Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[NeedsMercy]

And what do you suggest in the meantime when dissenters continue to remain in the Church and collude with secular agents that undermines our religious freedom to abide by Catholic teachings as the Papal Nuncio stated? Wait until other apples in the cart rot as well? Unlike the folks in your rural area, Catholic dissenters over here are very vocal and pro-active with dissent and are embedded in Catholic agencies and our schools.

"Collu[sion] with secular agents’? Proof?

 

[Chris-WA]

Did you miss the article where Chaput and Burke said the documents offering teaching on conscience formation was confusing?

There’s too much speaking against other Catholics. Personally, I think it’s a travesty for anyone to leave, or for some to desire others leave, the Church. We are ALL sinners, and none more righteous than others.

Yes we are all sinners, but in no way does that mean we should tolerate it when others attempt to turn the truths of our faith upside down, especially if they are fellow Catholics who should know better. We are called to correct those who would do so. Not to condemn them, but to correct them. Don’t fall into the trap of relativism that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have warned us about time and time again.

 

[Lucky7]

And what do you suggest in the meantime when dissenters continue to remain in the Church and collude with secular agents that undermines our religious freedom to abide by Catholic teachings as the Papal Nuncio stated? Wait until other apples in the cart rot as well? Unlike the folks in your rural area, Catholic dissenters over here are very vocal and pro-active with dissent and are embedded in Catholic agencies and our schools.

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/09/20/archbishop-nichols-reminds-marriage-care-to-follow-church-teaching/

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/11/01/the-new-prefect-of-the-cdf-intends-to-take-on-the-soho-masses-i-hope-he-does-that-would-get-archbishop-vincent-off-a-very-uncomfortable-hook/

thetablet.co.uk/article/14789

Thank you. The dissenters are not interested in being corrected by the Church. They are interested in correcting the Church heirarchy and taking other lay people with them.

So, what do we do in the mean time? I have tried to correct and explain Church teaching to many of these dissenters… to NO AVAIL. In their mind, the Church is WRONG. These aren’t people who are ignorant of the truth. They have been told time and time again. They choose to go against the Church. They are obstinate.

Isn’t this the definition of a material heretic? Why isn’t the heirarchy handing out excommunications left and right? What shoudl it do when materail heretics live inside the Chruch? I wonder if the Church has ever experienced this in the past. Like we said earlier, even in England, dissenters LEFT THE CHURCH on their own accord. Maybe the Church needs to address this differently since it is different.

And I haven’t even addressed the number of priests who don’t agree with Church teaching!

 

[Lucky7]

I have addressed all these things. Apparently you haven’t carefully followed the thread. Others will have absorbed my arguments. And that you will never change your mind, that much is obvious.

I guess I am done here. Have a good day. May God bless you.

Actually, you really haven’t. You said:

Note that “other morally grave reasons” contains the word “other” – obviously other than abortion etc. There is no twisting of words that will change that. "

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.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Actually, you really haven’t. You said:

Note that “other morally grave reasons” contains the word “other” – obviously other than abortion etc. There is no twisting of words that will change that. "

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.

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.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Note that neither the USCCB nor Cardinal Ratzinger prescribe what exactly the “other grave moral reasons” might be. The USCCB refuses to do so notwithstanding internal criticism by some bishops – in the face of the criticism it re-released the text for 2012 unchanged (with an introductory note than does not change the meaning of the text proper). I have given reasons. You may personally disagree with them, but you cannot claim that they are not reasonable, and may not have moral force for me and others who hold to them.

 

[Mickey]

I have addressed the issue at length on page 6 of the thread.

Again…that is not true.

You have never given “proportionate reasons” that show some other issue that is equal to, or greater than, the intrinsic evil of abortion to justify your vote for Obama.

And you have never addressed the Papal Nuncio’s comments which makes the issue crystal clear.

 

[Mickey]

Note that neither the USCCB nor Cardinal Ratzinger prescribe what exactly the “other grave moral reasons” might be.

That’s the point. It is because there is nothing that rises to the level of the intrinsic evil of abortion.

Everyone is still waiting for your personal opinion of “proportionate reasons.”

 

[Santi2]

"Collu[sion] with secular agents’? Proof?

You can refer to the links in my previous post as well as Post #7 in this thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=725500

There are more but, those should do.

 

[wynnejj]

To give Al his proper due, I think that Al put forth a very good counterpoint in his post #79 & #80. Now one could speak to each line item, but I don’t think that would be constructive to the larger issue. That is, if a party says they are one thing against intrinsic evil, but don’t deliver, are they to be chosen over another party that is patently for an intrinsic evil with a good track record on delivery. Which was my point about “selling” intrinsic evil and, I believe is the Papal Nuncio’s point about educators and Catholic public figures “publicly supporting” intrinsic evil. One is singing out of tune, the other wants to change the songs.

 

[Al_Moritz]

To give Al his proper due, I think that Al put forth a very good counterpoint in his post #79 & #80. Now one could speak to each line item, but I don’t think that would be constructive to the larger issue. That is, if a party says they are one thing against intrinsic evil, but don’t deliver, are they to be chosen over another party that is patently for an intrinsic evil with a good track record on delivery. Which was my point about “selling” intrinsic evil and, I believe is the Papal Nuncio’s point about educators and Catholic public figures “publicly supporting” intrinsic evil. One is singing out of tune, the other wants to change the songs.

Thank you for actually considering the arguments, and thank you for your fairness.

Now, if other posters here would consider the arguments in a similar manner . . . By no means I expect agreement by all, but I would at least hope for the acknowledgement, as you gave, that I made some points that can be considered valid.

 

[Lapey]

I’m speaking of the attacks and condemnation of other Catholics, without knowing the intent of other people’s hearts.
T

I do not put people on ignore; however, I will not be responding to your posts anymore. You’ve questioned me once too many times and I am genuinely seeking answers.

People are not all the same. It’s that simple.

Our discussion is over.

God Bless,

You have been given answers, by the bishops, Fr. Serpa, me and many. You refuse to hear then in order to keep your “vagueness” argument against the bishops. This is troubling to me.

No one has condemned Catholics, if a Catholic chooses a pro-abortion candidate like Obama, against what he/she knows is truth, they have condemned themselves. If they choose in ignorance of true teachings there is no sin. To “arrogantly” reject the teachings, even though we may think we are "following a “well formed” conscience is in fact rejecting Church teachings.

And to the ignore posters issue, you may not have me on ignore, but I am not expecting you to respond because you know there is no chance I will compromise on this argument; there is no room to compromise on this argument.

 

[wynnejj]

Reading more closely, Al’s counterpoints get stronger. What if a party has a platform that is against intrinsic evil, but has a history of delivering intrinsic evil? Do common goods issues rise to the level of proportionate reason when one party is for instituting intrinsic evil (with a good track record) and another’s stated policy is against the intrinsic evil (with a bad track record).

There were many examples cited, but I think many could be related to early actions before party platforms solidified on the issue and some mavericks who went against the party platform to the dismay of many.

Regardless, the 1st question is still a good one. I think that the Papal Nuncio suggests that it is the indoctrination in basic principles that embrace intrinsic evil that is public enemy #1.

 

[BroomWagon]

Reading more closely, Al’s counterpoints get stronger. What if a party has a platform that is against intrinsic evil, but has a history of delivering intrinsic evil? Do common goods issues rise to the level of proportionate reason when one party is for instituting intrinsic evil (with a good track record) and another’s stated policy is against the intrinsic evil (with a bad track record).

There were many examples cited, but I think many could be related to early actions before party platforms solidified on the issue and some mavericks who went against the party platform to the dismay of many.

Regardless, the 1st question is still a good one. I think that the Papal Nuncio suggests that it is the indoctrination in basic principles that embrace intrinsic evil that is public enemy #1.

Right, the Democrats do not only have these intrinsic evils in its platform but in some cases as one of their pets is Planned Parenthood, they wish to expand abortion rights, to in fact, grow it. And it’s a money-making racket in itself.

 

[Lapey]

Now, given the arguments, are you still so sure about voting Republican for the rest of your life?

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!

 

[Rence]

To give Al his proper due, I think that Al put forth a very good counterpoint in his post #79 & #80.

Agreed. Those who are saying Al never gave ‘proportionate reasons’ simply don’t like his answer and therefore don’t acknowledge that he answered. And there’s nothing anyone can do about that … kinda like beating a dead horse

 

[Lapey]

You can either support laws banning gay marriage or you can support religious liberty, but you can’t support both.

It is an embarrassment that the Church is running around complaining about out religious liberty being violated, while at the same time we are actively trying to pass laws that infringe on the religious liberty of others.

I’m not saying the Church should stop opposing the HHS mandate or stop supporting gay marriage bans, but you can’t do both and claim you are a champion of religious liberty.

People always love to call Catholics hypocrites, and I always defend us. Hypocrisy is not saying something is wrong and doing it anyway. That is just sinning. Hypocrisy is saying what is right for me to do, is wrong for you to do. Right now we are practicing the height of hypocrisy .

What is inconsistent in defending religious liberties and denouncing gay “marriage”? Marriage is a creation of God; it is not a creation of man or man’s government. The hypocrisy is in defending religious liberty and not defending the sanctity of marriage by fighting against gay civil “unions” or “marriage”, civil marriage as an equal to sacramental marriage, cohabitation, no-fault divorce, remarriage after divorce, etc.

 

[Mickey]

Those who are saying Al never gave ‘proportionate reasons’ simply don’t like his answer and therefore don’t acknowledge that he answered.

I am one of those who is saying that Al did not give proportionate reasons. I have not seen one post or one shred of evidence that states there is an intrinsic evil that is equal to, or greater than the evil of abortion.

Obama unapologeticallty supports:

Abortion on demand
Infanticide
Homosexual "marriage"
Planned parenthood
Euthanasia
The contraception mandate

I think that it is beyond comprehension that any Christian could possibly vote for someone who champions these issues. The majority of Catholic bishops and priests concur…as well as the Papal Nuncio.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Matthew 5:29

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

I believe you are not reading that passage in the proper context.

Here is what the Catholic commentary has to say about the passage you’re referencing.

V 27-30 Second Example: Thou shalt not commit Adultery (Mat_18:8f.; Mar_9:43, Mar_9:47)—The prohibition (Exo_20:14; Deu_5:15; cf.Lev_20:10; Deu_22:22) in the polygamous society of Moses’ day attached to the wife but not to the husband (over whom none of the wives had exclusive rights)—unless, of course, he sinned with the wife of another. Hence the punishment of Lev_20:10; Deu_22:22 is appointed only for a wife and her accomplice. Our Lord, who is directly addressing men, again condemns the internal act even if unaccompanied by external effect (DV ‘to lust’, p??? t? ?p?Tµ?+?sa?, i.e. 'to the point of lusting). He is the first to point this out (the Rabbis quoted in this connexion, SB 1, 299, are post-Christian). The energetic language in which our Lord warns against the occasion of sin must not be taken literally, such language has its freedoms: the left eye, for instance, is no less a danger than the right. ‘Right eye’ and ‘right hand’ clearly mean all we hold most dear. If these are a trap (s???da???) in the moral path they must be put aside.

And here’s what the Haydock Catholic Bible commentary says.

Mat 5:29 Whatever is an immediate occasion of sin, however near or dear it may be, must be abandoned (Menochius), though it prove as dear to us, or as necessary as a hand, or an eye, and without delay or demur. (Haydock)

As that passage does not directly reference the body of Christ, which is His Church, St. Paul does reference the Church.

1Co 12:20 But now there are many members indeed, yet one body.
1Co 12:21 And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help. Nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes we are all sinners, but in no way does that mean we should tolerate it when others attempt to turn the truths of our faith upside down, especially if they are fellow Catholics who should know better. We are called to correct those who would do so. Not to condemn them, but to correct them. Don’t fall into the trap of relativism that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have warned us about time and time again.

We are not to fall into sin ourselves, and we are not to turn other sinners away from the Church. The Church does not teach this, and it is referenced it’s something the authoritative men of the Church do, and not the laity.