Poll: U.S. Catholics want a younger, more liberal pope

[CMatt25]

I have news for you…no church will be perfect…because it has humans in it. So if you think you won’t get one that has a preacher you disagree with or someone who bothers you or looks down their nose…then I have a bridge to sell you!

No need for me to purchase your bridge. I agree no church is perfect. I have no trouble church or pastor shopping though if what you say occurs. From reading posts though I think some of you have this impression the priest’s words you tire of hearing about is what drove me away. Actually there are many things. But honestly those on CAF who said I am not Catholic enough to identify as one, that was it for me. The “A” in CAF stands for something.

 

[CMatt25]

What I have seen most often in parishes, is that their bad days (or moments) have generally been preceded by an overwhelming number of complaints directed toward them, by dissatisfied parishioners, many of whom are unreasonable. (I’m not suggesting CMatt’s was.)

I’m not sure if you meant CMatt’s parish’s parishoners or his complaint as part of the group. But just to be clear he wasn’t one who complained.

 

[CMatt25]

Well, we got an older (and wiser) pope, but one who seems to be quite liberal on the most important social issues, such as poverty, and conservative on the personal issues of sexual morality and living a chaste, non-profligate, simple life. This gladdens my heart to no end. He is a leader we all can follow. I’m ecstatic! (Why did I ever doubt the Holy Spirit would fail in this. Shame on me.)

As with all Popes, time will tell how he leads. But so far I’ve been impressed by his humility, his desire to live simply, and the emphasis he seems to place on poverty. I have heard he was influential in modernizing the Church in these decades following Vatican Council II. On the traditional subforum someone said he didn’t allow the EF in his diocese but I don’t know how true that is. I didn’t hearr his first papal homily. But on EWTN they were saying he was very gentle in his approach and it didn’t have a lot catechesis in it.

 

[CMatt25]

You obviously have a “devotion” to Matthew 25, enough to take your CAF name from it apparently.

don’t be critical of your parish because they don’t have a clothes closet.

Also what’s stopping YOU from setting this up at your Parish or Church? If you think there is a need, go for it.

Lisa

I’ve had others think Matt is my real name so nice catch Lisa. One of the things stopping me is I no longer go there. It’s been nice chatting but I’ve fasted all day and now need to get a bite of something. Catholic or not, bad Christian person or not, having abstained this far on Fridays of Lent, I guess I’ll stick with fish or something else meatless. Have a good night.

 

[LisaA]

A young Priest who is in Rome and blogging passed along Pope Francis’ comments today about age. I thought this would be very appropriate as a response to anyone suggesting that a younger Pope would be preferred:

Courage, dear brothers! Probably half of us are in our old age. Old age, they say, is the seat of wisdom. The old ones have the wisdom that they have earned from walking through life. Like old Simeon and Anna at the temple whose wisdom allowed them to recognize Jesus. Let us give with wisdom to the youth: like good wine that improves with age, let us give the youth the wisdom of our lives.”

 

[Lapey]

The constant schtick with CMatt is “once Catholic, always Catholic” which he uses to defend anyone who publically spits in the Church’s face and lives a life of anything but a Catholic. It’s tiresome, for someone who is proud to be part of a “smaller, more pure Church.”

Believe me, I am very familiar with Matt, he and I have been debating for about 4 years or so now. Sometimes I think he is just yanking our chain, no one can be as obstinate as he to the teachings of his Church.

 

[Lapey]

You don’t know me. Pride is so far removed from my personality. But I forgive you.

I will gladly leave you out of the discussion. But then leave me out of yours as well and don’t identify me as a Catholic and will forever be, when others on “Catholic Answers” say something else. You’re big on correction though of other teachings.

The rest of your post reflects your faith and what you believe. But since you desire for me to leave you out of my discussions, my best wishes to you deacon in your life. And God bless.

That is not what I said, again you take one thing said and make it what you want to say. I spoke of how you used me in your conversation speaking about others.

And by the way, did I need you to forgive me? I don’t remember offending you so, appology nat accepted because it wasn’t needed. And you are Catholic whether you like it or not, not a faitful one but one none the less.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m not sure if you meant CMatt’s parish’s parishoners or his complaint as part of the group. But just to be clear he wasn’t one who complained.

No, no. I was just refraining from implicating you either as an individual “complainer” or as being in a group of complainers. (I was making no assumptions at all about your experience with the priest in question. I was merely generalizing about other - but frequent-- situations I have witnessed & known about in parishes, reflecting on pastoral burn-out, etc. )

The point of my own post was merely to enlarge the discussion about the reality of some priests sometimes being difficult to deal with and why/when that can be true, in general, not with you specifically in mind.

It was also to share my own experience with that, and what I have done about that (to cope).

Real wrongdoing, of course, is a different matter, and I have brought that up separately myself on CAF, quite some time ago, when a grave injustice was done to me by a priest (and I have seen such often done to others in similar circumstances). Such situations of true injustice would permit any layperson to approach the priest respectfully and air that hurt nevertheless, but I also very much recognize that it can be intimidating to try to approach an already “unapproachable” person of authority. I don’t know whether that does or does not include your previous event; again, it was just a general comment.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

You mean like people leave a Church because they don’t like what they are hearing?

Regardless, one person does not a church make, save for Jesus Christ. To eschew a group over a person is silly. That person will eventually die, and the teachings live on. If they give you pause, after diligent research and prayer and understanding, we have a different matter.

Ahh…such is the Protestant way…

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Believe me, I am very familiar with Matt, he and I have been debating for about 4 years or so now. Sometimes I think he is just yanking our chain, no one can be as obstinate as he to the teachings of his Church.

Ah,…,such is the way when you leave the church but yet there is something that you can’t shake…and so you identify as Catholic…and think you know more then the Church…because you are mad at it…for whatever reason. Until some day you wake up and realize that it wasn’t the Church but maybe some of its members…and you reconcile with the a church but it takes humility…

 

[JamesCaruso]

By liberal I mostly mean politically I suppose. There are a lot of faithful Catholics on CAF who have said if you vote for a particular candidate or hold a particular political POV in a secular election, you can not be Catholic. This despite the USCCB’s Faithful Citizenship guide in which the bishops said Catholics are not to be single issue voters and that they the bishops were not giving direction on how to vote.

Yes, but in the very same paragraph the USCCB’s Faithful Citizen guide states:

Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

Very few if any political candidates in the US are against the poor, women, homosexuals, workers, minorities, the diseased, fair wages, affordable health care, affordable housing, education, etc., etc. They only differ in how to best advocate for these groups and issues. However, some politicians are not pro-life, that is, they support a woman’s right to abortion. When there are two candidates for public office and one of them is pro-life and one of them is pro-choice, Catholic teaching compels us to reject the one who is pro-choice. I don’t see any wiggle room. Even if the pro-life candidate favored abortion in the relatively rare cases of rape and incest, he is always preferable to the candidate who favors a woman’s right to choose abortion.

So, IMO, it is impossible for a Catholic in good standing to vote for a pro-choice candidate when there is an alternative pro-life candidate. In this respect, the guide you refer to is very clear. It gives the general principles, but wisely leaves it up to you to apply them in the specific circumstances.

I’ll take your word for it that you are not a Catholic, or are no longer a Catholic. Unless you are convicted in the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, you are not a Catholic. If you are convicted, and are just running away from what you don’t like, then I would agree with others if they say you are a Catholic. I don’t know the issues between you and others here, nor do I want to get into them.

I don’t believe the Catholic Church chases anyone away. It is by its very nature a welcoming organization. But the Church is more than a hospitality wagon, it is a group of people who profess certain common beliefs. It welcomes anyone who will profess these beliefs. If that is you, you are welcome. If that is not you, then you are rejecting the teaching of the Church and declining its hospitality, not the other way around.

Being a person who believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, as you said you are, does make you a Christian in the general sense. If you do not claim membership with any particular church, then that makes you an unchurched Christian. Constructively, you are a church unto yourself, at least, until you decide to join one or the other available ones.

Myself, I am a Christian who believes that Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, established a Church, now called the Roman Catholic Church, and that He gave it authority to conserve and spread His teachings, to interpret Holy Scriptures, and to judge all matters of faith and morals. My faith journey differs from yours, I think, in that I believe I know exactly what He wants of me in terms of right and wrong, faith and morals, and church affiliation, so that the only thing not perfectly clear in my faith journey is the particular role he wants me to play from day to day in His perfect plan.

I sense from your posts that your faith journey is is less clear. I do not envy your position. The older I get, the more I treasure the guidance of the Roman Catholic Church and the certainty of its teachings, something I would not have with a general belief in Jesus as my Lord and Savior, relying solely on my own ability to discern God’s guiding hand. This to me is good as far as it goes, but it is too subjective to my liking, putting me at risk of self-deception in my journey home. The Church offers me objective measures by which I can rightly judge whatever inspirations I feel are coming from the Holy Spirit. This is priceless. Just look at all the men and women who have followed what they thought to be the Spirit and founded churches and groups of believers, each at odds with the other, and seriously at odds with the Catholic Church on significant matters. Jesus without His one, true Church simply does not make any sense.

I didn’t mean to write a book. At any rate, you know where I’m coming from and I know pretty much where you’re coming from. In my prayers I put you into the loving care of our Blessed Mother trusting in her to aid you in your faith journey and to bring you safely to her loving and merciful Son.

To Jesus through Mary.

JamesCaruso

 

[Lapey]

Yes, but in the very same paragraph the USCCB’s Faithful Citizen guide states:

Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

Very few if any political candidates in the US are against the poor, women, homosexuals, workers, minorities, the diseased, fair wages, affordable health care, affordable housing, education, etc., etc. They only differ in how to best advocate for these groups and issues. However, some politicians are not pro-life, that is, they support a woman’s right to abortion. When there are two candidates for public office and one of them is pro-life and one of them is pro-choice, Catholic teaching compels us to reject the one who is pro-choice. I don’t see any wiggle room. Even if the pro-life candidate favored abortion in the relatively rare cases of rape and incest, he is always preferable to the candidate who favors a woman’s right to choose abortion.

So, IMO, it is impossible for a Catholic in good standing to vote for a pro-choice candidate when there is an alternative pro-life candidate. In this respect, the guide you refer to is very clear. It gives the general principles, but wisely leaves it up to you to apply them in the specific circumstances.

I’ll take your word for it that you are not a Catholic, or are no longer a Catholic. Unless you are convicted in the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, you are not a Catholic. If you are convicted, and are just running away from what you don’t like, then I would agree with others if they say you are a Catholic. I don’t know the issues between you and others here, nor do I want to get into them.

To Jesus through Mary.

JamesCaruso

Problem is, Matt is a cherry picker; he won’t acknowledge what doesn’t fit his will. Take the CCC for instance, the only part of this doctrine he accepts is the part that proclaims a person MUST follow his/her conscience or condemn his/her self. He ignores all of the sections about formation of conscience and acting on erroneous consciences.

The ways he and many use the faithful citizenship documents are exactly the same. We argued this point before during and after the last election. When Fr. Vincent Serpa, CAF apologist, backed up what you wrote above they got angry and left the conversation.

Simple fact is, a Catholic in good standing, with a properly formed conscience will not support that which supports intrinsic evils. If he/she does they cannot do so without sin. If they do support this without a properly and fully formed conscience because of obstinate rejection they do so with sin. If they support in true ignorance they do so with sin but without the full responsibility for the sin.

The Church is clear and simple on these matters; we must learn and conform with her teachings…period.

The part I made bold is simply not true though. If a person is baptized into the Church their soul is marked eternally, it cannot be changed. They are always Catholic. They are possibly in excommunication, or in separation some how but still Catholic. We may see them as CINO but they are still catholic. If this is not so then the teaching on baptism is incorrect.

Matt is Catholic, he just rejects his faith so he is said to not be in communion, he is in “schism” with the Church but still Catholic.

 

[ProVobis]

Even if the pro-life candidate favored abortion in the relatively rare cases of rape and incest, he is always preferable to the candidate who favors a woman’s right to choose abortion.

So do you see a moral difference between allowing abortions in certain cases and trying to keep abortions rare? As I pointed out, the message seems to be on placing restrictions on abortions, even though technically they are still legal. But that’s IMO.

 

[Jeanne_S]

James Caruso,Lapey…:thumbsup:Good posts!

 

[Lapey]

So do you see a moral difference between allowing abortions in certain cases and trying to keep abortions rare? As I pointed out, the message seems to be on placing restrictions on abortions, even though technically they are still legal. But that’s IMO.

I believe what JamesC is saying is what was true in the last election, one candidate is proven to be pro-abortion for any reason; abortion on demand. The other is running on an idea of abortion should be illegal in all cases except rape and incest, therefore would be rare by law.

He is not in my opinion saying any abortion is a moral choice, the Church is clear, any abortion is intrinsically evil. But in this election past there was a clear choice for a “lessor of two evils”. Now there was also the option of voting for a candidate who was truly pro-life but had no chance to win. I chose voting for the LOTE because any other besides the two main candidates had no chance of winning.

It is our American nature taught by our culture that tells us differently than the Church teaches, unfortunately many Catholics place out cultural influences above Mother Church and therefore above God.

And to place it in context of this thread, there is no way any pope can be elected who would change teachings to fit the American culture’s view points; if so She would cease being Mother Church, and that can’t happen according to Jesus Himself!

 

[LisaA]

Myself, I am a Christian who believes that Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, established a Church, now called the Roman Catholic Church, and that He gave it authority to conserve and spread His teachings, to interpret Holy Scriptures, and to judge all matters of faith and morals. My faith journey differs from yours, I think, in that I believe I know exactly what He wants of me in terms of right and wrong, faith and morals, and church affiliation, so that the only thing not perfectly clear in my faith journey is the particular role he wants me to play from day to day in His perfect plan.

I sense from your posts that your faith journey is is less clear. I do not envy your position. ***The older I get, the more I treasure the guidance of the Roman Catholic Church and the certainty of its teachings, something I would not have with a general belief in Jesus as my Lord and Savior, relying solely on my own ability to discern God’s guiding hand. This to me is good as far as it goes, but it is too subjective to my liking, putting me at risk of self-deception in my journey home. The Church offers me objective measures by which I can rightly judge whatever inspirations I feel are coming from the Holy Spirit. This is priceless. Just look at all the men and women who have followed what they thought to be the Spirit and founded churches and groups of believers, each at odds with the other, and seriously at odds with the Catholic Church on significant matters. Jesus without His one, true Church simply does not make any sense.***I didn’t mean to write a book. At any rate, you know where I’m coming from and I know pretty much where you’re coming from. In my prayers I put you into the loving care of our Blessed Mother trusting in her to aid you in your faith journey and to bring you safely to her loving and merciful Son.

To Jesus through Mary.

JamesCaruso

Loved your entire post and thank you. I bolded the part that I think is most applicable to the discussion, both individually and also with respect to those who want a “younger more liberal Pope.” As you said, without the guidance of the Church, it is easy to fall into the “Church Of Me” where we decide which Gospels are most important to follow and which WE reject, not because the Church’s doctrine fails in its inherent Truth but it interferes with the other false gods we worship.

As I understand some liberal Catholics are thrilled that Pope Francis speaks of our being charged with helping the poor thinking we are on a “social justice” trajectory, but I think it’s clear he is NOT watering down the faith in this emphasis. As he said in his first homily, if we forget about our real mission to spread the Gospel we become nothing more than another NGO (with better artwork than most!). His strong opposition to his own government’s expansion of abortion and contraception demonstrates that he understands the primacy of life issues. He has also spoken out regarding the lies that are behind promotion of same sex marriage.

IOW the Cafeteria Catholic, the “Progressive” Catholic will be once again disappointed that the Church is not changing to suit their individual philosphy of life.

Lisa

 

[ProVobis]

I believe what JamesC is saying is what was true in the last election, one candidate is proven to be pro-abortion for any reason; abortion on demand. The other is running on an idea of abortion should be illegal in all cases except rape and incest, therefore would be rare by law.

I can’t buy that argument because now you’re introducing allowed abortion by discrimination and reinforcing ill-will against those conceived by rape, similar to past ill-will against anyone conceived out of wedlock. It may or may not be rare, depending on the number of claimants and how one defines rape or saving the life of the mother. And for the life of me, I don’t know how that particular compromise was ever reached in the Hyde Amendment, even though I happened to live in that House member’s district. But I digress.

In any case, I’d prefer JamesC speak for himself.

 

[Lapey]

I can’t buy that argument because now you’re introducing allowed abortion by discrimination and reinforcing ill-will against those conceived by rape, similar to past ill-will against anyone conceived out of wedlock. It may or may not be rare, depending on the number of claimants and how one defines rape or saving the life of the mother. And for the life of me, I don’t know how that particular compromise was ever reached in the Hyde Amendment, even though I happened to live in that House member’s district. But I digress.

In any case, I’d prefer JamesC speak for himself.

I am in no way saying any abortion is ok. All abortion should be illegal. The point is, between the two candidates who had a chance, one was totally discqualified.

I prefer you not twist my words.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Problem is, Matt is a cherry picker; he won’t acknowledge what doesn’t fit his will. Take the CCC for instance, the only part of this doctrine he accepts is the part that proclaims a person MUST follow his/her conscience or condemn his/her self. He ignores all of the sections about formation of conscience and acting on erroneous consciences.

The ways he and many use the faithful citizenship documents are exactly the same. We argued this point before during and after the last election. When Fr. Vincent Serpa, CAF apologist, backed up what you wrote above they got angry and left the conversation.

Simple fact is, a Catholic in good standing, with a properly formed conscience will not support that which supports intrinsic evils. If he/she does they cannot do so without sin. If they do support this without a properly and fully formed conscience because of obstinate rejection they do so with sin. If they support in true ignorance they do so with sin but without the full responsibility for the sin.

The Church is clear and simple on these matters; we must learn and conform with her teachings…period.

The part I made bold is simply not true though. If a person is baptized into the Church their soul is marked eternally, it cannot be changed. They are always Catholic. They are possibly in excommunication, or in separation some how but still Catholic. We may see them as CINO but they are still catholic. If this is not so then the teaching on baptism is incorrect.

Matt is Catholic, he just rejects his faith so he is said to not be in communion, he is in “schism” with the Church but still Catholic.

I was under the impression that there is only one baptism. Are you saying that Protestant baptism properly performed is invalid? I don’t believe the Church re-baptizes a Protestant who joins the Catholic Church; is he therefore an inferior Catholic? You’ve got me on that one. I’ve never heard the concept taught that you can be forced to be a Catholic by virtue of infant Baptism. Please explain yourself.

 

[ProVobis]

I am in no way saying any abortion is ok. All abortion should be illegal. The point is, between the two candidates who had a chance, one was totally discqualified.

And the other?

Nice spin.