Poll Finds Rift Between U.S. Catholics and Church

[BackToTheRock]

And your point is? Matthew 5 is my academic specialty, by the way. Indeed, He intensified the Jewish moral code, did not reverse it, but fulfilled it and perfected it, as He Himself said. He absolutely reaffirmed Sacred Tradition, which for the Catholic means an unbroken continuity between Jewish Oral Tradition, as Jesus Himself clarified that tradition, and the Oral Tradition which continued to follow Jesus of Nazareth. What He additionally did, in that process, was to clarify and to frame what was enduring and permanent and irrefutable about that tradition, which has become part of the Church’s moral doctrine, and much of which ambivalent Catholics oppose.

Back from a pleasant jog in the sunny New England countryside. Brief; but there’s no need to get fanatical about this health stuff.

OK - let’s see. Matthew 5 is your academic speciality? I haven’t heard the term “specialty” used in academic settings to refer to a major or area of concentration. Those are usually referred to in academic settings as . . . . well . . . “major” or “area of concentration”. But, as they say in court, I’ll stip to your presentation of the facts, that your academic specialty is Matthew 5.

In response to your post: Matthew 5-7 makes it clear that Jesus interpreted tradition in very untraditional ways. And he lived the tradition in very untraditional ways. True, as you say, he didn’t reverse it (which no doubt accounts for why no one suggested he did). Jesus didn’t go in an opposite direction from tradition; he went in a different direction *with *tradition. And yet, as is often the case with religion, seeing something differently is often viewed as a rejection, or challenge, or threat. Take a look at some of the posts on this thread. There are those who think that people who see things differently should be corrected, purged, or just go away.

Speaking of which, I’m going away from this thread (but not the Catholic Church). Maybe I’ll check in with CF at another time down the road. Best wishes and keep the Cardinals in prayer.

 

[Lucky7]

Back from a pleasant jog in the sunny New England countryside. Brief; but there’s no need to get fanatical about this health stuff.

OK - let’s see. Matthew 5 is your academic speciality? I haven’t heard the term “specialty” used in academic settings to refer to a major or area of concentration. Those are usually referred to in academic settings as . . . . well . . . “major” or “area of concentration”. But, as they say in court, I’ll stip to your presentation of the facts, that your academic specialty is Matthew 5.

In response to your post: Matthew 5-7 makes it clear that Jesus interpreted tradition in very untraditional ways. And he lived the tradition in very untraditional ways. True, as you say, he didn’t reverse it (which no doubt accounts for why no one suggested he did). Jesus didn’t go in an opposite direction from tradition; he went in a different direction *with *tradition. And yet, as is often the case with religion, seeing something differently is often viewed as a rejection, or challenge, or threat. Take a look at some of the posts on this thread. There are those who think that people who see things differently should be corrected, purged, or just go away.

Speaking of which, I’m going away from this thread (but not the Catholic Church). Maybe I’ll check in with CF at another time down the road. Best wishes and keep the Cardinals in prayer.

In other words, don’t bother to respond to her post.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

From the Times article:

“Even Catholics who frequently attend Mass said they were not following the bishops’ lead on issues that the church had recently invested much energy, money and credibility in fighting — artificial birth control and same-sex marriage.”

The Times, by putting that statement in the article is obviously anti Catholic. Socialism and communism is taking hold throughout the world. They are sneaking in, rather than coming right out and proclaiming their political agenda. The media is working with this movement. They want to eliminate the Church’s influence on people and replace it with government.

As far as polls, I don’t pay attention to them. Questions, properly worded to illicit a desired response is the way they operate. Pollsters learn to manipulate people, answers and results. The same methodology is used by attorneys when picking juries.

I would agree…I got called once by a firm doing polling. When asked about religion…Catholic…how often do you attend Mass…daily…we have no further questions for you. Meaning…we don’t want to hear from a committed Catholic

 

[livingwordunity]

The problem I see in this response is that abortion and homosexuality are “agendas that are front and center” in the teachings of Church leadership but appear nowhere in the teachings of Jesus.

What you are saying is not accurate. Jesus defined marriage as Adam and Eve and stressed the importance of marriage. If Jesus didn’t think marriage was important it wouldn’t be one of the seven sacraments of the Church. Another point is Catholics have more than the Bible alone. We have Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church. These three elements of the Church are like a three-legged stool in that they work together to ensure a stable foundation. Jesus gave all of his authority to the Church to teach on matters such as this until Jesus returns on Judgment Day. Jesus said, “…if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” - Matt. 18:17

 

[Elizabeth502]

Back from a pleasant jog in the sunny New England countryside. Brief; but there’s no need to get fanatical about this health stuff.

OK - let’s see. Matthew 5 is your academic speciality? I haven’t heard the term “specialty” used in academic settings to refer to a major or area of concentration. Those are usually referred to in academic settings as . . . . well . . . “major” or “area of concentration”.

Then apparently you’ve never heard of graduate school. People have majors or concentrations in undergraduate school. People tend to have specialties (sometimes called concentrations, but less often) in graduate school.

In response to your post: Matthew 5-7 makes it clear that Jesus interpreted tradition in very untraditional ways. And he lived the tradition in very untraditional ways. True, as you say, he didn’t reverse it (which no doubt accounts for why no one suggested he did). Jesus didn’t go in an opposite direction from tradition; he went in a different direction *with *tradition.

No, he did not “go in a different direction.” What he did was elucidate what the original direction was. Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the Roman Catholic Church and its rich history of scripture scholarship, combined with the leading scholars in the field from Protestant traditions (experts on Matthew), and Jewish traditions, who also agree with what I independently studied, and what the Church affirms. (Some Jews are actually very interested in Matthew 5 because of obvious parallels with Moses.)

It’s clear that you don’t understand the process of scriptural interpretation and oral commentary as Jesus and rabbis before him practiced it.

Biblical scholarship is not for amateurs, particularly not Matthew 5. It has been studied for centuries. That’s why there are experts. Second, we are not a religion of “private interpretation of Scripture.”

In any case, this is not the Sacred Scripture subforum. The title of this thread is the supposed “Rift Between U.S. Catholics and the Church.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

The problem I see in this response is that abortion and homosexuality are “agendas that are front and center” in the teachings of Church leadership but appear nowhere in the teachings of Jesus. I’m not suggesting these aren’t important issues for us as Catholics but it’s worth noting that the priorities of Jesus as communicated in the gospels don’t include these.

Again, this is not the way the kerygma worked.

Scholars who are universally respected in the academic community share their stature for a good reason: their methodology is solid and reliable; they apply the shared discipline that all scholars of biblical texts share. The only “scholars” who “disagree” with the irrefutable fact that Jesus embraced the Jewish condemnation of homosexuality are those who have proven to be weak in scholarship, especially in the contextual understanding of key terms and figures.

These prominent Protestant and Jewish scholars coincidentally come to the identical conclusion about the biblical basis of sexuality that Catholic scholars reach, as well.

It is thoroughly ahistorical to imagine that Jesus approved of homosexuality (and yet that revolutionary statement never made it into the NT, even though the radical-enough discussion of Gentile circumcision did). It conflicts with the history, anthropology, and culture of the time. Anyone who manipulates the text to arrive at that “conclusion” is being disingenuous, or eisegetical for personal or political reasons. (Or, it is a matter of ignorance of the tools of analysis.) It would be one of those three possibilities.

Both abortion and homosexuality were condemned by faithful Jews, and there is no scriptural evidence that Jesus departed from that same fidelity. All of the scriptural evidence points to the contrary – that he was ultra-faithful.

The Gospels were News, as in something different. What was continued by Jesus (Torah, which included prohibitions against homosexuality) was not News. What was News (worthy of being recorded, worthy of both oral and later written tradition) was what was unusual and unique about the message, not what was stable and unchanged. In fact, had Jesus approved of homosexuality, it would not for one moment have been overlooked. That would have been considered so radical that (a) it would have banner headlines all over every gospel, and (b) most likely Jesus would have been thoroughly rejected even by his original staunch followers. Thus, there would have been no Jesus history to continue, no lasting Christian message which proceeded directly from the Jewish message.

The written word was the recording of the oral tradition, handed down by being repeated. Any radical new sexuality code would not have been an oversight in terms of the recording of that.

What the entire Gospel of Matthew communicates is: Listen Up: Stop concentrating on what’s superficial about the Law; follow it deeply and pervasively: that includes sexuality, which extends to lust in the heart; that includes violent thoughts about others, not just actions, and the mitzvah to care for the poor which has been a moral obligation of God’s People since before the Prophets. Material charity is essential to tzedakah, and you cannot rewrite what God has commanded, nor excuse yourself if you yourself are poor. To follow the Law authentically includes all of it: the sexual code and the specific ways of charity which are also mitzvot. After Jesus, the great medieval Torah scholar Maimonides developed a hierarchy of material charity for Jews to follow, the morally highest form being that which promoted financial independence of the recipient.

 

[Lucky7]

I would agree…I got called once by a firm doing polling. When asked about religion…Catholic…how often do you attend Mass…daily…we have no further questions for you. Meaning…we don’t want to hear from a committed Catholic

Verrrry interesting indeed.

 

[saveusfromhell]

Again, this is not the way the kerygma worked.

it would have banner headlines all over every gospel, and (b) most likely Jesus would have been thoroughly rejected even by his original staunch followers. Thus, there would have been no Jesus history to continue, no lasting Christian message which proceeded directly from the Jewish message.

Elizabeth a good piece although i disagree with the highlighted part as that would put limits on the power of God, had he wanted it to be so it would have been. as you say no more radical than the need for circumsision being done away with.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The problem I see in this response is that abortion and homosexuality are “agendas that are front and center” in the teachings of Church leadership but appear nowhere in the teachings of Jesus. I’m not suggesting these aren’t important issues for us as Catholics but it’s worth noting that the priorities of Jesus as communicated in the gospels don’t include these. Yet we can disregard the priorities of Jesus (Matthew 5-7, Matthew 25 are good starting points) and still be considered good Catholics if we embrace the “non-negotiables” of abortion and homosexuality. In fact, from what I read on this board, if we do this we are then equipped to decide who belongs in the Church and who should get out. Really?

There’s another point I’d like to raise and that’s that it’s easy to assume we’re good Catholics by redefining “faithfulness” as “loyalty”. Perhaps it’s worth reflecting on the differences between the two.

Finally, there’s a minimizing of the very serious issues of racism in the quote above. It sets up an either/or scenerio for Catholics that is nowhere found in the gospels or the Catechism. It’s difficult to look at the housing in which many minority children live, the drop out and incarceration rates of minorities, the poverty rates among minorities, and then say “I’m a good Catholic because I only vote for explicitly pro-life candidates and am against homosexuality.” I assume the Bishops included racism in the non-negotiables precisely because they know of the seriousness and complexities of the issues that demand more than a sound byte approach.

Jesus did not need to use the specific word ‘abortion’ to condemn the killing of children but he condemned the killing of children in another way

1 Corinthians 2:12-13; 14:37, 1 Thessalonians. 2:13; 2 thessalonians 3:6 make clear that the Apostles claimed divine authority for their words from Christ. Apostle Paul condmened homosexual practice in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Mosaic law also condemned homosexual practice and in Exodus 21 gives the same value of life to the unborn baby and the mother

Jesus said, ‘If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?’

John 5:46-47

Catholics believe that Jesus gave the Church that he established His teaching authority and this Church has condemned abortion since the beginning

Jesus said his followers should follow the commandments in Matthew 19:17, and one of the commandments is ‘Thou shall not kill’

Matthew 18:2-6, Jesus also condemned those who hurt children

 

[Arizona_Mike]

2 Peter 2 also condemns homosexuality - Peter, who was Jesus’ Padawan, so to speak, would be unlikely to depart from the oral teachings he received from Jesus, nor do we see those early fathers of the Church who received Christ’s teachings directly from Peter promote homosexuality - quite the opposite. Peter also did not seem to share the trendy current liberal belief that the chief sin of Sodom was simple inhospitality, and further states that those who have been given the fullness of truth should not return to pre-Christian beliefs and lead others into error.

6 And reducing the cities of the Sodomites, and of the Gomorrhites, into ashes, condemned them to be overthrown, making them an example to those that should after act wickedly. 7 And delivered just Lot, oppressed by the injustice and lewd conversation of the wicked. 8 For in sight and hearing he was just: dwelling among them, who from day to day vexed the just soul with unjust works. 9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly from temptation, but to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be tormented.

10 And especially them who walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government, audacious, self willed, they fear not to bring in sects, blaspheming. 11 Whereas angels who are greater in strength and power, bring not against themselves a railing judgment. 12 But these men, as irrational beasts, naturally tending to the snare and to destruction, blaspheming those things which they know not, shall perish in their corruption, 13 Receiving the reward of their injustice, counting for a pleasure the delights of a day: stains and spots, sporting themselves to excess, rioting in their feasts with you: 14 Having eyes full of adultery and of sin that ceaseth not: alluring unstable souls, having their heart exercised with covetousness, children of malediction; 15 Leaving the right way they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam of Bosor, who loved the wages of iniquity, 16 But had a check of his madness, the dumb beast used to the yoke, which speaking with man’s voice, forbade the folly of the prophet.

17 These are fountains without water, and clouds tossed with whirlwinds, to whom the mist of darkness is reserved. 18 For, speaking proud words of vanity, they allure by the desires of fleshly riotousness, those who for a little while escape, such as converse in error: 19 Promising them liberty, whereas they themselves are the slaves of corruption. For by whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave. 20 For if, flying from the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and overcome: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them. 22 For, that of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog is returned to his vomit: and, The sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire.

 

[CMatt25]

Those in favor of same-sex marriage are a part of the 70% of self-idenitifed Catholics that do not attend Mass on a regular basis.

Part of the 70% of Catholics identified by the Catholic Church as Catholics. Perhaps they would not “self- identify” if the Catholic Church didn’t identify them as Catholics.

 

[CMatt25]

This leads me to ask if we’re focusing on the grace-filled transformation we experience in the living Christ or simply telling people they need to get in line behind our agenda? (one of these demands more than the other). I think the Church would gain far more loyalty from people if those of us who are Catholic made our starting point the living and speaking of grace-filled transformation rather laying-down-the-law and seeking to purge the Church of those we see as the infidels.

Reminds me of that saying. It goes something along the lines of you can more flies with honey than with vinegar.

 

[CMatt25]

2 Peter 2 also condemns homosexuality - Peter, who was Jesus’ Padawan, so to speak, would be unlikely to depart from the oral teachings he received from Jesus, nor do we see those early fathers of the Church who received Christ’s teachings directly from Peter promote homosexuality - quite the opposite. Peter also did not seem to share the trendy current liberal belief that the chief sin of Sodom was simple inhospitality, and further states that those who have been given the fullness of truth should not return to pre-Christian beliefs and lead others into error.

Ezekiel 16:49 “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.”

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

The survey doesn’t adequately reflect the distinction between practicing and non-practicing Catholics,” said Mark Brumley, president and CEO of Ignatius Press. “And while it is helpful to know what people say they think, what is right or wrong isn’t determined by a survey. The confused results show that the Church needs to be clearer, firmer and more persuasive in presenting her message, and not let people with little understanding of that message call the shots.

“Jesus’ teaching was not initially well-received by the establishment of his day. It should come as no surprise that the Church’s continuation of that teaching meets with opposition among today’s establishment, sometimes even among people who identify themselves as Catholics.”

This is from another thread on the Catholic New…Poll misleading. I think its very well stated. Like I had previously stated…most polls don’t really want to know what practicing Catholics think.

 

[Rache]

Why are moral truths in our society justified by polls? Why is it that if this poll is scientific and unbiased, the Church is projected to grow to 100 million Catholics in the US within 20-30 years. Also, that the majority of those Catholics will be the young.

We have seen what compromising doctrines to liberalism has done to other Christian denominations. The media is hell bent on redefining our Church. At some point, my fellow Catholics who are at odds with Rome will find that you will be more disappointed and more disenchanted with politics, corporations, and institutions that preach freedom and rights, but are self serving,fueled by greed, and whose morality and rules change with the times and the trends of these ridiculous polls. The NY Times would have probably polled those Jews who were worshiping the golden calf: Hey, Moshe 8 out of 10 would like to keep the calf.
Glad the internet has made some of these large news organizations less relevant today.

Your comment is perfection, I agree 100% and appreciate your more than literate & comprehensive reply. I would’ve typed 3 pages trying to say the same thing! lol.

 

[ffg]

In other words - Poll finds Catholics that want to walk the wide path, would like the Church to change for them.

News?

 

[Ender]

When I read topics like this the first thing that comes to mind is that the people involved know absolutely nothing about Catholicism. It is one thing to use a poll to point out the number of Catholics who ignore church teaching, that at least might suggest to the bishops where some of the problem lies. It is quite another thing however to suggest or imply that the church ought to change her teachings to better accord with what people are actually doing. It is no sillier to suggest that physicists ought to change the laws of gravity than to suggest that the church change her teaching on homosexuality. Where do people come up with the idea that morality is something the church controls?

Ender

 

[PaulinVA]

When I read topics like this the first thing that comes to mind is that the people involved know absolutely nothing about Catholicism. … Where do people come up with the idea that morality is something the church controls?

Because* their* church does change based on public opinion or who wins election to the vestry or general convention.

The reason the Church is the THE Church is that is don’t care what people think or what the prevailing sin of the day is.

 

[Tigg]

Because* their* church does change based on public opinion or who wins election to the vestry or general convention.

…and if their church doesn’t change to their liking, they simply move to another more attuned to their own opinions. The Catholic dissenters must know, however, in the deepest recesses of their disobedient hearts just how formidable Truth really is and the impossibility of their goal. That doesn’t stop them from trying though, through political liberalism to bring us into the modern world so that we may become “enlightened” with the rest of the secular humanists.

 

[Elizabeth502]

…and if their church doesn’t change to their liking, they simply move to another more attuned to their own opinions. The Catholic dissenters must know, however, in the deepest recesses of their disobedient hearts just how formidable Truth really is and the impossibility of their goal.

Yes, because the key dynamic which dissenters don’t get, is that it is disobedience which most weakens faith. While they continue to oppose with their words,actions, and will, unless they are also sincerely utilizing spiritual resources to return, their lack of faith will merely intensify and be “self-validating.”