Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[Lapey]

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.

I did, and you make many generalizations that apply to you. And you accuse other people like me of perpetuating them. You argue past a point we have already agreed upon, it seems, simply to argue, that’s why I asked what you truly believe.

You accuse me in a general way of being partisan, which I am not, I have agreed with many who said they could not and did not support the rep candidate. If you listen to the Church and Her documents than you don’t have to wait for anything, go out and preach the word; not cry about not having clarification.

It also seems you have frustration from the past that has you hung up on being against reps instead of being for an end of abortion. I’m sorry you’ve been scorned before but we have to get in the game!

To the last point, I and Fr. Serpa are not laity. You cannot refute anything we have said with Church documents or Scripture; why is that, because maybe it is true?

I do not imply anything; just make observations about all of the conversations between us. You never stand for anything in an argument, only against. Then when Fr. Serpa went against you then you got angry and decided you were hurt by my “gloating”. Well I guess I thought we were past the hurt feelings thing.

Basically you just come to a thread and make the same argument over and over again, always against never for anything. Jesus brings joy and hope, not doom and gloom. Look to Jesus for the clarification, not the bishops; they have done their job. Would I like a plain and simple document that says that a Catholic cannot vote for a democrat as long as their platform is what it is? Yes!!! But don’t have to wait for that to know that if I vote for them I am being complicit with them in that evil, although the levels of cooperation may be different by intend and understanding of the issues? No, I am not waiting and I suggest that the faithful not wait either.

 

[Lucky7]

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 don;t see a response to this on page 6:

What are the other morally grave reasons (and be sure to offer “grave” reasons)? If you read the catechism, there are certain things that are considered “grave”. There are also some that are described as “intrinsically evil”. I’m wondering what the other morally grave reasons are that would allow someone to overlook a candidate’s pro-choice policy.

Could you quote the post where you answer this? I am more than willing to admit that I’m wrong if, in fact, you have done so.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Even canonized saints were sinners.

Of course, before they received the gift of faith.

Jim

 

[Lapey]

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.

All I will say to this post is this; if you want the division to decrease and eventually disappear, stop acting as a wedge and start teaching positively instead of spreading negativity. Be a solution instead of a problem.

 

[Mickey]

Is he the only voice of the Church?

He is the envoy of the Pope. Get it?

 

[Mickey]

It’s not right to assume, generalize, condemn, or otherwise leave charity on the wayside.

Then you should cease attacking your Church and heed the words of the Papal Nuncio.

PS…I find myself in an odd position here. I am usually debating Catholics about issues that separate Orthodox and Catholics…such as the Filioque.

And now I find myself defending the Catholic Church against the likes of people such as yourself…who are attempting to downplay the words of the Papal Nuncio while pitting bishops against eachother…and you are Catholic!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I did, and you make many generalizations that apply to you. And you accuse other people like me of perpetuating them. You argue past a point we have already agreed upon, it seems, simply to argue, that’s why I asked what you truly believe.

You accuse me in a general way of being partisan, which I am not, I have agreed with many who said they could not and did not support the rep candidate. If you listen to the Church and Her documents than you don’t have to wait for anything, go out and preach the word; not cry about not having clarification.

It also seems you have frustration from the past that has you hung up on being against reps instead of being for an end of abortion. I’m sorry you’ve been scorned before but we have to get in the game!

To the last point, I and Fr. Serpa are not laity. You cannot refute anything we have said with Church documents or Scripture; why is that, because maybe it is true?

I do not imply anything; just make observations about all of the conversations between us. You never stand for anything in an argument, only against. Then when Fr. Serpa went against you then you got angry and decided you were hurt by my “gloating”. Well I guess I thought we were past the hurt feelings thing.

Basically you just come to a thread and make the same argument over and over again, always against never for anything. Jesus brings joy and hope, not doom and gloom. Look to Jesus for the clarification, not the bishops; they have done their job. Would I like a plain and simple document that says that a Catholic cannot vote for a democrat as long as their platform is what it is? Yes!!! But don’t have to wait for that to know that if I vote for them I am being complicit with them in that evil, although the levels of cooperation may be different by intend and understanding of the issues? No, I am not waiting and I suggest that the faithful not wait either.

I cannot, and would not, publicly address people who are specifically being ‘coy’, ‘condescending’, ‘making false insinuations’, ‘spinning another person’s words against what they are saying,’ or ‘simply antagonizing others.’ I speak in general terms for food for thought and not to condemn, ostracize, or any other way attempt to push someone away.

I’m sorry you cannot understand my reasons are not partisan, evident through your continued including partisanship in a majority of your responses.

As for Father Serpa, and yourself, I respect you both for your dedication to the Church. It is commendable; however, we both know the chain of command exists, and how it works. With no disrespect intended, I don’t know if either, or both, of you could settle the differences that seem to exist between our Bishops.

I have not preached doom and gloom, but we can see it all around these forums. I have constantly said we need to place all our faith in God, and not politicians. I said before the elections that I thought I would not vote, or would write in a candidate, because I found neither major party candidate suitable. Posters accused me of partisanship, supporting Obama, and outright supporting the intrinsic evils, even through my repeated clarifications.

I wish the document stated whatever was the point it is intended to make. I find disappointment in that it has been addressed for two elections and is still the center of debate. There is an obligation for the shepherds to shepherd. Why does the debate still exist? Why doesn’t the Church place the important issues, and the flock, above all other things and speak clearly so there is no mistake? Why is it wrong to look to the one Church to speak clearly on this issue? There are no other issues with as vague of an instruction as there is with voting.

 

[RobbyS]

How do you see the intent of anyone’s heart, other than your own?

It can be argued that we are reading their hearts though their actions and words. Nancy Pelosi is an open dissenter, for instance, as was Ted Kennedy. Yet Kennedy was buried with full pomp and circumstance in a mass that was a celebration of a life that was hardly a model for Catholics.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Then you should cease attacking your Church and heed the words of the Papal Nuncio.

PS…I find myself in an odd position here. I am usually debating Catholics about issues that separate Orthodox and Catholics…such as the Filioque.

And now I find myself defending the Catholic Church against the likes of people such as yourself…who are attempting to downplay the words of the Papal Nuncio while pitting bishops against eachother…and you are Catholic!

I am not attacking the Papal nuncio and I am not attacking my Church. I believe you know that.

I find your comments confusing. There are other teachings, as you bring up, that the men of the Church teach, yet you don’t subscribe to those teachings required of Catholics,

I am not pitting Bishops against each other. I see division and am speaking out about it.

Did you miss my post explaining why I am speaking out?

 

[RobbyS]

Elizabeth

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.

[They are also the victims of ambivalent teaching. }

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

[/quote]

 

[Lapey]

I cannot, and would not, publicly address people who are specifically being ‘coy’, ‘condescending’, ‘making false insinuations’, ‘spinning another person’s words against what they are saying,’ or ‘simply antagonizing others.’ I speak in general terms for food for thought and not to condemn, ostracize, or any other way attempt to push someone away.

I’m sorry you cannot understand my reasons are not partisan, evident through your continued including partisanship in a majority of your responses.

Please ellaborate to show how I have been any of these things, especially partisan or coy.

don’t think I have been any of these things;

1. artfully or affectedly shy or reserved; slyly hesitant; coquettish.
2. shy; modest.
3. showing reluctance, especially when insincere or affected, to reveal one’s plans or opinions, make a commitment, or take a stand: The mayor was coy about his future political aspirations.

Am I partisan because I fight against Obama? He stands for evil, just like his party’s platform. This is what the Church says is intrinsic evil and cannot be supported. This makes me partisan?

I am sorry you feel the way you do.

 

[Lapey]

I am not attacking the Papal nuncio and I am not attacking my Church. I believe you know that.

I find your comments confusing. There are many other teachings, as you bring up, that the men of the Church teach, yet you don’t subscribe to those teachings required of Catholics, Since you know Mickey’s conscience, what “other teachings” is he unfaithful to?

I am not pitting Bishops against each other. I see division and am speaking out about it.

Did you miss my post explaining why I am speaking out?

 

[Lucky7]

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.

Agreed. His mistrust of Romney/Republican party is not another “grave moral reason” according to Church teaching.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Please ellaborate to show how I have been any of these things, especially partisan or coy.

don’t think I have been any of these things;

1. artfully or affectedly shy or reserved; slyly hesitant; coquettish.
2. shy; modest.
3. showing reluctance, especially when insincere or affected, to reveal one’s plans or opinions, make a commitment, or take a stand: The mayor was coy about his future political aspirations.

Am I partisan because I fight against Obama? He stands for evil, just like his party’s platform. This is what the Church says is intrinsic evil and cannot be supported. This makes me partisan?

I am sorry you feel the way you do.

I have not addressed you personally. I was giving you a description of what is observable in these forums, mostly in threads where politics creeps into the discussion.

Here we go again. My concerns are not partisan. Read back through the posts on this thread and show me where I have made it a partisan argument. I have tried to address the different views of the documents that are causing the division within our Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Lapey:
I’m not responding to posts within a post.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Posters accused me of partisanship, supporting Obama, and outright supporting the intrinsic evils, even through my repeated clarifications.

I wish the document stated whatever was the point it is intended to make. I find disappointment in that it has been addressed for two elections and is still the center of debate. There is an obligation for the shepherds to shepherd. Why does the debate still exist? Why doesn’t the Church place the important issues, and the flock, above all other things and speak clearly so there is no mistake? Why is it wrong to look to the one Church to speak clearly on this issue? There are no other issues with as vague of an instruction as there is with voting.

Sometimes clarifications clarify more than they are intended to clarify.

I don’t think you are wrong in asserting that there are some divisions among the U.S. bishops. Those divisions, one can reasonably surmise, account for or even cause some of the divisions within the clergy and the laity.

let’s be honest about this. For a long time many, perhaps the majority, of bishops in the U.S. neglected the teaching function with which their office charges them. Too many bought into secular notions as if they were somehow sanctioned by the Church. The resort to the false claims of psychotherapy in the case of priest sex abusers was certainly one of those. The watering down of doctrine in Catholic schools to a sort of featherweight version of Liberation Theology was another. Failure to confront dissidents and heretics was another. Failure to undertake reform of religious orders that had clearly gone astray was another.

And so, after decades of that, we have been faced with a presidential candidate whose policies are so pagan that one would have to harken back to Emperor Julian the Apostate for a comparable example. And we are faced with a laity (and some clergy) who see nothing wrong in it or, at best, have adopted a relativism so all-embracing that one marvels that they do not see the inherent protestantism in it.

And now, some number of the “old guard” choose to remain mum when it comes to teaching the principles of the Church. Perhaps we should be grateful they have lost their voice as against those faithful and energetic bishops who have been appointed by Pope Benedict. But we should not take that lack of voice for an excuse to stand outside the Church Militant and be, like some of them, bystanders in the current war of paganism against the Church. It may be observed that not a single bishop has even suggested endorsement of Obama or his party’s announced principles, while some of the newer bishops have been very forthright in their condemnation of those policies and principles.

We don’t know whether some bishops whose ancient allegiance to party or secular leanings have been silent because instructed to do so, or whether the advance of paganism has simply shocked them into silence after they have now seen what they have wrought over the past decades. But we know for sure that when some of the bishops who do have voices tell us something, they are telling us the truth. We know that because it’s not difficult to see they are consistent with the teachings of the Church that are accessible to all.

So, if some remained mum, we should take it as instructive. Under no circumstances should we claim confusion and shelter evil with it, simply because those who might have once spoken in favor of the wrong, now fail to do so.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sometimes clarifications clarify more than they are intended to clarify.

I don’t think you are wrong in asserting that there are some divisions among the U.S. bishops. Those divisions, one can reasonably surmise, account for or even cause some of the divisions within the clergy and the laity.

let’s be honest about this. For a long time many, perhaps the majority, of bishops in the U.S. neglected the teaching function with which their office charges them. Too many bought into secular notions as if they were somehow sanctioned by the Church. The resort to the false claims of psychotherapy in the case of priest sex abusers was certainly one of those. The watering down of doctrine in Catholic schools to a sort of featherweight version of Liberation Theology was another. Failure to confront dissidents and heretics was another. Failure to undertake reform of religious orders that had clearly gone astray was another.

And so, after decades of that, we have been faced with a presidential candidate whose policies are so pagan that one would have to harken back to Emperor Julian the Apostate for a comparable example. And we are faced with a laity (and some clergy) who see nothing wrong in it or, at best, have adopted a relativism so all-embracing that one marvels that they do not see the inherent protestantism in it.

And now, some number of the “old guard” choose to remain mum when it comes to teaching the principles of the Church. Perhaps we should be grateful they have lost their voice as against those faithful and energetic bishops who have been appointed by Pope Benedict. But we should not take that lack of voice for an excuse to stand outside the Church Militant and be, like some of them, bystanders in the current war of paganism against the Church. It may be observed that not a single bishop has even suggested endorsement of Obama or his party’s announced principles, while some of the newer bishops have been very forthright in their condemnation of those policies and principles.

We don’t know whether some bishops whose ancient allegiance to party or secular leanings have been silent because instructed to do so, or whether the advance of paganism has simply shocked them into silence after they have now seen what they have wrought over the past decades. But we know for sure that when some of the bishops who do have voices tell us something, they are telling us the truth. We know that because it’s not difficult to see they are consistent with the teachings of the Church that are accessible to all.

So, if some remained mum, we should take it as instructive. Under no circumstances should we claim confusion and shelter evil with it, simply because those who might have once spoken in favor of the wrong, now fail to do so.

I agree with most of it; however, we cannot take a teaching from ‘remaining mum.’ That itself is open for more interpretation, and further division. I repeat Cardinal Burke’s statement of ‘confusion,’ and Archbishop Chaput’s description of ‘not very clear’ in reference to the Faithful Citizenship. It comes from them and no one is creating a ‘claim of confusion’.

I’ll ask you, what other teachings from the Church lack the clarity identified in this instruction?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I agree with most of it; however, we cannot take a teaching from ‘remaining mum.’ That itself is open for more interpretation, and further division. I repeat Cardinal Burke’s statement of ‘confusion,’ and Archbishop Chaput’s description of ‘not very clear’ in reference to the Faithful Citizenship. It comes from them and no one is creating a ‘claim of confusion’.

I’ll ask you, what other teachings from the Church lack the clarity identified in this instruction?

I don’t know what you are asking, so i can’t respond to the question.

But I will say that it is wrong to say, as many do, that “oh well, some of the information in “Faithful Citizenship” (the prelude is much better) can be taken this way or that way, so I guess I can just do whatever my own conscience directs me to do.” And then, to demand that all bishops speak with the same voice (even those who say nothing) before accepting what the most forthright of them say, is an evasion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t know what you are asking, so i can’t respond to the question.

But I will say that it is wrong to say, as many do, that “oh well, some of the information in “Faithful Citizenship” (the prelude is much better) can be taken this way or that way, so I guess I can just do whatever my own conscience directs me to do.” And then, to demand that all bishops speak with the same voice (even those who say nothing) before accepting what the most forthright of them say, is an evasion.

Are there other teachings from the Church that are the center of debate like voting?

The Bishops have identified what you describe as ‘not very clear’ and ‘confusion’. Those that speak of what the document teaches, believe their interpretation. I don’t believe there’s an intentional decision to err. As far as doing whatever our conscience directs us to do, we must act on our conscience, according to the Catechism.

The silence is identified, in part, as an avoidance of a public display of disagreement, in the article provided in this thread.

 

[Lucky7]

Here’s the thing. I don’t think the Church can come out and say, “Don’t vote for Obama (or any candidate)”. Therefore, Catholics are required to take what they read and hear from leaders of the Church ****in addition ****to Church teaching on various matters such as abortion, the death penalty, social justice, war, etc etc. and make a good choice.

In my mind, if our leaders are mentioning other “grave” reasons then they are alluding to grave matters/sins mentioned in Church teaching…not our own definition of what constitutes a “grave” matter. They aren’t saying, hey you can ignore a candidate’s view on abortion as long as you personally have other grave moral concerns.

Hope that made sense.