Progressive Catholics say reform must begin with Church governance

[BigBlueCane]

O
The concept of a faction is a political notion, so again this is merely an imitation of and accommodation to the secular media.

Amen.

And of course there is no sense of politics or political factions in the Vatican. Nah politics NEVER enters the Vatican.

 

[fix]

Yeah and one of those mistakes is being the final determinant of who is catholic solely based on a political stance. Sorry pro choice doesn’t mean you aren’t catholic. Supporting secular gay marriage doesn’t mean you aren’t catholic.

It means one is a Catholic that is not following the Church.

 

[fix]

And of course there is no sense of politics or political factions in the Vatican. Nah politics NEVER enters the Vatican.

And there is never any politics among those that reject Church teaching and claim to be “thinking for one’s self”?

 

[ephesians4]

I am closely related to one of these people who thinks they are a catholic.

“I am a Roman Catholic but I disagree with the teachings of the church on a fundamental matter of sin and sacrilege”.

There is no need for the phrase “Progressive Catholic” to describe such a standpoint, the term protestant already exists.

I’m not sure these people are even catholic with a small c - I think they are some other variety of protestant that flies right in the face of Christianity while adopting its tropes and its terminology.

 

[Elizabeth502]

And of course there is no sense of politics or political factions in the Vatican. Nah politics NEVER enters the Vatican.

No one is saying that there is not political behavior everywhere, including within the Church. I will note that in my own experience the most severe and egregious examples of political posturing and seeking of power are in “liberal” ( whoops, excuse me, “progressive” Catholic parishes). That’s because people are so secularized in such parishes that they’re adopting the ways of the world instead of the ways of a Christian community. The point is that there is no legitimate “branch” of Catholicism called “Progressive Catholicism.” It is, as a poster above just said, a form of Protestantism.

Political infighting in the Vatican (as sometimes exposed and described after the fact) tends to be vying for positions of influence, or disagreements over governance, priorities, execution of policy, language being used, etc. They’re not inside there duking it out with one “side” favoring the ordination of women or homosexual “marriage,” the other side opposing the very doctrine which the CDF publishes.

The artificial “factions” that are being discussed here are from those who want to invent new doctrine. There’s zero legitimacy to their wish to invent new doctrine. It merely shows an ignorance of what the Church is and how she functions.

 

[tvknight415]

God’s morality doesn’t change. If it wasn’t ok in God’s eyes 2000 years ago, why would God change his mind and suddenly say, “that’s ok.”? Why would an infinite being listen to the opinions of finite beings and say, “wow, I was wrong - killing your unborn babies is ok, even though I’ve been saying for thousands of years that you shall not murder. Yeah, I was wrong - unborn babies aren’t really people.”?

Most Catholic’s “study” what God teaches for maybe 15 minutes a week (liturgy of the word & homily during Mass), and maybe read an op-ed in some newspaper or news show by someone who is likewise as lightly educated as them. So, if we study something for 15 minutes a week, are we better inclined to say what divine teaching is than the men who have dedicated their lives to it’s study, contemplation, and sharing? Would you want to take advice from your neighbor about your aches and pains, or perhaps rather see a professional who has dedicated years to education about human physiology and a lifetime to treating it? Oh, and this is assuming that said layperson actually goes weekly to Mass.

Would you let a doctor treat you if their entire medical education was 15 minutes a week? No? So why would anyone take the advice on what morality should be from someone who hasn’t dedicated their professional lives to studying it?

Sorry, rant over.

 

[Elizabeth502]

God’s morality doesn’t change. If it wasn’t ok in God’s eyes 2000 years ago, why would God change his mind and suddenly say, “that’s ok.”? Why would an infinite being listen to the opinions of finite beings and say, “wow, I was wrong - killing your unborn babies is ok, even though I’ve been saying for thousands of years that you shall not murder. Yeah, I was wrong - unborn babies aren’t really people.”?

Most Catholic’s “study” what God teaches for maybe 15 minutes a week (liturgy of the word & homily during Mass), and maybe read an op-ed in some newspaper or news show by someone who is likewise as lightly educated as them. So, if we study something for 15 minutes a week, are we better inclined to say what divine teaching is than the men who have dedicated their lives to it’s study, contemplation, and sharing? Would you want to take advice from your neighbor about your aches and pains, or perhaps rather see a professional who has dedicated years to education about human physiology and a lifetime to treating it? Oh, and this is assuming that said layperson actually goes weekly to Mass.

Would you let a doctor treat you if their entire medical education was 15 minutes a week? No? So why would anyone take the advice on what morality should be from someone who hasn’t dedicated their professional lives to studying it?

Sorry, rant over.

It’s OK. It was a cathartic rant for probably many of us reading it.

Here’s the problem, poster. The poorly catechized don’t view the Church as being the extension of Christ. They view it (obviously incorrectly) as a strictly human (i.e., changeable) institution. They apparently believe that the Church fathers merely invented doctrine as it pleased them, arbitarily, without the sure guidance from the Holy Spirit, and that the entire line of Popes did the same. They also have no clue as to the meaning of the phrase Sacred Tradition.

This brand of Catholics believes in what they have invented as the Continuum of the Arbitrary.

 

[3DOCTORS]

As to the individual issues that were brought up (birth control, women’s ordination, etc…), they try to cloak it under the veil of “dialog”. IOW, they plant a seed of doubt first in order to build up the expectation of change, so that when the Church reiterates its consistent teaching, everybody will be upset. This is what happened with Humana Vitae. The problem with this is that it is ultimately a spurning of authority. These people are not approaching the hierarchy with an attempt to understand anything. They know from the beginning what they want, and what they want is completely opposite what the hierarchy is charged by Our Lord to teach. They are going into such “dialogs” with one goal in mind: change Christ’s church into something else than what it was created as.

The news media is doing the same thing, but with a different intent. Don’t be fooled, brothers and sisters. The secular news media is not interested in changing the Catholic Church. They want it GONE because it is now the lone voice of reason standing amidst the winds of hedonism and secularism. They will build up the same false expectations as the liberal Catholics, but they are different in that they KNOW the Church will not change. They want Catholics to get used to ignoring their insensitive Church authorities, so they build up false hopes in laymen so as to create disappointment in our leadership. Their hope would be that Catholics would be so disaffected that they will leave, or at least be a voice of dissent in the Church that will ultimately cause her to topple.

Do yourself a favor and spend the time you would have been reading secular criticisms of the Church and use that time to pray for the conclave and the new Pope. If nothing else, ignoring these stories will avoid boosting their hits on their liberal websites.

Right on!

http://chirho.me/memes/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/579641_160719874077763_1867993365_n-150x150.jpg

 

[Peter_habeo]

One of the issues at the end of the article talks about the Church in North America and Europe shrinking. Apparently, the “progressive” Catholics feel this is due to the Magisteium’s stand on the typical hot button issues. I don’t believe this is the case. It’s more likely due, as friend and non-practicing catholic told me that, “I don’t need it anymore”. The comforts of modern life lead to a lack or impoverishment of spiritual reflection. If one has need, or one is surfeited to sickness, often the spiritual questions have more impact.

My point is that those Catholics - yes they are Catholics - who see these issues as the problem facing Western men and women in relation to the Church, they are just dreaming. The existence of such ideas are the result of a culture that values the temporary and the transitory - everything else doesn’t exist except in fancy for them.

 

[Lucky7]

They aren’t. They are just hoping for a little bit of a more open church. Its the catholic apologists who believe the church can do no wrong who then question their being catholic.

They are hoping for a church open to their own version of Catholicism. So, yes, they are trying to tell us and the heirarchy of the Church what Catholic should be.

And dissent = knowing better= arrogant. They may not want to admit it but there you have it.

 

[k5thbeatle]

It’s OK. It was a cathartic rant for probably many of us reading it.

Here’s the problem, poster. The poorly catechized don’t view the Church as being the extension of Christ. They view it (obviously incorrectly) as a strictly human (i.e., changeable) institution. They apparently believe that the Church fathers merely invented doctrine as it pleased them, arbitarily, without the sure guidance from the Holy Spirit, and that the entire line of Popes did the same. They also have no clue as to the meaning of the phrase Sacred Tradition.

This brand of Catholics believes in what they have invented as the Continuum of the Arbitrary.

I nominate this for post of the century! This I believe gets to the essence of the problem in regards to all those calling for the Church to “reform”.

 

[Cinette]

It is easy to know who is Catholic and who is not. You support the Truths of the Church, written in black and white for all to see, or you don’t. You want to be pro-choice, you are not Catholic. You want to support gay marriage, you are not Catholic. It isn’t a judgement call or a lack of a more open Church, it is a simple question of being a member of a Church which has certain rules that you must follow or you sin. It has nothing to do with how many times you go to Church but supporting and following the rules which may seem like supporting a bureaucracy to you, but it’s more than that, it is the foundation of what a Catholic is and believes. And, I am sure that over my 62 yearsI have done man things that aren’t Catholic but I assure you I have confessed and repented whenever I have made those mistakes and will into the future.

*Yes we need to be obedient and in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Jesus is with us always and we have the Holy Spirit to guide and gift us.

We will overcome all obstacles.

The enemy is strong but we have the power to overcome.

Cinette

 

[zz912]

Yeah and one of those mistakes is being the final determinant of who is catholic solely based on a political stance. Sorry pro choice doesn’t mean you aren’t catholic. Supporting secular gay marriage doesn’t mean you aren’t catholic.

It means you are a dissenting and/or heretical Catholic who has placed themselves outside the Church.

 

[Pondero]

The Toronto Star, is unfortunately Canada’s biggest daily newspaper and is basically anti-Catholic in its opinions. The National Post is nearly as bad.

 

[BigBlueCane]

It means you are a dissenting and/or heretical Catholic who has placed themselves outside the Church.

No it means I’m a thinking individual that realizes that pro-choice does not mean you’re pro abortion and that supporting equal recognition under the law is not the same as forcing churches to recognize gay marriages.

 

[The_Scott]

No it means I’m a thinking individual that realizes that pro-choice does not mean you’re pro abortion and that supporting equal recognition under the law is not the same as forcing churches to recognize gay marriages.

If you are personally against abortion, but still adhere to being pro-choice, then you have a huge disconnect between your personal and public life. If I said, “I’m personally against murder, but I don’t want to force that opinion on others,” then clearly everyone would say I’m wrong.

 

[BigBlueCane]

If you are personally against abortion, but still adhere to being pro-choice, then you have a huge disconnect between your personal and public life. If I said, “I’m personally against murder, but I don’t want to force that opinion on others,” then clearly everyone would say I’m wrong.

The difference is the definition of when a human life begins is disputed. Its disputed legally and its disputed scientifically. The church has a position on it but we don’t live in a theocracy. So since it is disputed I’d rather be pro-choice (allow freedom for the woman to decide for herself) but also support measures to reduce the number of abortions through education, providing support, and other ways to make it a rare event. I don’t want the government forcing themselves into such a private and personal decision. In my view it would be just as evil as a country forcing a woman to abort.

 

[fix]

The difference is the definition of when a human life begins is disputed. Its disputed legally and its disputed scientifically. The church has a position on it but we don’t live in a theocracy. So since it is disputed I’d rather be pro-choice (allow freedom for the woman to decide for herself) but also support measures to reduce the number of abortions through education, providing support, and other ways to make it a rare event. I don’t want the government forcing themselves into such a private and personal decision. In my view it would be just as evil as a country forcing a woman to abort.

Is the baby "pro choice "?

 

[Monkey1976]

The difference is the definition of when a human life begins is disputed. Its disputed legally and its disputed scientifically. The church has a position on it but we don’t live in a theocracy. So since it is disputed I’d rather be pro-choice (allow freedom for the woman to decide for herself) but also support measures to reduce the number of abortions through education, providing support, and other ways to make it a rare event. I don’t want the government forcing themselves into such a private and personal decision. In my view it would be just as evil as a country forcing a woman to abort.

If this collection of living cells with a unique - and distinctly human - genetic code is not a “human life”, then what is it?

 

[BigBlueCane]

If this collection of living cells with a unique - and distinctly human - genetic code is not a “human life”, then what is it?

A collection of living cells like you said.