Shouldn't There Be A Punishment For Going Against Church Teaching?

[JanetF]

Right on. Your posts make perfect sense. I didn’t know there were attendance takers at mass. Are there also folks who count the number of children in a family? I guess my husbands family… (he is one of 9 children)…they would be allowed in…but families with 2 children…hmmmmmm… yep there’s the 10 faithful to the core parishoners.

Then I’m doomed because I only have one child, and I imagine that some people think I’m a single mom, since I don’t get up at the crack of dawn to go to mass with my husband. Actually, when DH did attend mass with DD and I recently at Noon on Sunday, I mentioned to father, what a treat it was for him to see us all together, and he chuckled.

 

[JanetF]

You know where I live (Quebec) in the pre-Vatican II days, when our local Church was borderline Jansenist, that’s exactly what happened. During his annual parish visits, if the mother wasn’t nursing or expecting, and if there were too few children, there would be lots of explaining to do to the priest.

There was a huge backlash against the Church starting in the 60s, because of this. NOBODY here ever wants to go back to that.

That’s just crazy!! I was the last of 4 pregnancies in the late 50’s early 60’s. My mother didn’t do anything to prevent pregnancy! Sometimes God blesses a couple with a lot of children, and sometimes he blesses a couple with one.

 

[embear]

This wouldn’t be a universal Church, it would be a mutual self-congratulatory society. This is what the Holy Father means by a self-referential religion.

Has it every occurred to you that of those 1000 people who’s faith you dismiss and wouldn’t welcome in your parish, one of them may be on a faith walk leading to sainthood?

Did those 10 people in your parish all become “perfect” Catholics overnight? Or were they maybe one of the 1000 clueless ones at one time?

And what test will you apply to them to let them into your small world?

Did you read my entire post? You have completely misinterpreted what I said and seem to be claiming I would have all sinners barred from attending mass. I am lamenting the fact that the Church leaders refuse to address heretical beliefs and sinful actions for fear of driving people away. I will say it again, if condemning sin drives people away, so be it.

 

[OraLabora]

Did you read my entire post? You have completely misinterpreted what I said and seem to be claiming I would have all sinners barred from attending mass. I am lamenting the fact that the Church leaders refuse to address heretical beliefs and sinful actions for fear of driving people away. I will say it again, if condemning sin drives people away, so be it.

So how is driving Catholics away going to make them better Catholics?

That certainly doesn’t appear to be the direction that the Holy Father is taking these days. He rather seems to be trying to entice the wayward home rather than chase existing Catholics that are in the Church, but perhaps lukewarm, away.

 

[embear]

For those of you who wish to attend a church with only 10 perfect members:

How are you going to be able to afford to keep the parish church doors open, with the tithing of only 10 people?

The parish I attend Mass at puts its budget in every edition of the parish bulletin. It’s well over a $100K a year – and they’re running in the red at the moment.

Are all your attendees going to be millionaires?

Whether or not you hate those who do not meet your standards and attend your churches you need them for the money and volunteer hours they contribute.

One question for you: Do you attend EVERY Mass your parish celebrates?

My parish offers a daily Mass on weekdays, Morning and Vigil Masses on Saturday, and four Masses on Sunday – just because someone brings in a baby for baptism to a Mass and you’ve never seen the couple at that hour, doesn’t mean they don’t regularly attend at another service.

I know several couples where the husband attends the early Mass, and the wife a later one, so that don’t have to bring the baby to the church, and each is able to pay attention to the service.

So now I “hate” people who don’t “meet my standards”? I don’t get how preferring to attend a parish where people respectfully accept the Church’s authority somehow makes you a “self congratulatory” person who hates all sinners.

Those who sin unrepentantly and know of but don’t accept the Church’s teachings because they think they know better are not the kind of people who should be catered to with feel-good homilies. This is what the OP is talking about- not those who miss mass occasionally or aren’t perfect people, but the “Catholics” who think “gay marriage”, abortion, using birth control, etc. is ok and that it’s the Church that is in error. They need to be warned they will exclude themselves from Heaven and I do not want to be part of a community that brushes that under the rug just because they’re too afraid to drive people away when they openly condemn sin and heresy.

 

[embear]

So how is driving Catholics away going to make them better Catholics?

That certainly doesn’t appear to be the direction that the Holy Father is taking these days. He rather seems to be trying to entice the wayward home rather than chase existing Catholics that are in the Church, but perhaps lukewarm, away.

If someone is going to leave the Church because they refused to repent for their sins and accept the Church’s authority and are uncomfortable hearing about the consequences of that, so be it. It is their choice and we should not cease to preach the truth because we are afraid of offending someone’s pride.

 

[OraLabora]

If someone is going to leave the Church because they refused to repent for their sins and accept the Church’s authority and are uncomfortable hearing about the consequences of that, so be it. It is their choice and we should not cease to preach the truth because we are afraid of offending someone’s pride.

What does Jesus say about recovering the lost sheep?

Is the Church’s mission to drive out those in error, or to try to save souls?

How will she convert souls by driving away sheep, rather than going out and seeking the lost sheep?

Your vision of the Church is not Catholic, it’s that of an exclusive club. Why are you so afraid of others with views that don’t match your own?

Jesus promised that the gates of Hades will never prevail against the Church. Have faith! Work on your own salvation, and let God and His pastors worry about the others.

Have faith in His promise to the Church, and have faith in His pastors.

So now I “hate” people who don’t “meet my standards”?

No, but you are very clearly afraid of them.

 

[anthonymarie]

Whether the parents attend Sunday Mass or not is a moot point. Baptism is the sacrament that removes the mark of original sin from a person’s soul. May I suggest you do a little research on this issue. It boggles my mind that any person in a religious order would not know this. The Church is so adamant about the unrestricted use of this sacrament that it teaches the administering of it to a dying person, even though he is not capable of accepting. This is called conditional baptism and is predicated of the assumption that if the person was a good person and was given full awareness of Jesus Christ and his gospel, he would willingly accept itt. In Vietnam many years ago during that war, I baptized a dying Vietcong soldier. I have always felt good about that and hope to meet him some day.

I know a woman that used to work in a hospital and when no-one was looking, would occasionally baptise the children. Do you think that God would let these children into heaven but not others even though none of them had any control over the situation? If so I can’t help but feel your God has some perculiar attributes.

Do you think the Church would approve of her behaviour? I would be very surprised if Pope Francis, Benedict XVI or John Paul II would approve. Why? Baptism is supposed to be the beginning of something also.

I may be wrong but I was always under the impression that child baptism was allowed on the basis that the child had begun their “Christian journey” by nature of their family having begun to bring them up Christian. I will happily do the research and post here if I realise I am wrong but maybe you could point me in the the right direction, and please be specific (i.e. more specific than: read the catechism). At the moment I would say you are giving Baptists a lot of ammunition against us.

To put my stance in context, I am not talking about people that only turn up to mass a few times a year, I am talking about the enormous numbers of wedding, funeral and when a few weeks before they apply for a Catholic school crowd. I once attended a mass where a baptism was incorporated into the liturgy towards the end. The family (or almost all of them including the parents) timed it so they would come at the end of mass in time for the baptism! They didn’t even attend the mass their child’s baptism was incorporated into! And no, they had not been to another or too busy.

 

[embear]

What does Jesus say about recovering the lost sheep?

Is the Church’s mission to drive out those in error, or to try to save souls?

How will she convert souls by driving away sheep, rather than going out and seeking the lost sheep?

Your vision of the Church is not Catholic, it’s that of an exclusive club. Why are you so afraid of others with views that don’t match your own?

Jesus promised that the gates of Hades will never prevail against the Church. Have faith! Work on your own salvation, and let God and His pastors worry about the others.

Have faith in His promise to the Church, and have faith in His pastors.

No, but you are very clearly afraid of them.

The church’s mission is to save souls. She cannot do this without condemning sin. You are taking a very small part of the entire statement I made and twisting it around to say I think that people that don’t obey the Church should be driven away. For the last time, if someone wants to leave because they don’t like hearing condemnation of sin, that is their choice. Shall we NOT condemn sin, so as not to scare people away?

I think it’s uncharitable of you to suggest I must be a someone with irrational fears who is trying to drive people away from the Church. I also find it funny that you seem to have an issue with unintentionally offending people by condemning sin, but have no problem insulting people on the internet. Thanks for the kind words. :tiphat:

 

[anthonymarie]

I think it’s uncharitable of you to suggest I must be a someone with irrational fears who is trying to drive people away from the Church.

It’s ironic the lack of charity on this thread from those saying how “uncharitable” excommunicating people is and refusing to baptise children (in specific instances) is.

However, I suspect the word “punishment” appearing in the title of the thread didn’t help. It (unintentionally) suggested their was a “nice” people side and a draconian side.

A while back, I heard the term “offensively orthodox” which confused me because the person saying it struck me as a fairly orthodox sort of Catholic (he lectures in a seminary). I am beginning to understand what he meant. There is a party of Catholics that see their interpretation as more than an interpretation and defend it as they would a Dogma - often ending their remarks by implying that anyone that disagrees with them is an inferior Catholic in some way.

 

[OraLabora]

The church’s mission is to save souls. She cannot do this without condemning sin. You are taking a very small part of the entire statement I made and twisting it around to say I think that people that don’t obey the Church should be driven away. For the last time, if someone wants to leave because they don’t like hearing condemnation of sin, that is their choice. Shall we NOT condemn sin, so as not to scare people away?

I think it’s uncharitable of you to suggest I must be a someone with irrational fears who is trying to drive people away from the Church. I also find it funny that you seem to have an issue with unintentionally offending people by condemning sin, but have no problem insulting people on the internet. Thanks for the kind words. :tiphat:

You said:

I don’t get how preferring to attend a parish where people respectfully accept the Church’s authority somehow makes you a “self congratulatory” person who hates all sinners.

So what, then, is your issue with sharing a parish with those who don’t think like you? If not fear what then? Why should it matter what others think? What does that have to do with your salvation and participation in the liturgy?

 

[dshix]

“Shouldn’t There Be A Punishment For Going Against Church Teaching?”

There is. High risk of Hell.

 

[kozlosap]

The Church teaches that baptism should be delayed, and if necessary, denied if a priest has reason to believe that “the baptism” will not “bear fruit.” I am just defending Church teaching. Please do not criticize me for defending the teachings of the Church.

Have you all every been around a person who recently quit smoking? Ya get the drift?

Sometimes new members of any given group only have the rulebook to go by instead of the day in and day out life that most of us here have had with the Church for 40 or 50 years. It is so easy to look in from the outside and proclaim what should be done, especially if you are very young or inexperienced. With time and an open heart hopefully Pope Francis’ words will help bben learn charity and love for we all are sinners.

 

[OraLabora]

Have you all every been around a person who recently quit smoking? Ya get the drift?

Sometimes new members of any given group only have the rulebook to go by instead of the day in and day out life that most of us here have had with the Church for 40 or 50 years. It is so easy to look in from the outside and proclaim what should be done, especially if you are very young or inexperienced. With time and an open heart hopefully Pope Francis’ words will help bben learn charity and love for we all are sinners.

That’s a good point and I apologize for forgetting it in this discussion. Although I am a cradle Catholic I’m a revert after a long absence (this happened 16 years ago). So I understand the notion of the “zeal of the newly converted”, and thought this way myself back then

So mea culpa to bben and embear and others for uncharitable language.

However that doesn’t mean I agree with them. I was searching for the right way to get across what I need to get across, and that’s the notion of dialogue.

Benedictines are trained to listen. In fact “listen” is the first word of the Rule of St. Benedict.

We shouldn’t try to force out dissenters. We need to dialogue respectfully with them and listen to them. There may be reasons for their ambivalence on issues like, say same-sex unions. They may for example have a gay son or daughter and are struggling with notions they never thought they’d never need to struggle with, and must find a balance between loving their child unconditionally and not driving them away by being to stern in their disapproval of their lifestyle.

Or it may be a young woman who had an abortion, and it weighs heavily on her conscience, but all she hears is the message of condemnation when she really needs to hear that a merciful God will forgive her. The Holy Father specifically used this example. She may not even have had full consent, it may have been pressure from parents or an abusive boyfriend that made her give in to them rather than her conscience.

The Church needs to be a place of healing, not driving away those suffering (and dissenters often are suffering).

The Benedictine abbey I’m associated with never, ever turns someone away, whether he or she is gay, an addict, or whatever. The Rule of St. Benedict says to welcome everyone as if Christ Himself was walking through the door.

Whether we like it or not, the dissenter has the image of Christ imprinted on his heart even if often it can be behind layers of accumulated hurts; it’s a bit like an old building that has undergone many doubtful renovations, but when you strip away the layers there’s a magnificent historic architecture revealed. It is only through dialogue and the example of others that those hurting can chip away at their layers hiding the image of Christ in them.

That’s why I think that in our parishes, we need to show Benedictine hospitality even to those we disagree with.

 

[TimothyH]

The church’s mission is to save souls. She cannot do this without condemning sin. You are taking a very small part of the entire statement I made and twisting it around to say I think that people that don’t obey the Church should be driven away. For the last time, if someone wants to leave because they don’t like hearing condemnation of sin, that is their choice. Shall we NOT condemn sin, so as not to scare people away?

I think it’s uncharitable of you to suggest I must be a someone with irrational fears who is trying to drive people away from the Church. I also find it funny that you seem to have an issue with unintentionally offending people by condemning sin, but have no problem insulting people on the internet. Thanks for the kind words. :tiphat:

We can’t condemn the sin without welcoming the sinner. Condemning the sin and welcoming the sinner go together. Jesus ate with sinners. We should be ready to imitate him.

The Pharisees separated themselves from sinners because they thought that the presence of sinners made them unclean. They were not happy with Jesus because he welcomed sinners, ate with them and even let them touch him. Jesus corrected them.

And he stretched out his hand, and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him. (Luke 5:13)

A true Christian is not contaminated by the presence of sinners but rather the sinner is made clean by the presence of a true Christian. If we don’t welcome sinners then we are not living according to the example of our Lord and Saviorr.

-Tim-

 

[Julianna]

Have you all every been around a person who recently quit smoking? Ya get the drift?

Sometimes new members of any given group only have the rulebook to go by instead of the day in and day out life that most of us here have had with the Church for 40 or 50 years. It is so easy to look in from the outside and proclaim what should be done, especially if you are very young or inexperienced. With time and an open heart hopefully Pope Francis’ words will help bben learn charity and love for we all are sinners.

I agree.

Kinda like the phrase, “There is nothing worse than a reformed rake.”

For some, it’s easier to for someone to “tell them what to do”, than use their brain and follow the spirit of the law.

I cannot imagine any priest refusing to Baptize an infant.

 

[OraLabora]

I cannot imagine any priest refusing to Baptize an infant.

I agree. Canon 868 says:

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

I would think that in this age, someone just showing up at Church for baptism with child and godparents constitutes a “founded hope”. I would certainly give the parents the benefit of the doubt, and give the child the graces of baptism.

Which is essentially what then Abp. Bergoglio told his clergy to do when they refused to baptize the children of single mothers.

 

[embear]

You said:

So what, then, is your issue with sharing a parish with those who don’t think like you? If not fear what then? Why should it matter what others think? What does that have to do with your salvation and participation in the liturgy?

Its not about people who don’t “think like me”. I am not on here preaching my own doctrine. It is about people having respect for the Church’s teachings. If the Church teaches that cohabitation is a sin, and I am a member of a parish where fifty something percent of people say there’s nothing wrong with it (there is a difference between committing a sin and denying that an evil act is really a sin) and priests make no mention of it being a sin in their homilies, then I am a member of a parish that cares more about who-knows-what than actually saving souls. Fail to see what fear has to do with it.

To me, I am saying an obese person needs a doctor to tell them they will have health problems if they don’t lose weight. I would rather go to a doctor who has patients that recognize they should lose weight than go to a doctor whose patients deny that obesity is even a health problem, because their attitude towards the issue is directly related to their doctor’s standard of care. And you’re over here questioning why I’m judging fat people, why I want doctors to be exclusive, and why other people’s health matters to me, why I’m afraid of fat people who think obesity isn’t a problem, etc. I done trying to understand what your point is.

 

[anthonymarie]

I agree. Canon 868 says:

“2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.”

I would think that in this age, someone just showing up at Church for baptism with child and godparents constitutes a “founded hope”. I would certainly give the parents the benefit of the doubt, and give the child the graces of baptism.

What you are saying is that you have decided that Canon Law is now defunct. The test for baptism was clearly not intended to be just turning up for the baptism or the writing of this law would be superfluous since just by wanting baptism for their child (maybe because they’ve noticed the local Catholic school is good and will save them sending their children to an expensive private school) and turning up they’d pass the test.

Which is essentially what then Abp. Bergoglio told his clergy to do when they refused to baptize the children of single mothers.

Not so, a single mother has commited (in terms of her single motherness) one sin, if that. It is not the same as
a) Actively undermining the teachings of the Church (i.e. Truth = Jesus = The Word of God = The Gospel)
or
b) As the Canon Law you quoted states, having no intention of bringing the infant up in the Catholic religion (i.e. attending church for more than baptisms and funerals).

A single mother does not, by virtue of her singleness, fall into either of these categories and the Holy Father is right to defend them just as Jesus did to the adulterous woman. But even here we see Jesus saying: sin no more. All are welcome at Church, yes. All are sinners, yes. But there has to be at least an "intention" to bring your children up in the faith.

 

[Moonbug]

I know a woman that used to work in a hospital and when no-one was looking, would occasionally baptise the children. Do you think that God would let these children into heaven but not others even though none of them had any control over the situation? If so I can’t help but feel your God has some perculiar attributes.

Do you think the Church would approve of her behaviour? I would be very surprised if Pope Francis, Benedict XVI or John Paul II would approve. Why? Baptism is supposed to be the beginning of something also.

I may be wrong but I was always under the impression that child baptism was allowed on the basis that the child had begun their “Christian journey” by nature of their family having begun to bring them up Christian. I will happily do the research and post here if I realise I am wrong but maybe you could point me in the the right direction, and please be specific (i.e. more specific than: read the catechism). At the moment I would say you are giving Baptists a lot of ammunition against us.

To put my stance in context, I am not talking about people that only turn up to mass a few times a year, I am talking about the enormous numbers of wedding, funeral and when a few weeks before they apply for a Catholic school crowd. I once attended a mass where a baptism was incorporated into the liturgy towards the end. The family (or almost all of them including the parents) timed it so they would come at the end of mass in time for the baptism! They didn’t even attend the mass their child’s baptism was incorporated into! And no, they had not been to another or too busy.

anthonymarie! You ask some great questions, here, so let me see if I can clear up some of your concern. The lady in the hospital was doing exactly what a good Catholic should do. She was removing the stain of “Original Sin” Adam and Eve incurred in the Garden of Eden and has been on the soul of ever human since then. The Popes would all approve, for this is one of the basic teachings of our faith. The removal of this stain is the first step on our path to God.

It is also Catholic teaching that ALL INFANTS who die at birth or in infancy go straight to heaven where they are perfectly happy for Eternity The difference baptism makes is that the child that has been baptized enjoys the full beatific vision of God, but the unbaptized child does not. However, these infants don’t know what they are missing, for they are perfectly happy. And you must remember they have not faced the risk of losing their souls in this world as all children who reach the age of reason do. This is why any infant born in a Catholic hospital is baptized whether they be Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu or Atheist. The baptism is done by a religious sister of the order that runs the hospital or a nurse in the delivery room. My mother was an OB (obstetric) nurse in a Catholic hospital for 36 years and baptized many infants.

A baptism is usually a separate ceremony from the Mass, but weddings are usually part of the Mass if both participants are Catholic. As for those people who show up at the end of Mass to attend a wedding or baptism, I have found that many of them aren’t even Catholic, but are family members and friends of other faiths. I’ll tell you one better. I’ve seen weddings and baptisms. where they don’t even show up for the ceremony, but are there in all their glory for the celebration’s open bar and dinner afterwards. Some people have no class.

Baptism is so sacred to us that our Church recognizes ALL CHRISTIAN BAPTISMS. whether Baptist, Methodist, or whatever as long as it is a Christian baptism, for it removes the stain of Original Sin.

As for specific references, I recommend you go to the “CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH,” turn to the index in the back and look under the word “Baptism.” There you will find a detailed explanation of the sacrament. The second reference would be “THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CATHOLISM,” published by Harper-Collins, and again look under “Baptism.” Here, you will find a down to earth explanation that is thorough. All of these books can be found in most public libraries. And finally, I would recommend a great little book titled “MY WAY OF LIFE,” pocket edition of St. Thomas’ “Summa Simplified for Everyone.” Again, go to the index and look under “Baptism.” An absolutely great book. I hope I’ve helped you, if not. please let me know.