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

[Geist]

The liberals in the media wanted a liberal Pope, and they didn’t get it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

As a Jew at that time, he would never have imagined that this would become common practice.

Absolutely. This is just the staple fact of the NT kerygma. Something that was Not News, and that was assumed by Jesus’ audience at the time, would not have been carried through the entire oral tradition and then into the written. In fact, the opposite is true: had he introduced a new (non-traditional) teaching about abortion, it would have become part of the oral tradition, and responses to that (no doubt many of them negative) would also have been recorded. Something that revolutionary could not have simply slipped out of notice.

And since life issues, as you note, were so central to the Covenant, it would have been even more problematic for the Jesus tradition (susatinability of the faith; survival of the early Church) had he introduced such an antithetical teaching.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The liberals in the media wanted a liberal Pope, and they didn’t get it.

And sadly, some Catholics on this forum (not necessarily on this thread, I wouldn’t know about that) are still fantasizing about that. Certainly I’ve seen it on other threads.

That is what is called Being Out Of Touch.

 

[J_Peterson]

I thought that abortion was common at the time. Otherwise, why would the 1st century Christians bother speaking against it?

ETA: Nevermind. I get what you guys are saying. Jesus preached to the Jews who already knew it was wrong. It was the gentiles that needed to be told.

 

[ProVobis]

Absolutely. This is just the staple fact of the NT kerygma. Something that was Not News, and that was assumed by Jesus’ audience at the time, would not have been carried through the entire oral tradition and then into the written. In fact, the opposite is true: had he introduced a new (non-traditional) teaching about abortion, it would have become part of the oral tradition, and responses to that (no doubt many of them negative) would also have been recorded. Something that revolutionary could not have simply slipped out of notice.

And since life issues, as you note, were so central to the Covenant, it would have been even more problematic for the Jesus tradition (susatinability of the faith; survival of the early Church) had he introduced such an antithetical teaching.

Hmmm. One does wonder, though, about Mary Magdalen, who was a known prostitute.

 

[ProVobis]

I thought that abortion was common at the time. Otherwise, why would the 1st century Christians bother speaking against it?

Not only abortion, but infanticide as well, which is still practiced in certain parts of the world.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I thought that abortion was common at the time. Otherwise, why would the 1st century Christians bother speaking against it?

ETA: Nevermind. I get what you guys are saying. Jesus preached to the Jews who already knew it was wrong. It was the gentiles that needed to be told.

Yes, it was practiced, particulary by the pagan world. Abortion has “always” been practiced. Whether it was practiced, as you note, is not the concern or the question.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Except Lisa, some Christians don’t find it quite as incredibly clear as you do in the Gospels. They instead find Jesus speaking volumes for instance about the poor and the sick and the rich. But they find the word abortion no where.

You won’t find the word trinity either…doesn’t mean there isn’t one or that Christ did not talk about it…or that its not important.

Hmmm…I think God in the OT said “thou shall NOT kill”. Also I’m not sure how you are loving your neighbor or God by killing your unborn child, which is God’s creation.

Let alone what civil law should be in this regard. Except they may see something about free will. They also may have seen in the OT a story about the difference in the severity of the penalty if a mother’s life is struck down compared to if the life of a fetus is lost. And they arrive at different positions than Catholics do as to fetuses and personhood rights and balancing the rights of women and the rights of the unborn in regard to civil law. The United Church of Christ for example is on record of being pro choice on this issue. There are other Christians who do not hold to the exact same POV of the Catholic Church on the issue. Some may allow limited choice to direct abortion. For instance if the woman’s health or own life is in jeopardy. Or in cases of rape or incest. And they don’t believe as you do that they personally favor abortion just because their POV on civil law is to allow some choice in the matter.

rape or incest is traumatic…but so is abortion. You will not solve one trauma by causing another.

 

[LisaA]

Not only abortion, but infanticide as well, which is still practiced in certain parts of the world.

Yes but the context is NOT what was happening among the Romans or other pagans but what Jesus said and what the Church taught from the beginning. In fact it was the prohibition of abortion and infanticide that brought these pagans into the Church from the beginning. It was what set the Church apart in ancient Rome and even today, “Rome” in the persona of the secularists who have almost made abortion a sacrament. The Church stands in opposition to the continued degeneration of hearts and souls and bodies through the evils that pervade our society.

Lisa

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not only abortion, but infanticide as well, which is still practiced in certain parts of the world.

Including in the U.S. Remember the “Infants Born Alive Act” and who opposed it? Remember Tiller, and Sebelius who supported him?

 

[Brendan]

. They instead find Jesus speaking volumes for instance about the poor and the sick and the rich.

So how much wealth does a baby in utero have? Is it rich?

Does Christ teach that certain classes of the helpless can be exterminated at will. Somehow I missed the part where He said that.

 

[Lucky7]

They instead find Jesus speaking volumes for instance about the poor and the sick and the rich.

And yet He also said,

The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.

It sounds like having Jesus should be our number one priority, not the poor. How do we have Jesus? In the fullness of the Catholic Faith…the fullness, not just the parts we like…not some liberal version of the Faith.

 

[CMatt25]

The issue of female priests was brought up and while for Catholics it’s a non-starter he said that he’s pointed out to his own fellow Jews that allowing female Rabbis has NOT increased the number of Jews nor the number attending synagogue. Applying this to other Protestant faiths, allowing female “priests” and even female “bishops” has not added to the number of Episcopalians…in fact that is a denomination shedding members yearly. Ditto with Methodists who have seen their numbers decline dramatically. Promoting birth control, championing abortion and same sex marriage has done nothing to increase numbers in those denominations.

Yet the Media, lukewarm Catholics, and self appointed Church critics never seem to tire of telling the Church to 'get with the program…"

Lisa

Discussing the fewer numbers of denominations I find fruitless. Christ spoke of few. Whatever that turns out to mean.

 

[CMatt25]

Well said.

Thank you. But in full disclosure I must give credit to the part about it being by the grace of God that any of us are where we are along our journeys, to an Episcopal priest I know who was raised Catholic. She passed those words along to me.

 

[CMatt25]

In effect, some are saying Catholics should be bound by what the UCC believes.

Not sure who “some” are. No one I’ve seen has in effect said that. I can only speak for myself and speaking for myself I know my only point was Catholics who may not be 100% faithful to every single teaching may be lukewarm to some Catholic teaching. Just as there are Catholics who say other Baptized Catholics can not identify as Catholics. They too in that case are lukewarm to a teaching. But we can not judge any Catholic hearts as lukewarm for Christ and not on fire for Him in their faith journeys any more than we can say that about our other Christian brethren.

 

[BigBlueCane]

Not sure who “some” are. No one I’ve seen has in effect said that. I can only speak for myself and speaking for myself I know my only point was Catholics who may not be 100% faithful to every single teaching may be lukewarm to some Catholic teaching. Just as there are Catholics who say other Baptized Catholics can not identify as Catholics. They too in that case are lukewarm to a teaching. But we can not judge any Catholic hearts as lukewarm for Christ and not on fire for Him in their faith journeys any more than we can say that about our other Christian brethren.

Fantastic post. I wish more Catholics felt this way. The way some Catholics attack other Catholics as not being “catholic enough” is utterly disgusting to me and a reason why some have been driven away from the church.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Francis was asked by God to “rebuild My Church” from the inside out. I pray this is exactly why our new Holy Father chose this name.

Listening to Fr.Robert Barron on the radio today.He mentioned that this is one of the reasons our newPontiff chose the name Frances.

 

[Lapey]

Lapey, first of all I misread what you said about liars. My apologies for that. I promote those who have already been born and are poor and sick because it is what I read Jesus did to such a degree in the Gospels. And I believe as great a job as the Catholic Church does, more can always be done.

God speaks of the unborn, but you choose to ignore them. Before you were formed in the womb He knew you. Let’s say we agree on the “Catholic Church can do more” comment. Now that is done, what’s next? Abortion, that’s what.

There are many scripture passages which call to mind the love God holds for the children; born and unborn. How can you simply dismiss the evil perpetrated on the unborn? No one will ever take you serious if you proclaim to care and love people but only those “who have already been born.”

Why is it you cannot talk in truth about this atrocity? Why is it you can say that others should care about the born but you will not even acknowledge there is a crisis in the unborn.

Tell me, who is more poor and hungry, homeless and naked than an unborn child whom its mother has chosen death? Will you not feed that person? Will you not clothe and house that little one as Jesus calls the little children?

No, this is not acceptable to get onto your soap box about taxing more of working people’s money to do what you are not willing to do with your own. It is not acceptable to say you care about one section of the population but totally ignore and not even acknowledge the other. This is sad and I am sad for you for superficial.

This is one of the reasons you left the Church, She did not chase you away, you ran from Her because you worship liberalism not God. Your religion is just that, liberalism. This is why you reject almost the entire teaching of the CCC on our consciences. The only part you read is how we must follow or risk condemning ourselves. You do realize obstinately following an erroneous conscience will also send you to condemnation.

 

[Lapey]

Except what Scripture doesn’t tell you is that you can see into their hearts or can judge the temperature. God knows their hearts. Their hearts might not be lukewarm for Jesus but on fire for Him. Just because people may dissent about this or that or be part of another Christian community, doesn’t mean they are lukewarm for Him. They may be like you or anyone else. On a journey striving to love Him with all their heart. And by the grace of God are where they are at whatever point they are on their journey with Him.

Yes it does mean exactly that. If I choose to go against what is right I take that road rather than follow Jesus. What do you think that is? luke warm Catholiscism. The truth is there we just need to be ready to accept it, all of it.

 

[JamesCaruso]

The liberals in the media wanted a liberal Pope, and they didn’t get it.

Truth be known, they probably had zero chances in 115. The media is not especially well informed.