K
KrazyKat
Guest
We will all be punished or rewarded by God ! Pray, hope and don’t worry.
- Status
A
anthonymarie
Guest
Yes, agreed, 100%:
I agree!
But what does it mean to "know" the faith. What proportion of those 54%, 55% or 59% really "know" the faith.
I was brought up in a very big, very traditional and very Catholic family. What does that mean? That I’m going to heaven? That I’m a good person? No, it means I “know” the faith pretty well. I suspect there are reasons you “know” the faith.
Most of these people you are talking about “excommunicating” were sent to schools where they were taught little or nothing about the faith. They maybe went home, as kids, and said: “mom, dad is this true?” - and progressive mom and dad said: “well what do you think honey? that’s what matters.” Most were not taken to Church. Most never received any catechism. What they “know” are incomplete, disjoint “elements” of Church teaching which, on the face of things, seem incoherent and unattractive.
These people need to be evangelised, most of them for the first time. Now if you want to evangelise someone, to convince them yours is truly “the” religion of Love, do you start by saying: “First of all you are excommunicated, i.e. I am telling you that you are not getting into heaven, now lets get down to talking about the religion of Love.”
They’ll say, probablly in quite good conscience: “I’m really not feeling this religion of Love, I don’t see why I should give you the time of day”.
C
Cojuanco
Guest
Very difficuly to get excommunicated under Canon Law. In any case, barring the mercy of God, which we in practice must never discount, there is a punishment. It’s known as Hell.A poll shows that about 54% of American Catholics favor same-sex marriage. About 55% favor abortion in most or all circumstances. About 59% favor the “ordination” of women.
I once had an English teacher that told me that he is Catholic, but he believes that if a woman is raped, she should be allowed to get an abortion.
Shouldn’t there be a punishment? I think excommunication would be an appropriate punishment for heresy, don’t you think?
E
EasterJoy
Guest
The best antidote to falsehood is the truth, and lots of it. The reason we have so many Catholics who do not object to falsehoods is because they are getting their teaching from the World, with too little to counter-act it from the Church.
I remember a story, I think it was Thomas Merton in Seven Storey Mountain, in which the author talked about the Christians and the Communists working with the poor. The point was that if Christians don’t live the basic tenets of the Gospel concerning the least ones any better than the Communists do when they’re trying to win converts, the Church is not going to be believable when she teaches other aspects of the truth. Falsehood will be believed over the truth, when the truth is fully the truth in the concepts spoken but falls short in the truth of the actions.
IOW, the idea is to show that the issues of care for the poor and for the marginalized is not at odds with care for the unborn or a care that children living whenever possible in a stable family with their biological parents and siblings or any of the other or in favor of sexual purity or any of the other parts of the spiritual life, but that all are part of one piece.
When we tell the truth, we need to be clear that immoral behavior is not an excuse for marginalization. The Lord ate with sinners, but he didn’t come preaching that sin was not sin. He came preaching repentance, and that implies the reality of moral failure. He preached repentance while at table with those who sin. He only counseled his followers to avoid those who insisted on trampling the truth like the pigs trample on pearls, but *not *those who needed encouragement and love to turn from sin and live the truth better.
I remember a story, I think it was Thomas Merton in Seven Storey Mountain, in which the author talked about the Christians and the Communists working with the poor. The point was that if Christians don’t live the basic tenets of the Gospel concerning the least ones any better than the Communists do when they’re trying to win converts, the Church is not going to be believable when she teaches other aspects of the truth. Falsehood will be believed over the truth, when the truth is fully the truth in the concepts spoken but falls short in the truth of the actions.
IOW, the idea is to show that the issues of care for the poor and for the marginalized is not at odds with care for the unborn or a care that children living whenever possible in a stable family with their biological parents and siblings or any of the other or in favor of sexual purity or any of the other parts of the spiritual life, but that all are part of one piece.
When we tell the truth, we need to be clear that immoral behavior is not an excuse for marginalization. The Lord ate with sinners, but he didn’t come preaching that sin was not sin. He came preaching repentance, and that implies the reality of moral failure. He preached repentance while at table with those who sin. He only counseled his followers to avoid those who insisted on trampling the truth like the pigs trample on pearls, but *not *those who needed encouragement and love to turn from sin and live the truth better.
J
jacobhalo
Guest
What the church should do is ask those who do not believe in the teachings of the church to find a denomination with which they believe in its tenets. I don’t know why so-called Catholics stay in the church when they are pro-choice, pro- same sex marriage, etc.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I think it is because they read the Lord’s description of the Final Judgment in a shallow way. It does not talk explicitly about sex or abortion, and so they do not see those as questions that concern our treatment of “the least of these.” Nothing could be farther from the truth, but that is often neglected.
The other reason, of course, is that we are not just a community of creed. We are a community with a culture, we are a community with a history and physically-beautiful traditions, we are a community that is tied up with family affections, we are a community with which people form an identity. When creed and self-identity come to be adversaries, many want to change the creed instead of changing their identity. That is a deluded desire, but it is no big surprise.
M
Magdalen2013
Guest
Oh yes…casting a soul into the outer darkness is going to make them repentant… I don’t think so. First of all, it violates one of Christ’s rules: “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
bben, I understand that you avidly love your faith, but let God take care of those who are sinning. Either they will repent or they won’t, but condemning them will make them less likely to listen to anyone who tries to persuade them to penitence.
And whoever suggested upthread that we NOT baptize the children of those who are less than ardent Catholics? “Suffer the little children to come unto me.” Since when did punishing a child for its parents sins (much less lack of attendance of the Mass) become the rule?
bben, I understand that you avidly love your faith, but let God take care of those who are sinning. Either they will repent or they won’t, but condemning them will make them less likely to listen to anyone who tries to persuade them to penitence.
And whoever suggested upthread that we NOT baptize the children of those who are less than ardent Catholics? “Suffer the little children to come unto me.” Since when did punishing a child for its parents sins (much less lack of attendance of the Mass) become the rule?
A
anthonymarie
Guest
That would be me and I don’t think it would be a punishment at all. Is a child that is baptised going to be a good child and an unbaptised one not? No. Child baptism was only ever allowed in the first case on the basis that by nature of their Christian family, the child had begun his Christian journey. Part of the baptismal promises are parents promising to bring their children up in the faith and if it is clear they don’t intend to do this it is no longer a vow before God but a blatant lie. A parish preist should discuss this with parents, in love and a spirit of devotion to the Truth, and confront parents with the reality of what baptism means.
I said in an earlier post I oppose excommunicating masses of Catholics because it’s wrong! But confronting lapsed Catholics, on a one to one basis, in love and a spirit of devotion to the Truth, about why follow this ritual but neglect all others is not a form of punishment. It could in fact make parents think very deeply about their Catholic identity. Does it mean anything to them or not?
It’s about not propogating mediocracy. If a child of 6 or 7 asks to be received into the Church, and their non-Catholics parents say they don’t mind, the Church still says no (or so my Parish Priest told me). The reason being that at that age, in a non-Catholic environment, there is no way to nourish their faith and it is better for them to discover the faith in it’s fullness at an older age. The problem is (as Chesteron said) there are too many nominal Christians who are bored of hearing about a religion they have never heard about. It is better for them to begin on the outside and then at least they stand a chance of noticing something special in the Church rather than just associating it with something mediocre that they grew out of in junior school.
J
JanetF
Guest
IMHO, the answer to the problem of people not knowing their faith is better catechesis. The catechesis I received in the 70’s and 80’s was bad–small town catholic church with catechism classes on Saturday mornings where all we learned were the prayers to be said during mass. My mother was unaware that we were not being well taught. It wasn’t until I went to a Jesuit university, studied church history, that I learned what the church teaches. Then I was able to fulfill the title of catholic.
I am happy to say that the catechesis my daughter is receiving is much better than what I received. She knew the meaning of Pentecost in KINDERGARTEN!!!. whereas I was an adult before I “got” it. Now at 15 years, she is very involved in her Youth Group and often asks what the Church means when she says… She has a copy of the CCC and YouCat which she references often. I didn’t have my own CCC until I was 25 !
So, maybe there is hope that this younger generation will be better. I have faith that God will guide them.
I agree with those that state publicly declared excommunication is not the answer it will drive people away when we are taught to do the opposite. The key is to do so with humility and love.
I am happy to say that the catechesis my daughter is receiving is much better than what I received. She knew the meaning of Pentecost in KINDERGARTEN!!!. whereas I was an adult before I “got” it. Now at 15 years, she is very involved in her Youth Group and often asks what the Church means when she says… She has a copy of the CCC and YouCat which she references often. I didn’t have my own CCC until I was 25 !
So, maybe there is hope that this younger generation will be better. I have faith that God will guide them.
I agree with those that state publicly declared excommunication is not the answer it will drive people away when we are taught to do the opposite. The key is to do so with humility and love.
B
bben15
Guest
The job of the parents is to raise them good Catholics. If they’re going to be baptized, but raised Cafeteria Catholics and never attend Mass, it is better to not baptize them and hope they will convert to Catholicism through RCIA in the future, than for them to be raised Cafeteria Catholics. Children listen to their parents. We don’t want parents teaching their children that abortion is OK, disobeying the Church is OK, etc. It’s not a punishment to the children. Rather, it’s a way of helping the children. We’re trying to keep them from being raised Cafeteria Catholics.
Plus, if they want their children baptized as infants, why don’t they just start attending Mass and start believing what the Church teaches? It’s only 45 minutes each week.
I love Mass, and I can’t wait for Saturdays. I only wish I had the time to attend Daily Mass.
O
OraLabora
Guest
This is utter nonsense and a denial of what the sacrament of baptism really is.The job of the parents is to raise them good Catholics. If they’re going to be baptized, but raised Cafeteria Catholics and never attend Mass, it is better to not baptize them and hope they will convert to Catholicism through RCIA in the future, than for them to be raised Cafeteria Catholics. Children listen to their parents. We don’t want parents teaching their children that abortion is OK, disobeying the Church is OK, etc. It’s not a punishment to the children. Rather, it’s a way of helping the children. We’re trying to keep them from being raised Cafeteria Catholics.
Plus, if they want their children baptized as infants, why don’t they just start attending Mass and start believing what the Church teaches? It’s only 45 minutes each week.
You do realize that when he was archbishop, Pope Francis chastised his clergy who would refuse to baptize the children of single mothers?
A
anthonymarie
Guest
Not the same thing. A single mother can be a good, believing Christian. It’s not the same as clearly having no intention of ever raising a child in the faith,
P
perro_sarnoso
Guest
seen the news lately??A poll shows that about 54% of American Catholics favor same-sex marriage. About 55% favor abortion in most or all circumstances. About 59% favor the “ordination” of women.
I once had an English teacher that told me that he is Catholic, but he believes that if a woman is raped, she should be allowed to get an abortion.
Shouldn’t there be a punishment? I think excommunication would be an appropriate punishment for heresy, don’t you think?
The Pope defrocked and excommunicated an Australian priest recently…precisely for these things you mention.
M
McCall1981
Guest
A couple of days ago there was also an Argentinian Priest defrocked for promoting gay “marriage”; the process was begun under then Card Bergoglio.
W
WildCatholic
Guest
I agree with this too. Why not encourage dissenters to go into the Episcopal Church or become Evangelical Lutherans or Unitarians or Methodists or what have you. That way they are still christians and can get what they want from a church rather than try to change Christs church.
B
bben15
Guest
We might need to be careful with this. The Catholic Church is the True Church, and we need to be careful about encouraging people to leave the Faith.
Some people might start to think that the Church thinks that all forms of Christianity are equal.
B
bben15
Guest
That is a different case. It is wrong to refuse baptism solely because they are children of single mothers. However, whether the children were born out of wedlock or not, a priest shouldn’t baptize them if they have reason to believe they won’t be raised good Catholics.
Personally, I think that this rule should start being more widely implemented. The Congregation for Doctrine and Faith has stated that, “The Church must have a well-founded hope that the baptism will bear fruit.”
Just a few months ago, I saw a child baptized to parents who almost never attend Mass. The child’s baptism was the first time the parents attended Mass in months. Did I see the parents at Mass after the baptism? Yes, but very rarely. By “rarely,” I mean since then, they have only attended Mass about 3 or 4 times. And the baptism was back in March.
K
KrazyKat
Guest
It would be nice if we checked on other members to make sure they are okay when we do not see them at Mass for a couple of weeks. May be more appreciated than you could fathom.
W
WildCatholic
Guest
True that. But look at it this way, would you rather someone like a nancy pelosi or an pro death politician in the Catholic church, or have them in some harmless church that isn’t the true church of christ?
K
KendraDZ1902
Guest
Is Nancy Pelosi a threat to the teachings of the church? Nope! If everyone decided to be pro-abortion, the church still wouldn’t change teaching. I didn’t become Catholic because of other Catholics.
- Status