Questions about being Catholic

[NuclearReceptor]

Upon further reflection, I seem to have gotten caught up on single points of contention in today’s society. If I have caused any discord, I apologize.

 

[misstherese]

thank you and happy birthday!!!

 

[misstherese]

This is the clearest definition of Americanism I’ve come by.

“The underlying principle of these new opinions,” wrote Pope Leo,

is that, in order to more easily [sic] attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them.

It originated in America so that’s why I think it was named Americanism.

 

[Usagi]

While it doesn’t seem to be the same thing as Pope Leo’s Americanism (or perhaps it is in spirit, if not in the details), I would argue that another American heresy is prevalent today, that of trying to force the Church and her teachings into the boxes defined by the American political spectrum. This is how we get “liberal” (or “progressive”) and “conservative” Catholics, who often seem more attached to their particular political dogmas than to the Church’s guidance. American conservatives agree with the Church on some issues (the popular “five non-negotiables” most prominent among them), while American progressives agree with the Church on a different set of issues (treatment of workers and the poor, the evil of torture and most war, protection of the Earth, etc.). Each tends to hold up the Church’s teaching on the points where it “agrees with them” while regarding the other teachings as matters of “prudential judgment” or “conscience.” Now, it’s true that the Church has never been as specific on, say, what the minimum wage should be as she is on the condemnation of abortion, but that doesn’t mean one can use the fight for the unborn to justify supporting politicians who seem to have an outright contempt for the poor and the ordinary worker. Conversely, just because one feels good about following Jesus and the Church when it comes to providing for the hungry, the sick, and the refugee, doesn’t mean that abortion or the sexual issues are to be placed in a different, “private” category that the Church has no place ruling on. Pope Francis (and Popes Benedict and St. John Paul before him, before anyone in either camp tries to drive a wedge between them) wrote about the morality of different social and environmental policies and denounced abortion and euthanasia as great evils.

We are Catholics first and Americans second. Our family is a global one and extends even beyond the mortal sphere. We have no business putting any of the political tribes of the U.S. (still kind of a newfangled experiment in the Church’s eyes, much as I love many things about our country and its principles) ahead of our Church, and should strive to follow Her whole teaching even if it gets us excommunicated by both American “sides.”

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Whether the members of CAF like to admit it or not, the opinions of the OP align with how many people in the pews on Sunday think as well. Maybe not on all the points, but on many.

And most of those Catholics are not on here posting long speeches about how they can’t go to the Roman Catholic Church any more because they think a certain way about one or several of the points made. A number of said points are not even issues of disagreement with Church teaching; indeed, the Vatican is largely in agreement with the OP’s views on Amoris Laetitia, global warming, refugees, the death penalty, etc. I could also present dozens of Catholics who agree with the OP on one, several, many, or all issues. So other than the fact that OP lives in Lincoln where the bishop is very conservative, I’m really not seeing the great big huge obstacle preventing OP from being in the RC Church.

 

[EricF]

As a Catholic living in the US, for me anyway, I am Catholic first. We are supposed to hold ourselves to certain teachings, despite what the government says. For example: as a Catholic, I do not need the government to outlaw abortion or same-sex unions. There is a higher authority that instructs is not to participate in those things.

 

[ProgressiveCatholic]

There’s a lot to respond to here! I think I took off too much on my first day. I’m going to try some one-topic threads. I appreciate all the responses!

 

[ProgressiveCatholic]

That is not a magisterial document and has no doctrinal weight.

 

[Augustinian]

I can say I’m in compliance. I only voted once in my life, but since it was for President Reagan, he met the requirements.

 

[AlNg]

So a Catholic is required not to vote for any politician who publicly supports the legalization of abortion, but the politician is personally opposed to abortion? Is a priest required to refuse Holy Communion to such a politician?

 

[Augustinian]

So a Catholic is required not to vote for any politician who publicly supports the legalization of abortion, but the politician is personally opposed to abortion? Is a priest required to refuse Holy Communion to such a politician?

If someone is really personally opposed to abortion, they’d vote against its legalization.

 

[Usagi]

If someone is really personally opposed to abortion, they’d vote against its legalization.

Not necessarily. Plenty of Catholics believe that contraception, remarriage after divorce, and sex outside of marriage are wrong, but wouldn’t vote to have them made illegal for everyone.

Abortion is different, I know, because it deliberately kills someone, and we do tend to make that sort of thing illegal for everyone. Possibly that is why pro-choice Catholic politicians often cling to earlier Catholic writings on delayed ensoulment — if there’s a period when abortion is sinful for a Christian but not actually murder, then it’s not necessary to pursue laws against early-term abortions (which make up the vast majority of them).

In general, abortion is a unique situation. We, as well as the pro-choicers, need to recognize that there are two people involved, and demanding that a woman remain pregnant regardless of the effects on her life and health (and potentially backing that up with the force of the state) is not an image that appeals to a lot of people even if they’d prefer that abortion rarely or never happen. It doesn’t help that every recent anti-abortion measure aimed at the woman that I’ve seen proposed has been horrifyingly draconian and dehumanizing.

Some politicians who say pleasing things about their opposition to abortion really do fit the stereotype of just wanting to control women and not caring about the value of life once it’s born. Others aren’t actually going to do a thing to reduce or eliminate abortion once elected. And some on the other side, who are disgusting in their vocal support for the status quo on legal abortion, will nevertheless pursue policies that lead to fewer abortions actually happening. We need to trust our fellow Catholics to recognize all of those and vote accordingly, rather than clinging to an absolute rule for voting based on words or party affiliation.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Catholic Church does not “require” people to vote in a certain way, at least not in the United States, and also in the USA it has no way of knowing how you vote once you’re in the booth. If your conscience tells you to vote differently from the Church, you may have some personal issue with sin (or not), but you are not kicked out of the Church or denied the sacraments based on your political vote, and that is as it should be.

The Catholic Church does however frown on people calling themselves “Catholic” while at the same time making a big public show of support against a Church position on a major issue. And that’s understandable, because it is going beyond one person/ one secret vote based on that person’s conscience, and instead is undermining the public reputation and public position of the Church.

I would be very careful about posting memes suggesting something is “required” unless the Catechism says in big letters that it is a “must”. There are just as many Catholics on here who make posts and memes claiming that all good Catholics are somehow “required” to vote Hillary, or “required” to vote Trump. This is misinformation as Catholics in reality vote all kinds of different ways and no one is policing it; furthermore, when somebody starts looking at my supposedly secret votes, it will be time for serious civil action here in the USA because our Constitutional freedoms will be at risk, even if it’s the Pope who’s looking.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

So a Catholic is required not to vote for any politician who publicly supports the legalization of abortion, but the politician is personally opposed to abortion?

Again, this is wrong. Catholics, at least in USA, are not “required” to vote in any particular way.
The meme is spreading misinformation.