also complicit in that sin? It goes right back to authority and Catholics follow one teaching.

Marriage, contraception, divorce, re-marriage, homosexuality, Mass required every Sunday and Holy Days; etc. go to the “Moral Theology” forum and you will see all of these topics and others being debated by Catholics daily.

I converted in 1985 and believed those things before ever considering becoming Catholic. It’s almost a common sense approach for me, thanks to God. Now that I’m Catholic, I am comforted with those things that are infallibly defined. There is no infallible teaching on voting in itself. We form our consciences on what we must believe and then have to act on an uncertainty. That’s what placing trust in men is, uncertainty. Faith in Christ is certain, and again I find comfort in Archbishop Chaput’s recent article.

 

[wynnejj]

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?

I say that it moderates our speech in ways of political correctness that says all the right things in language that seems almost intentionally evasive. It lists all the issues, but does not give the weight to the issues that is required, for fear of appearances to favor one party or other. To this day, the pulpit is virtually muzzled and we are charged with the duty to be politically active with little said from the pulpit about what that means. One would think that the pulpit could clearly speak to issues and their weight in Catholic thinking but, alas that is not the case. The lack of clarity has fomented the perfect storm for division in the church. So I think that I am with you in that their is no clear direction.

If every Catholic is supposed to wade through Faithful Citizenship and myriads of other Church encyclicals to get a flavor of what the Magisterium teaches, then our church leaders are not teaching in any meaningful manner.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I say that it moderates our speech in ways of political correctness that says all the right things in language that seems almost intentionally evasive. It lists all the issues, but does not give the weight to the issues that is required, for fear of appearances to favor one party or other. To this day, the pulpit is virtually muzzled and we are charged with the duty to be politically active with little said from the pulpit about what that means. One would think that the pulpit could clearly speak to issues and their weight in Catholic thinking but, alas that is not the case. The lack of clarity has fomented the perfect storm for division in the church. So I think that I am with you in that their is no clear direction.

If every Catholic is supposed to wade through Faithful Citizenship and myriads of other Church encyclicals to get a flavor of what the Magisterium teaches, then our church leaders are not teaching in any meaningful manner.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Elizabeth

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.

Of course, but it speaks more to the reasons why marginal Catholics are more accepting of erroneous teachings and examples by Catholics in positions of authority and higher levels of intellectual academia and not the guidance by the magisterium of the Church.

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

True, but once they received post resurrection fath, they became examples of Christ.

Not so the priest and Bishops who betrayed the trust of the people.

I’m not trying to support the rational for Catholics who ignore Church teaching, but just explaining the reality and I think the Cardinal in the OP article is wrong in his assessment
of the issue.

However, I do agree that the weak faith of these Catholics helps to fuel the government in having apathy toward religious freedom. But then, remember, the Catholics serving in government are produced by society and the Church they were raised in. They too like all Catholics, are the victims of the sex abuse scandal as well.

It just goes to show how all sin causes harm to the body of Christ, which is the Church.

Jim

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I guess you’ll have to continue to teach me, because if you say “the men of the Church” that means the men of the Church and not a few men of the Church. My analogy is quite accurate. It is like saying the sand of the beach was on my sandwich. That must be a large sandwich. Anyone who has ever been to the beach and tries to eat a sandwich without having a few grains of sand on it knows this is impossible.

So let’s say that the document is changed, who should it read, and do you think this would silence all of the “men of the Church”?

I would bet there would still be a few grains of sand on the sandwich.

Ok, it’s good, the men of the Church. Now which ones are the flock to follow? Those that say they are right? Both sides say they are right.

Now remember please, I am not arguing the FC document is not vague. I agree here, it is just that I will not agree that this is the end all of Catholic Moral teaching, in fact I would say this document is not even needed and shouldn’t even exist. If it would have never been written, would there be less or more confusion?

It’s not the end, but it gives different views on how a decision is weighed and reached, considering Church teachings.

So don’t speak at all? That’s the solution, remove the obligation of leading from the men of the Church and let the laity fight it out? They have ‘spoken’, through the writings, and now some say it’s not clear and confusing. Problem identified, now clarify it, so that all understand exactly what the Church expects of them as Catholics.

 

[Lapey]

Ok, it’s good, the men of the Church. Now which ones are the flock to follow? Those that say they are right? Both sides say they are right.

It’s not the end, but it gives different views on how a decision is weighed and reached, considering Church teachings.

So don’t speak at all? That’s the solution, remove the obligation of leading from the men of the Church and let the laity fight it out? They have ‘spoken’, through the writings, and now some say it’s not clear and confusing. Problem identified, now clarify it, so that all understand exactly what the Church expects of them as Catholics.

Sometimes I just sit back and wonder what the point of your arguments is. What do you believe to be true? Put it in context of this division amongst Catholics and how do our comments and arguments help/hurt that division? Why do you go to such lengths to argue and how would you fix it? I’ve asked you that many times. You have answered the question partially, but then after several posts and conversations I find myself right where I am again, what are this guys point and/or motive?

You quoted Fr. Serpa until he went against your point of view. What is behind ProdigalSon’s obstinate rejection of what I and other members of the clergy have said, which is in line with Church I might add? Is there anything that I have posted that is contrary to Church teachings? Again, you claim to not support the dems, I have made the same claim that I do not support the reps. What is in your heart? As much as you and I have exchanged conversation lately, I have no idea who you are and what you represent and believe.

We can go back and forth here as we have forever it seems, but unless we see progress what is the point? I will continue to call you and anyone out who misrepresents truth; you will continue to refute what I say. So tell me, what do you believe in? Do you know because I do not? You do not defend the Catholics whom we attack and condemn, simply because we do not attack and condemn them. But you say we do. You say you do not attack the bishops, but then you claim they leave the faithful to fend for them self, that they in a sense abandon the faithful. Are they derelict in their duty?

I’ve made my point in this thread; I’ll talk with you in the next one where you misrepresent truth, until then, good day.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sometimes I just sit back and wonder what the point of your arguments is. What do you believe to be true? Put it in context of this division amongst Catholics and how do our comments and arguments help/hurt that division? Why do you go to such lengths to argue and how would you fix it? I’ve asked you that many times. You have answered the question partially, but then after several posts and conversations I find myself right where I am again, what are this guys point and/or motive?

You quoted Fr. Serpa until he went against your point of view. What is behind ProdigalSon’s obstinate rejection of what I and other members of the clergy have said, which is in line with Church I might add? Is there anything that I have posted that is contrary to Church teachings? Again, you claim to not support the dems, I have made the same claim that I do not support the reps. What is in your heart? As much as you and I have exchanged conversation lately, I have no idea who you are and what you represent and believe.

We can go back and forth here as we have forever it seems, but unless we see progress what is the point? I will continue to call you and anyone out who misrepresents truth; you will continue to refute what I say. So tell me, what do you believe in? Do you know because I do not? You do not defend the Catholics whom we attack and condemn, simply because we do not attack and condemn them. But you say we do. You say you do not attack the bishops, but then you claim they leave the faithful to fend for them self, that they in a sense abandon the faithful. Are they derelict in their duty?

I’ve made my point in this thread; I’ll talk with you in the next one where you misrepresent truth, until then, good day.

The men of the Church are the only ones that can resolve this issue. It must find one voice for the flock to follow.

 

[Elizabeth502]

marginal Catholics are more accepting of erroneous teachings

That’s actually the only pertinent point, i.m.o.

Emphasis, marginal.

 

[Elizabeth502]

True, but once they received post resurrection fath, they became examples of Christ.

Even canonized saints were sinners.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ve made my point in this thread; I’ll talk with you in the next one where you misrepresent truth, until then, good day.

 

[Mickey]

The men of the Church are the only ones that can resolve this issue.

Getting back to the OP…it seems to me that the Papal Nuncio clarified the issue nicely.

 

[Lapey]

The men of the Church are the only ones that can resolve this issue. It must find one voice for the flock to follow.

They have, and She has. Most of all He has made it clear, “I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me.” He has resolved the issue.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Getting back to the OP…it seems to me that the Papal Nuncio clarified the issue nicely.

Is he the only voice of the Church? Are all Bishops in agreement now?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

They have, and She has. Most of all He has made it clear, “I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me.” He has resolved the issue.

As in reference to the Faithful Citizenship, it’s not resolved.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

For those who say, ‘they don’t understand,’ I have posted many times about the division in the Church. I love the Church, and everyone in it. I cannot stand the infighting between Catholics, because of politics. We are one in the Body of Christ. I have seen the same infighting for 3 presidential elections now.

The problem has been identified, and confirmed by men of the Church. We have two years before the next elections, and 4 until the next presidential election. I would love to see a clarification so that all understand exactly what the Church’s stand is on the issue of voting, in hopes that the number of those participating in the infighting lessens.

There doesn’t appear to be any understanding, or attempt to understand the other side of this argument. Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t believe millions of Catholics intentionally rejected the Church, or God.

I recently read an article about Cardinal Dolan that called for civility, and charity in these type discussions. I wished I could find it, even though I’m afraid some would disregard it. He spoke of civility and charity and said that without those qualities no one would be ‘won’ over; without those things there would be no common ground from which to work.

This is not about partisanship, but an effort to bring us together to resolve any issues so that we are one, as we should be.

As the problem has been identified to a document provided by the Bishops, only they can resolve the issue, with the exception of our Pope who can speak for all Catholics. The laity can fight until their blue in the face, nothing is authoritative in that argument.

It’s not right to assume, generalize, condemn, or otherwise leave charity on the wayside. I’ve seen enough of that and it makes it hard to keep going spiritually. The Church fulfills me spiritually, and the infighting chips away. I find it hard to understand how some can justify actions contrary to His teachings, and think it portrays His principles.

 

[Lapey]

As in reference to the Faithful Citizenship, it’s not resolved.

Ok, then it is agreed; you wait for the bishops to listen to your appeal for clarity on the FC, and I will listen to teh Church and Her documents, Scripture and CCC, to follow the truth.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ok, then it is agreed; you wait for the bishops to listen to your appeal for clarity on the FC, and I will listen to teh Church and Her documents, Scripture and CCC, to follow the truth.

I notice you seem to feel the need to imply things about me, even though you said earlier, ‘you don’t know me.’

For the record, ‘I listen to the Church, read her documents, Scriptures and the Catechism to follow the truth.’ Even then, I admit, ‘I am not perfect, nor do I consider myself more righteous than another.’

I will also wait, with prayers, for our Bishops, that they maybe one as Christ and the father are one, so that the flock maybe one.

Please read my post previous to this one.