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

[Lapey]

If you were baptized Methodist, then raised Catholic, are you saying you would not be bound by the Catholic laws regarding marriage? Catholicism is a profession of faith, not a rite of induction. The Methodist baptism and the Catholic baptism seals the Christian with the same indelible mark that he belongs to Christ.

A Methodist is a Methodist until he/she proclaims the profession of faith and is sealed in confirmation then receives Holy Eucharist.

Until a person is brought into full communion they are not bound by canon law, the very first canon law, “this code of canon law only pertains to Latin Rite Catholics”.

A person baptized as a Catholic in infancy is bound by canon law because they are in fact Latin Rite Catholics. This baptism means much more than just being another Christian, unless as the CCC speaks, when the words Church or Christian are used, it is specifically referring to the only Church, the Catholic one. Anything else is an “ecclesial community.” Remember what Mother Church still holds as truth, “There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.” This is stated in the canons of the Council of Trent, and Vat II, Lumen Gentium states this fact.

All salvation flows through His one Church.

What all this means in context with this thread, the pope is Catholic, Latin Rite. He will always be Catholic Latin Rite, so chances of major issues like some mentioned in this thread changing are zero.

Good night folks, May God give us a good night’s rest and a peaceful death!

 

[JamesCaruso]

Lapey is right on this one. Now, the infant may not be raised as a knowledgeable, informed Catholic (and in many cases never even receives additional sacraments!), but that’s a different matter. Or he/she may be “raised” Catholic, but nominally, poorly, incorrectly, superficially according to the guidelines of the Church. Or the instruction may have stopped at one point. All that may mitigate ignorance of the faith (and thus culpability for working against the faith or merely abandoning the faith, espeically if Confirmation is never reached), but it does not cancel membership. It may just make them lost souls, of course, on a practical level, without the tools they need to enliven that faith and be supported by it.

Or, profession has little meaning if that profession lacks knowledge as to the content, which we have seen more and more in the Church. That just makes one a poor witness and an ineffectual member, though. It doesn’t cancel the original grace which still can always be activated by someone who seeks it wholeheartedly.

Studies have been done on people who grow up without a vibrant faith (such as those not sufficiently introduced to the faith until adulthood). It can be done, but it’s an uphill battle. (Especially if one goes from detached atheism into Christianity or Judaism.) The most famous modern case of this is Dr. Laura Schlesinger, who tried it diligently and failed, and acknowledged that on national TV, breaking down while doing so. The young brain/spirit has a degree of openness and receptivity that is unique to that developmental time period. Yes, with grace (again) that hurdle for an adult can be overcome, but often is not.

This is the main psychological/practical reason that it makes no sense to “raise a child as nothing and let him choose (a religion) for himself later.” More often than not, that results in a lifetime of experimentation without commitment or conviction. (Or it results in detached atheism, with the experience of faith being absent.)

Give me a cite please. Lapey’s cite did not support his statement [CCC 1272]. Maybe there is some other authoritative source.

I think you can get into some semantics here. Baptism incorporates us into the Body of Christ, makes us members of the Church in that sense, but I don’t think it makes you a Catholic, except to the extent that your parents decide for you until you are of an age to decide for yourself. Aren’t Protestants baptized into the Body of Christ? There is no special baptism for Catholics, a different formula, than for Methodists or Baptists.

 

[Mark121359]

I think most U.S Catholics who are polled are greatly uneducated and believe that the Church is a democracy and if we exert enough pressure, we can change the truth into whatever we want…
This ain’t the presidential elections, folks!

This exposes how poorly so many Catholics understand the Truths and Teachings of our faith.This isn’t a democracy,conservative vs. liberal.

I think the both of you nailed it. They think the Church has to catch up with the times. The Church has to modernize (codeword liberalize) because they can’t keep up with its strict teachings.* Poor babies!* You cafeteria catholics have to remember one thing…Christ founded His Church to fulfill the will of God, not the will of the people.

 

[Elizabeth502]

True, there is no “special baptism” for Catholics; rather there is One Baptism, which is why those converting from Christian denominations do not get “re-baptized” at the Easter Vigil.

The part that I was objecting to was that if a person (your post seemed to imply; correct me if I am wrong) was a poorly catechized Catholic, or inadequately catechized, would make him ‘un-Catholic.’ (my word) Because in that case, wow do we have a torrent of un-Catholics in the Catholic Church today!

Most of these barely Catholic Catholics have in fact been confirmed, so even by your deifnition, they are indeed fully Catholic.

 

[Lapey]

As I understand it, the baptism is for the sin, and the sin only. The confirmation is for the membership / being Catholic. I look forward to more information on this from those that are more informed than I.

Don, Vegas

Again, this is not correct. Baptized infants, Catholic baptism, they are 100% Catholic. Not merely “Christian” with no connection. Baptism brings these “little ones” into full communion with God in His Church. If this infant never receives any other sacrament he/she is still Catholic and is held to the same requirements as any Catholic. This is why it is more pastoral to not baptize a child who by the state of their parents life it is obvious the child will not be brought up in the faith. Canon law requires “reasonable assurance” that the child will be brought up in the faith, but that is another subject.

Confirmation is not a membership sign-up. It is sealing a person in the faith with the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

We are confirmed in our faith, we do not confirm our faith…see the difference? It is in fact what God offers through His Bishop, not anything we as the recipient does that makes us Catholic or not. We are already Catholic Christians.

Remember baptism originated in this Church, for most of the history of the Christian Church everything was called and understood to be catholic. Even after the great schism, 1054, all were still referred as catholic. It was not until 1517 that there were different denominations outside of the Catholic Church. Up until then only one baptism, now there are thousands of baptisms. Some qualify as valid according to the Latin Rite Church, but not all. No matter, one is not a Latin Rite Catholic until they are brought into full communion.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Again, this is not correct. Baptized infants, Catholic baptism, they are 100% Catholic. Not merely “Christian” with no connection. Baptism brings these “little ones” into full communion with God in His Church. If this infant never receives any other sacrament he/she is still Catholic and is held to the same requirements as any Catholic. This is why it is more pastoral to not baptize a child who by the state of their parents life it is obvious the child will not be brought up in the faith. Canon law requires “reasonable assurance” that the child will be brought up in the faith, but that is another subject.

Confirmation is not a membership sign-up. It is sealing a person in the faith with the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

We are confirmed in our faith, we do not confirm our faith…see the difference? It is in fact what God offers through His Bishop, not anything we as the recipient does that makes us Catholic or not. We are already Catholic Christians.

Remember baptism originated in this Church, for most of the history of the Christian Church everything was called and understood to be catholic. Even after the great schism, 1054, all were still referred as catholic. It was not until 1517 that there were different denominations outside of the Catholic Church. Up until then only one baptism, now there are thousands of baptisms. Some qualify as valid according to the Latin Rite Church, but not all. No matter, one is not a Latin Rite Catholic until they are brought into full communion.

Thank you for this, Lapey. But there is still only one baptism, as we profess and recognize, even though, yes, it all originated only from one true Chruch.

 

[Lapey]

Give me a cite please. Lapey’s cite did not support his statement [CCC 1272]. Maybe there is some other authoritative source.

I think you can get into some semantics here. Baptism incorporates us into the Body of Christ, makes us members of the Church in that sense, but I don’t think it makes you a Catholic, except to the extent that your parents decide for you until you are of an age to decide for yourself. Aren’t Protestants baptized into the Body of Christ? There is no special baptism for Catholics, a different formula, than for Methodists or Baptists.

Yes there are other sources, but the one I gave you does fill the bill. There is one Church, it is Catholic. One baptism, Catholic. The CCC is written with this understanding, when it mentions the “Body of Christ” it is talking the Catholic Church.

There is nothing that can be sited that Catholic infant baptism does not make a person 100% Catholic until they are confirmed, that one is new to me.

Catholics by nature of their baptism are in fact members of the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church.

The simple fact remains, once Catholic always Catholic. CMatt is still Catholic.

 

[Lapey]

Thank you for this, Lapey. But there is still only one baptism, as we profess and recognize, even though, yes, it all originated only from one true Chruch.

That is correct, if the form is valid yes. My “thousands of baptisms” comment was hyperbole in reference to the thousands of denominations, sorry.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Give me a cite please. Lapey’s cite did not support his statement [CCC 1272]. Maybe there is some other authoritative source.

I think you can get into some semantics here. Baptism incorporates us into the Body of Christ, makes us members of the Church in that sense, but I don’t think it makes you a Catholic, except to the extent that your parents decide for you until you are of an age to decide for yourself. Aren’t Protestants baptized into the Body of Christ? There is no special baptism for Catholics, a different formula, than for Methodists or Baptists.

you are misunderstanding Baptism…because it appears you are using the protestants understanding. You do not have to be an age of reason to be baptised.

Case in point…my husband…baptised Catholic at age 3…raised protestant…still a Catholic by his baptism.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/HOW2.htm

See the attached link for Jimmy Aiken’s take on this on EWTN. Of note is this quote:

A person is brought into full communion with the Catholic Church through reception of the three sacraments of Christian initiation—baptism, confirmation, and the holy Eucharist—but the process by which one becomes a Catholic can take different forms.

A person who is baptized in the Catholic Church becomes a Catholic at that moment. One’s initiation is deepened by confirmation and the Eucharist, but one becomes a Catholic at baptism. This true both for children who are baptized Catholic (and receive the other two sacraments later) and for adults who are baptized, confirmed, and receive the Eucharist at the same time.

Those who have been validly baptized outside the Catholic Church become Catholics by making a profession of the Catholic faith and being formally received into the Church. This is normally followed immediately by confirmation and the Eucharist.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

At baptism.

Can. 96 By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition, insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a legitimately issued sanction stands in the way.

 

[LotusCarsLtd]

Shocked I tells ya.

Honestly I’m not surprised. Many young Catholics today unfortunately don’t fully embrace the Faith as it is.

 

[Mark121359]

U.S. Catholics number 74 million, only about 6% of the total Catholic population. And less than 25% of them attend Mass regularly. I don’t see much impact of this poll.

Fr. Wade Menezes of The Fathers of Mercy went into what Catholics believe on EWTN Radio. And he said it was appalling. Consider this Gallup Poll. This data is from Gallup’s 2006-2008 Values and Beliefs surveys. The number next to each reflects the percentage of Catholics that think it’s morally acceptable. The number next to the first number is regular churchgoing Catholics (defined as those who attend church weekly or almost every week) Despite the Roman Catholic Church’s official opposition to abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, a Gallup analysis finds almost no difference between rank-and-file American Catholics and American non-Catholics in terms of finding the two issues morally acceptable…Frightening!!!

Abortion 40% 24%
Sex between unmarried man and woman 67% 53%
Divorce 71% 63%
Stem Cell Research 63% 53%
Having Babies outside of marriage 61% 48%
Homosexual relations 54% 44%

***This next column blows me away. These are Non-Catholics! The Catholics are more liberal than Non-Catholics in some instances! Ouch! ***

Abortion 41%
Sex between unmarried man and woman 57%
Divorce 66%
Stem Cell Research 62%
Having Babies outside of marriage 52%
Homosexual relations 45%

So yes, I concede Fr. Menezes point for being appalled! Me thinks we’re in trouble!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Another fan of Fr. Wade Menezes, I see. Fine priest. Excellent communicator, and really knows his theology in a way that makes it accessible to the laity.

(I know that’s not your point. Hey, I am as discouraged & mortified as you are.)

 

[styrgwillidar]

The Pope is bound to teach the Truth, all of it. He is the guardian of the faith, therefore he can not and will not change doctrine.

When attempting to deny the Truth on the basis of being Christians guided by individual conscience, perhaps the following is worth contemplating:

Matthew 7
'It is not anyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the person who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 When the day comes many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, drive out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?” 23 Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, all evil doers!

What hope have I, a sinner of weak faith, to enter heaven? Apparently there will be those denied entry with burning love of the Lord and faith strong enough to perform miracles. Even called evil doers by Christ Himself. What is it they will lack? What is their failure? Is it burning love for the Lord based on some false perception of the actual will of the Father. Love for their perception of the Lord but not His actual Truth?

How can we do the will of the Father if we aren’t sure what it is? Christ established a Church and even told us that when we have differences with our brethren that we can’t settle ourselves with witnesses- go to the Church. The Church is the authority to resolve our differences. To guide us in understanding Christ’s teaching in it’s entirety. Scripture and Sacred Tradition because both rely on the authority of the Church. It was the Church that selected and declared the canon of scripture. Reject the Church’s authority to interpret, than why accept the authority to have selected it in the first place?

What was a sin 2,000 years ago remains a sin today and must tomorrow. The Pope can’t change that. I tell you honestly if he were to do so, I would immediately leave the Church as I would take it as proof that the Bible, the teaching, the doctrines in their entirety were false.

As to a priest stating the poor need jobs. So? Perhaps his point was that it is better for human dignity for a person to have a job than to have to depend on charity. It is depressing to think of oneself as a burden on others. I would rather have a menial job than have others have to give up the fruits of their labor for me. Or have it forced from them on my behalf. The catechism says-

2427 Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another. Hence work is a duty: "If any one will not work, let him not eat."Work honors the Creator’s gifts and the talents received from him. It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work in union with Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth and the one crucified on Calvary, man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. He shows himself to be a disciple of Christ by carrying the cross, daily, in the work he is called to accomplish. Work can be a means of sanctification and a way of animating earthly realities with the Spirit of Christ.

2428 In work, the person exercises and fulfills in part the potential inscribed in his nature. The primordial value of labor stems from man himself, its author and its beneficiary. Work is for man, not man for work.

Everyone should be able to draw from work the means of providing for his life and that of his family, and of serving the human community.

2429 Everyone has the right of economic initiative; everyone should make legitimate use of his talents to contribute to the abundance that will benefit all and to harvest the just fruits of his labor. He should seek to observe regulations issued by legitimate authority for the sake of the common good.

2430 Economic life brings into play different interests, often opposed to one another. This explains why the conflicts that characterize it arise. Efforts should be made to reduce these conflicts by negotiation that respects the rights and duties of each social partner: those responsible for business enterprises, representatives of wage- earners (for example, trade unions), and public authorities when appropriate.

2431 The responsibility of the state. “Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society.”

…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Honestly I’m not surprised. Many young Catholics today unfortunately don’t fully embrace the Faith as it is.

Not surprised either, disobedience is a known and very old, think Adam and Eve. Its “Thy Will be Done”, not the strident clamor of US Catholics who “wanted” a younger more liberal Pope. Didn’t happen, lets move on to “obedience” to the most Holy Father.

Note well: OP title…“Wanted” past tense.

 

[Steve_Jay]

Hello,
interesting question: Is there such a thing as once a Catholic always a Catholic? Some interesting points of view.
Can a person be both a Catholic and an atheist? The answer is no. If the answer were yes then “Catholic” would be void of any meaning whatsoever. it cannot be both of god and godless.
Can a person be both a Catholic and a Muslim? The answer is no. Jesus cannot be both the glorified Son of God and a thing most monstrous to God.

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

A person can excommunicate themselves. Once a person denies they are a Catholic then they aren’t one. Catholic must have a valued meaning.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right you will never not be Catholic through the sacraments of the Church. Its a paradox, we are sinners, the Church is ran by men. Therefore it can never be spotless though it must strive to be so. So must you through the Sacraments. You cannot continue to sin and receive the Sacrament of reconciliation. You will either stop one or the other or find a congregation which accepts your will.

 

[Steve_Jay]

Right you will never not be Catholic through the sacraments of the Church. Its a paradox, we are sinners, the Church is ran by men. Therefore it can never be spotless though it must strive to be so. So must you through the Sacraments. You cannot continue to sin and receive the Sacrament of reconciliation. You will either stop one or the other or find a congregation which accepts your will.

Hello Gary,
after I put my post in above yours, I went away from the computer and thought of the Eucharist. The body of Christ. Through the Eucharist we are joined together with the body of Christ.
“Catholic” then must be a holy word, a sacred word, to be of the body of Christ. The Bride of Christ. A Bride does not deny her lover but treasures her lover. So to be “Catholic” must be to grow closer towards Christ. The closer to Christ the more Christlike we may become. When we pass from this world will Jesus see himself in us?

 

[ProVobis]

The lessor of two evils. Please read the entire document not just part.

If you’re going the lesser of two evils, please explain how the policy of allowing abortions in the case of rape and incest and saving the life of the mother increased the number of performed abortions during the Reagan years and the policy of making abortions rare reduced the number during the Clinton years. Don’t the net effects count in determining which of two evils is lesser?

 

[ProVobis]

So yes, I concede Fr. Menezes point for being appalled! Me thinks we’re in trouble!

Like this developed overnight? People were screaming in the 60’s that the Church was in trouble. In fact, they started voting with their feet.