C
Christian_Soul
Guest
Agreed
- Status
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Nope. Again, I’m referring to Catholics self-defining themselves accurately as such. This is part of the teaching of the Church, which makes it sensible that a Catholic not in communion with the teachings of the Church would so describe himself or herself. And historically this was always (and accurately) done, by the Catholic himself, not by “an administrator of an internet forum,” which frankly has nothing to do with anything, least of all this discussion.
Rather, the dissenting baptized individual recognized clearly that he or she was out of communion, and behaved respectfully, accordingly. Whether or not you are aware of this history, the history is accurate.
No, it is not “against Catholic teaching” to recognize oneself accurately as not in communion with the Magisterium, and to understand what is required to be in communion. The person is not “being led away” (by anyone, by the way). Rather, the person is acknowledged that he has led himself away.
Have a nice day.
L
LisaA
Guest
Which sentence do you refer to? Your post was quite lengthy and the initial portion appeared to claim that pro life advocates had used quite hateful and vitriolic language to describe post abortive women…“baby killing murders” was the phrase as I recall. So this was all in jest…rather a curious way to make a point.
Again why don’t you respond to those who addressed the points in your post instead of making accusations?
Do you have any thoughts regarding the responses? Do you agree or disagree?
Lisa
S
SugarMagnolia
Guest
This one:
I didn’t know there was a sarcastic smiley.
(I remember a time when tone was communicated without emoticons.)
My post is indeed lengthy. At least we agree on something.
Here’s a summary: I used to be pro-choice, now—not so much. My mind is not so much “changed” as “changing.” Now, I get my throat jumped down for this being in-progress rather than completed. (St. Augustine took some 15 years getting from Plato to Christ but I get criticized for having been pro-choice in the past).
Having had a change of mind, I wanted to explain that I did not change my mind as a result of the pro-life rhetoric, but from a different cause. You’re taking issue with my critique of the pro-life rhetoric. Fair enough. But my main point was that that rhetoric might not be so persuasive. (If that rhetoric is a thing of the past, then my first paragraph is irrelevant.) But my second paragraph was the actual cause of my change in thinking and that’s the very point that I believe got missed because my statement “I had always been pro-choice” proved a distraction.
To answer your specific question: I have seen people demonstrating, lawfully so, but stabbing with their words. Not recently, so maybe that’s uncommon nowadays. I have read these opinions and this language on this discussion board, but I’d rather concede the point than locate samples. I just think the language alienates the very people it’s designed to reach.
Instead, I wanted to explain what did get through to me, but I think that point got lost in the shuffle.
L
LisaA
Guest
OK fair enough. I think there are a few fringe groups that might use sharp rhetoric or grisly photos which I agree are not effective. But to characterize pro lifers this way is like saying all Baptists are like the freakshow from the Westboro Baptist “church.”This one:
I didn’t know there was a sarcastic smiley.
(I remember a time when tone was communicated without emoticons.)
My post is indeed lengthy. At least we agree on something.
Here’s a summary: I used to be pro-choice, now—not so much. My mind is not so much “changed” as “changing.” Now, I get my throat jumped down for this being in-progress rather than completed. (St. Augustine took some 15 years getting from Plato to Christ but I get criticized for having been pro-choice in the past).
Having had a change of mind, I wanted to explain that I did not change my mind as a result of the pro-life rhetoric, but from a different cause. You’re taking issue with my critique of the pro-life rhetoric. Fair enough. But my main point was that that rhetoric might not be so persuasive. (If that rhetoric is a thing of the past, then my first paragraph is irrelevant.) But my second paragraph was the actual cause of my change in thinking and that’s the very point that I believe got missed because my statement “I had always been pro-choice” proved a distraction.
To answer your specific question: I have seen people demonstrating, lawfully so, but stabbing with their words. Not recently, so maybe that’s uncommon nowadays. I have read these opinions and this language on this discussion board, but I’d rather concede the point than locate samples. I just think the language alienates the very people it’s designed to reach.
Instead, I wanted to explain what did get through to me, but I think that point got lost in the shuffle.
I did read and agree with your expanded understanding and viewpoint. I didn’t see anyone jumping down your throat because of the changing mind and heart but more pointed at the comments made to describe pro-lifers. We often hear this from pro-abort types…you know the usual canard that “All they want is for you to have the baby and then they don’t care about you anymore…” or the call “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries”
I came from an atheist and proabort stance so I know how the dark side thinks. What changed my mind was a better understanding of fetal development and a belief in consistency in your ethics. In other words, how can you claim you can kill an unborn baby when a few inches north but not after the baby completely exits the birth canal? Most of the pro abort arguments don’t make sense from a strictly rational viewpoint but they tend to use inflammatory language to hide their cognitive dissonence.
I was thinking about the influences on my change and meltzerboy, you’ll probably find this ironic, but the biggest influence in my changing from pro abort to pro life was listening to a Jew
not a Catholic or an Evangelical.Lisa
C
Christian_Soul
Guest
I agree it can be sensible and not against Catholic teaching for such Catholics to identify themselves as such. What is against Catholic teaching is when others, which can include an administrator, for instance on an internet forum, deny them the right to self describe as Catholics even with such an adjective as “non practicing”. Rence explained it well in her earlier post.
In addition, indeed the person away can be pushed further away as a result of this. In any case you have not only a nice day but a nice life as well.
.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Well, I would agree with you that one’s description of oneself as non-practicing is perfectly appropriate. Hmmm. I can’t imagine others “not allowing that.” The believer himself or herself can examine behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes held, and see whether those do not align with the teachings. (And we all should, regularly.)
I think I’ve seen an identifier, “lapsed Catholic” on CAF before, some time ago. Again, that person was obviously making an honest assessment.
So I do not disagree with you. My point, rather, was that such was more immediate and more recognized in a previous time than in the modern time. People were very clear about what the teachings did and did not allow, and thus were quick to put themselves in the correct, self-knowing category. No one would have ever called themselves a practicing Catholic and subscribed to the modern concept of “pro-choice” – any more than they would have described themselves as pro-fornication Catholics, pro-contraception Catholics, etc. Those phrases were understood correctly as being inherently contradictory.
I do understand the desired distinction some would prefer to make about one’s own beliefs vs. the beliefs and moral allowances of a secular society, but that distinction is not one which the Church herself allows.
Chin up.
God does not lose. We may not appreciate the timing of God, but we know that he will not lose.
- Status