Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ahh, you cite three heroes of mine. And, I agree that Faithful Citizenship should be discarded if it is viewed as a how-to in forming a conscience, and most especially a treatise on proportionate reasoning. As a statement of principles, not priorities, it mirrors that of Jeremiah 7 very closely and, Jeremiah spoke for God. There is no question that the deep division in our church is largely due to the inability of the bishops to get their “ducks in a row” when it comes to clearly articulating priorities as it relates to the times. There is good in all this division though. I’ve been going through life on auto-pilot, but these controversial issues have forced me to dig into the Bible and church documents to learn my faith. And, if there is a real need for evangelization, how can one talk about that which they know so little about. So I see real purpose for good in these terrible conflicts of our time.

And there is bad in the division of millions of Catholics, some accusing others of being in mortal sin and jeopardizing their eternal salvation.

 

[estesbob]

No one is forcing us to accept them, but denying them familial rights to people who are not part of the Church–people who are not Catholic, will never be Catholic, or use any Catholic service–based on the teaching of the Church is absolutely infringing on their religious liberty.

I don’t see how any right minded person cannot understand that.

We can not force non-Catholics to live by our standards. It has to be a matter of free choice. And please don’t bring up abortion. Abortion is not a religious matter–there are plenty of reason to oppose it besides religion.

" I cant oppose the HHS mandate unless i support homosexual marriage???"

Again, I am no way saying that we should stop supporting laws that ban gay marriage; I’m just saying that if we do, we have to drop the religious liberty argument, because apparently, religious liberty is only important when it involves ours.

And what you are saying is dead wrong. You have set up a false comparison. There is no such thing as homosexual marriage. If the people want to vote to set up an artificial construct and call it marriage that is their right as long as they do not try, as with the HHS mandate does, to force Churches to support it-ie perform homosexual marriages.

Their is no constitutional right to sodomy, no constitutional right to define marriage in any way an individual wants. There is, however, a constitution right to practice our religion freely-a right trampled on by the HHS mandate.

We have to be very clear about what this administration is pushing. they no long talk about freedom of religion-they claim it is a freedom of worship. There is a huge difference because if all we have is a freedom of worship we are fair game for any govt regulation once we step outside the doors of our Church

 

[JimG]

. From Fr. James B. Schall’s article:

"We may need to be preparing for more direct persecution for religious doctrines and prudential norms. The state in effect has now consolidated its responsibility for all aspects of our lives from before conception to “helping” us to the cemeteries as expeditiously and conveniently as possible.
The Church will be deeply divided; those who voted for the president will now claim that they have been “protecting” the Church all along. But, in exchange, the Church will need to “downplay” (read, stop) its strident opposition to the now widely approved “rights” that justify these actions. It will only be necessary on a few outmoded doctrines about sex to change things."Source: catholicworldreport.com/Blog/1734/a_watershed_election_a_weimar_election.aspx

To put it more bluntly, our religious freedom will be lost.

 

[JimG]

The Five Stages of Religious Persecution.

We are now at stage 4.

 

[wynnejj]

And there is bad in the division of millions of Catholics, some accusing others of being in mortal sin and jeopardizing their eternal salvation.

I’ve had to deal with that in my family. I’m strongly Pro-Life and consider abortion the #1 cancer in our society. In a way, I’m a single issues voter for the present given the magnitude of the problem. However, I have to admit that if I did not believe that Jesus is Lord and consecrated (made sacred) the sanctity of all human life at the point of his incarnation - the blob of tissue stage - by becoming truly our brother, then I would be inclined to accept the pluralistic view that maybe it is OK to destroy life before brain & pain centers are developed in certain cases. That is, I might be persuaded along the lines of abortion with restrictions. Given this understanding, I can accept others who feel that abortion is a question that is a battle that would neglect many other important issues whilst waging this war exclusively. I can understand that if they felt national healthcare is a must and do-able, then they might opt for the perceived achievable over the unlikely to be achieved. This is precisely where the bishop’s document does not clarify sufficiently. Unfortunately what we have achieved is a short term goal with brand new long term problems by neglecting a more serious long term problem. That’s an error in judgment, not material cooperation in intrinsic evil. Yet I know that some family members have made this error in judgement in good conscience.

 

[livnlern]

Actually, I’m sick of what I’m seeing on these forums. Catholics saying the cruelest things against other Catholics, without any appearances of regards whatsoever. I can see the vagueness in the language. Before the election, there were articles that referenced the vagueness of the language as being the reason the Bishops held an assembly. That assembly shows a lack of clarity.

I think to generalize millions of Catholics does not give any room for the possibility of real errs.

It’s only clear to some. All people are not the same intellect, of the same spirituality, or the same in being informed.

You’re correct to say that not all people have the same intellect or are the same in being informed. And not everyone is aware of what is said among the bishops. Unless a letter from the bishop is read directly to people at mass, they don’t know or pay attention to what the bishops are doing.
However, every Catholic should be aware of the Catechism and if they’re questioning some aspect of Church teaching, should be able to look it up in the Catechism. Even people who normally don’t read books or newspapers can have access to a computer and the Catechism is there online.

 

[livnlern]

Here’s the link to the Catechism and the Church’s stance on abortion:usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=37-chapter17.xhtml%23para2271

Even the simplest person should be able to make the connection that if the Church is adamantly against abortion, they shouldn’t vote for a political candidate that openly supports the practice.

 

[JimG]

Here’s the link to the Catechism and the Church’s stance on abortion:usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=37-chapter17.xhtml%23para2271

Even the simplest person should be able to make the connection that if the Church is adamantly against abortion, they shouldn’t vote for a political candidate that openly supports the practice.

This is a connection that many Catholics simply did not wish to make. The most pro-abortion president in history is now on his second term. Now he will move on to undermining religious liberty.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ve had to deal with that in my family. I’m strongly Pro-Life and consider abortion the #1 cancer in our society. In a way, I’m a single issues voter for the present given the magnitude of the problem. However, I have to admit that if I did not believe that Jesus is Lord and consecrated (made sacred) the sanctity of all human life at the point of his incarnation - the blob of tissue stage - by becoming truly our brother, then I would be inclined to accept the pluralistic view that maybe it is OK to destroy life before brain & pain centers are developed in certain cases. That is, I might be persuaded along the lines of abortion with restrictions. Given this understanding, I can accept others who feel that abortion is a question that is a battle that would neglect many other important issues whilst waging this war exclusively. I can understand that if they felt national healthcare is a must and do-able, then they might opt for the perceived achievable over the unlikely to be achieved. This is precisely where the bishop’s document does not clarify sufficiently. Unfortunately what we have achieved is a short term goal with brand new long term problems by neglecting a more serious long term problem. That’s an error in judgment, not material cooperation in intrinsic evil. Yet I know that some family members have made this error in judgement in good conscience.

Personally, I have not seen a Catholic that states, ‘…it is ok to destroy life…’ at any stage prior to natural death, no matter what politics they have stated.

On the other, I have seen Catholics argue against healthcare for all, without appearances of seeking compromises on behalf of Catholic beliefs. specifically to exclude providing for abortion, and contraceptives.

The latter has many outspoken that claim there is no good conscience and it is deliberate errors. I don’t believe that is the case and am tired of the appearances of wanting divisions within the body of Christ, over seeking real correction. Real correction can only come from the Church as a whole, through the hierarchy.

Some have denied any confusion, or a need for clarification from the hierarchy claiming there is clarity. That is something the men of the Church do not agree with; evident in the articles I’ve posted.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You’re correct to say that not all people have the same intellect or are the same in being informed. And not everyone is aware of what is said among the bishops. Unless a letter from the bishop is read directly to people at mass, they don’t know or pay attention to what the bishops are doing.
However, every Catholic should be aware of the Catechism and if they’re questioning some aspect of Church teaching, should be able to look it up in the Catechism. Even people who normally don’t read books or newspapers can have access to a computer and the Catechism is there online.

Even with the Catechism, clarifications have to be explained by the men of the Church. What other teaching is as debated as who Catholics must vote for?

 

[JimG]

Catholic division will lead to government persecution of the Catholic Faith. We are already well on our way.

There is another thread on this same subject in World News.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is a connection that many Catholics simply did not wish to make. The most pro-abortion president in history is now on his second term. Now he will move on to undermining religious liberty.

Jim, I have been promoting clarification from the men of the Church, while others deny there is any confusion, or need of clarification. Why the denial, of what the men of the Church have admitted too? I, and I assume many Catholics, would act on a unified clarification. Would those denying confusion accept a clarification if it expressed other than what they thought it means? We, the laity, are not authoritative and should look to those with authority for guidance on this division.

 

[estesbob]

This is a connection that many Catholics simply did not wish to make. The most pro-abortion president in history is now on his second term. Now he will move on to undermining religious liberty.

And yet many Catholics claim the problem is not 50% of catholics voting to empower this man but the faithful Catholics who criticize them for doing so.

 

[_Abyssinia]

And there is bad in the division of millions of Catholics, some accusing others of being in mortal sin and jeopardizing their eternal salvation.

ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

Fr Stephen F Sorrico and I paraphrase, in paragraph 14 unless all the candidates are pro abortion, and you determine which candidate would cause the less damage, then to vote for a candidate with the knowledge that the candidate is pro abortion is to become a moral accomplice in the sin of abortion and the voter sins mortally

greenbaypressgazette.com/assets/pdf/U01963741026.PDF

Bishop Ricken said

“A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program that contradicts fundamental contents of faith and morals.’ Intrinsicically evil actions are those which have an evil object. In other words, an act is evil by its very nature and to choose an action of this type puts one in grave moral danger. But what does this have to do with the election? Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal election platform. To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally ‘complicit’ with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy.”

Both have authority to say what they have said

 

[JimG]

Jim, I have been promoting clarification from the men of the Church, while others deny there is any confusion, or need of clarification. Why the denial, of what the men of the Church have admitted too? I, and I assume many Catholics, would act on a unified clarification. Would those denying confusion accept a clarification if it expressed other than what they thought it means? We, the laity, are not authoritative and should look to those with authority for guidance on this division.

I don’t doubt that there is and has been confusion. But I don’t support the USCCB or the magisterium endorsing specific candidates. In fact, that might simply result in more division.

It doesn’t matter much whether one wishes to blame the bishops for not being clear or Catholics in general. There is division and has been for some time. Consider such publications as the National Catholic Register and the National Catholic Reporter, which represent opposites, both written for Catholics.

No matter the cause, the division remains, and will make it easier for the persecution to begin in earnest.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

Fr Stephen F Sorrico and I paraphrase, in paragraph 14 unless all the candidates are pro abortion, and you determine which candidate would cause the less damage, then to vote for a candidate with the knowledge that the candidate is pro abortion is to become a moral accomplice in the sin of abortion and the voter sins mortally

greenbaypressgazette.com/assets/pdf/U01963741026.PDF

Bishop Ricken said

Both have authority to say what they have said

I see and that ends the confusion that Burke or Chaput stated existed in the Faithful Citizenship?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t doubt that there is and has been confusion. But I don’t support the USCCB or the magisterium endorsing specific candidates. In fact, that might simply result in more division.

It doesn’t matter much whether one wishes to blame the bishops for not being clear or Catholics in general. There is division and has been for some time. Consider such publications as the National Catholic Register and the National Catholic Reporter, which represent opposites, both written for Catholics.

No matter the cause, the division remains, and will make it easier for the persecution to begin in earnest.

The doom and gloom of persecution doesn’t have an urgency with me. Christ said that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church.

 

[JimG]

The doom and gloom of persecution doesn’t have an urgency with me. Christ said that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church.

Oh, I know that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. But the Church has endured persecution before and will again. It has already started. I refer you to Fr. James Schall’s article on the Five Stages of Persecution.

Yes, the Church triumphs in the end. Persecution occurs before the end.

I’m just hoping to live out my life without ending up in a U.S. re-education camp for Catholics, which is not at all a sure thing. I guess I’ll have company, though.

 

[FightingFat]

Perhaps the answer is projects like this one: Catholic Answers. It provides a portal where Catholics can come and ask questions and gain definitive answers.

The eternal faith is under attack from secular culture. In order to fight back, we must explore the richness of Scripture and Church teaching in order to present authentic Catholic positions on these issues.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Oh, I know that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. But the Church has endured persecution before and will again. It has already started. I refer you to Fr. James Schall’s article on the Five Stages of Persecution.

Yes, the Church triumphs in the end. Persecution occurs before the end.

I’m just hoping to live out my life without ending up in a U.S. re-education camp for Catholics, which is not at all a sure thing. I guess I’ll have company, though.

Re-education camps? US at that. Jim, I converted in 1985 and remember the end time prophecies the Protestants used to scare people into the pews. I am sad to see that type speech enter into the Catholic Church.

We shouldn’t despair. He is with us until the consummation of the world. And, He never said we wouldn’t have to suffer for His namesake.