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

[WildCatholic]

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.

You are right, she doesn’t have anything to do with anything. But my point is, why should people who go against church teaching want to stay in the church, especially when they know they are doing something wrong. If you want all the pomp and ceremony w/o the rules be an episcopalian. Granted I’d rather someone repent and recant their views, but sadly most people will not want to.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

You are right, she doesn’t have anything to do with anything. But my point is, why should people who go against church teaching want to stay in the church, especially when they know they are doing something wrong. If you want all the pomp and ceremony w/o the rules be an episcopalian. Granted I’d rather someone repent and recant their views, but sadly most people will not want to.

Prayer is powerful. Look at St. Augustine. He wasn’t always a saint.

 

[OraLabora]

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.

It is exactly the same thing: punishing the child-in fact risking its eternal soul-to somehow punish or correct the the parents. Where is the justice in that? It is not Catholic by any reasonable measure, it is in fact Baptist doctrine. The sacrament operates on the child, leaves an indelible mark on the child, and causes the Holy Spirit to breathe on the child.

You would deny that to the child to correct the parents? There is no guarantee that a “good” Catholic will not ever fall away. Nor is it written in stone that a “bad” Catholic won’t eventually grow in the faith.

But what is written in stone is that the Church is the Church of all the baptized, no matter where we are on our faith journey. I urge you to follow the Holy Father’s footsteps and adopt a more loving and charitable approach to the faith, and recognize that “there for the Grace of God go I”, and worry about your own conversion process rather than try to outguess the Church by urging it to adopt a Protestant doctrine to punish those who somehow don’t meet the standard.

 

[alexandratm]

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.

I have a friend whose son was baptized a few months ago, and she’s not been at mass much since then. Why? Because she was with her mother, who’s ill, and attended mass in her mother’s town. And then, when she returned home, her baby developed some complications, her husband worked long hours, and she was so very tired and overwhelmed. Someone who saw her at mass, asking her if everything was all right, would be far more helpful than someone judging. Bottom line is that you have no idea why someone is missing mass, or even if they are attending mass at another time or church.

 

[Julianna]

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.

When do you take “attendance” at mass?..do you also keep track of who is tardy…sleeping…receiving communion…? Do you attend all masses every day…Saturday and Sunday?

 

[embear]

Personally I would rather be a member of a parish with just 10 people that took their faith extremely seriously and followed all the Church’s teachings, than join a parish of 1,000 members who didn’t take their faith seriously enough to know and obey the Church’s teachings. If condemning sin and not “reaching out” to unrepentant sinners causes churches to empty, good riddance. Mass isn’t about affirmation and making people feel accepted, it’s about devotion to God. I don’t remember the last time I heard a homily on homosexuality, cohabitation, or birth control in church; it seems the Church is afraid to discuss these things. It hasn’t even addressed, let alone punished, those who have proudly gone against Church teachings for the past few decades. And what have we gotten for tip toeing around these issues and “accepting people as they are”? Those stats the OP mentioned. :dts:

However, with the internet and all the resources available I don’t think poor catechism is an excuse for being too lazy to look up the Church’s stance on certain issues. Even the atheists know the Church’s position on lots of issues (though because of their lack of faith they never are compelled to find out why the Church teaches what it does). Those who have the gift of faith but don’t use it to search for truth are like the man who buries his talents in the gospels and is punished.

 

[stuart12]

Personally I would rather be a member of a parish with just 10 people that took their faith extremely seriously and followed all the Church’s teachings, than join a parish of 1,000 members who didn’t take their faith seriously enough to know and obey the Church’s teachings. If condemning sin and not “reaching out” to unrepentant sinners causes churches to empty, good riddance. Mass isn’t about affirmation and making people feel accepted, it’s about devotion to God. I don’t remember the last time I heard a homily on homosexuality, cohabitation, or birth control in church; it seems the Church is afraid to discuss these things. It hasn’t even addressed, let alone punished, those who have proudly gone against Church teachings for the past few decades. And what have we gotten for tip toeing around these issues and “accepting people as they are”? Those stats the OP mentioned. :dts:

However, with the internet and all the resources available I don’t think poor catechism is an excuse for being too lazy to look up the Church’s stance on certain issues. Even the atheists know the Church’s position on lots of issues (though because of their lack of faith they never are compelled to find out why the Church teaches what it does). Those who have the gift of faith but don’t use it to search for truth are like the man who buries his talents in the gospels and is punished.

I agree fully. Unfortunately the Faith is rejected mostly, in my opinion, for reasons of morals. But how are people to understand the logic behind the Church’s teachings on a particular ‘thorny’ issue if they do not bother to take the time to do some research exactly why XZY is taught. Our bishops and priests will face a terrible judgment for their lack of concern.

There is too much concern now to be ‘pastoral’, but I believe that to be cowardice by another name. How much dialogue will we have with ‘Catholic’ politicians who vote for grave evil? A total waste of time. Time for the Church to say that she will no longer be mocked and that she takes the commands of the Lord seriously.

 

[OraLabora]

Personally I would rather be a member of a parish with just 10 people that took their faith extremely seriously and followed all the Church’s teachings, than join a parish of 1,000 members who didn’t take their faith seriously enough to know and obey the Church’s teachings.

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?

 

[Julianna]

Unbelievable

stocks? public dunkings? floggings? scarlet letters?

I tapped my heels together and said there is no place like home, and I landed here on this thread…for a moment, I thought I was in the middle of an evangelical/fundy fire and brimestone service.

I’m not? Coulda fooled me.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Unbelievable

stocks? public dunkings? floggings? scarlet letters?

I tapped my heels together and said there is no place like home, and I landed here on this thread…for a moment, I thought I was in the middle of an evangelical/fundy fire and brimestone service.

I’m not? Coulda fooled me.

That’s it, you are BANISHED!

 

[Julianna]

That’s it, you are BANISHED!

ah yes, my queen of hearts

hope you are doing better than this thread…

 

[KendraDZ1902]

ah yes, my queen of hearts

hope you are doing better than this thread…

I’m doing much better than this thread.

 

[bben15]

It is exactly the same thing: punishing the child-in fact risking its eternal soul-to somehow punish or correct the the parents. Where is the justice in that? It is not Catholic by any reasonable measure, it is in fact Baptist doctrine. The sacrament operates on the child, leaves an indelible mark on the child, and causes the Holy Spirit to breathe on the child.

You would deny that to the child to correct the parents? There is no guarantee that a “good” Catholic will not ever fall away. Nor is it written in stone that a “bad” Catholic won’t eventually grow in the faith.

But what is written in stone is that the Church is the Church of all the baptized, no matter where we are on our faith journey. I urge you to follow the Holy Father’s footsteps and adopt a more loving and charitable approach to the faith, and recognize that “there for the Grace of God go I”, and worry about your own conversion process rather than try to outguess the Church by urging it to adopt a Protestant doctrine to punish those who somehow don’t meet the standard.

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.

 

[Aramis]

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?

There will be… but it may be a little more uncomfortable and eternal than people expect.

Also: keep in mind that some of the schismatic churches (the Old Catholics, especially, but also the Mariavites) still consider themselves Catholics, but have corporately embraced those particular errors.

 

[larsont7]

Personally I would rather be a member of a parish with just 10 people that took their faith extremely seriously and followed all the Church’s teachings, than join a parish of 1,000 members who didn’t take their faith seriously enough to know and obey the Church’s teachings. If condemning sin and not “reaching out” to unrepentant sinners causes churches to empty, good riddance. Mass isn’t about affirmation and making people feel accepted, it’s about devotion to God. I don’t remember the last time I heard a homily on homosexuality, cohabitation, or birth control in church; it seems the Church is afraid to discuss these things. It hasn’t even addressed, let alone punished, those who have proudly gone against Church teachings for the past few decades. And what have we gotten for tip toeing around these issues and “accepting people as they are”? Those stats the OP mentioned. :dts:

However, with the internet and all the resources available I don’t think poor catechism is an excuse for being too lazy to look up the Church’s stance on certain issues. Even the atheists know the Church’s position on lots of issues (though because of their lack of faith they never are compelled to find out why the Church teaches what it does). Those who have the gift of faith but don’t use it to search for truth are like the man who buries his talents in the gospels and is punished.

Excellent post!

Then-Pope Benedict even said the following:

“**The church will become small **and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning.

She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes . . . she will lose many of her social privileges. . . As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members…."

I think the time for renewal in the Church is now, and if it means what the OP is suggesting through excommunications, so be it. The Church is already losing members by the thousands with this “Church of Nice” attitude, so I don’t see how proclaiming Truth and expecting those who consider themselves Catholic to follow it is unreasonable. Perhaps there are thousands who would convert to Catholicism if it were more clear and strict in how its leaders presented the Truth.

 

[WildCatholic]

Excellent post!

Then-Pope Benedict even said the following:

I think the time for renewal in the Church is now, and if it means what the OP is suggesting through excommunications, so be it. The Church is already losing members by the thousands with this “Church of Nice” attitude, so I don’t see how proclaiming Truth and expecting those who consider themselves Catholic to follow it is unreasonable. Perhaps there are thousands who would convert to Catholicism if it were more clear and strict in how its leaders presented the Truth.

So should we instead be a church of mean that refuses to accept sinners. Don’t get me wrong, I agree that the church will become small, and therefore have more faithful people in it. But shouldn’t a church always be looking to expand, and not contract? I personally feel that while we should be strict on rules, we need to invite those who aren’t practicing catholics to mass and introduce them to our teachings and actually work with them. Not just let them rot, or have them sit in the pews and do nothing. We need to get them to follow us by being open to them in the sense that we invite them to see why we are so joyful and show them why we believe what we do and how happy we are because of it rather than force people out and say “look how holy we are, stay away, you aren’t good enough”. Yes excommunications should be used more, but not to the point that we force 90% of people out of the church. Heck maybe you think we should have wanted posters in church and have ushers stand at the door keeping these people out and act like bouncers and keep the unrepentent out rather than allowing them to come in and change their hearts

 

[larsont7]

So should we instead be a church of mean that refuses to accept sinners. Don’t get me wrong, I agree that the church will become small, and therefore have more faithful people in it. But shouldn’t a church always be looking to expand, and not contract?

Absolutely, the Church should be looking to expand and grow in numbers, but not at the cost of watering down the faith. One need not be mean to preach Truth. Archbishop Fulton Sheen was never one to shy away from preaching Truth, but he did so in a way that was welcoming and direct at the same time. We are not a Church looking to grow for the sake of growth, but to grow for the sake of the holiness and salvation of the faithful.

I personally feel that while we should be strict on rules, we need to invite those who aren’t practicing catholics to mass and introduce them to our teachings and actually work with them. Not just let them rot, or have them sit in the pews and do nothing. We need to get them to follow us by being open to them in the sense that we invite them to see why we are so joyful and show them why we believe what we do and how happy we are because of it rather than force people out and say “look how holy we are, stay away, you aren’t good enough”.

I agree with everything you say here. Again, one can be welcoming while still preaching the Gospel, which has many difficult Truths to accept.

Yes excommunications should be used more, but not to the point that we force 90% of people out of the church. Heck maybe you think we should have wanted posters in church and have ushers stand at the door keeping these people out and act like bouncers and keep the unrepentent out rather than allowing them to come in and change their hearts

I’m not 100% sure I agree with the formal excommuncation policy, but as has been mentioned on this thread already, an excommunication does not shun a sinner away from the Church, but rather it acts as a means to bring repentance to that sinner, a wake-up call if you will. Excommunications are granted out of love for the eternal soul of those who receive them, since we know that those who die unrepentant of their mortal sins cannot merit eternal salvation.

 

[SchohMike]

Being afraid to be labeled as “intolerant” has led to excessive relativism where all prohibited behaviors have to be accepted. Look around at the affect this “politically correct” idealology has had on our society. Without demonstrating that there are behaviors that should not be tolerated, we are accepting those behaviors. The Nancy Pelosi example screams out. She bathes herself in her self-righteous Catholicism to justify her repeated defenses of the killing of the unborn or recently born. Without penalties to those who are shown the errors of their perspective and continue, justifies their heresy to the rest of us. If the Church does not make a stand to combat immorality and heresy to those who take the mantle of leadership in defense of those heresies, does it really matter how many souls are at Mass on Sunday.
Yes, give them a chance to repent, but punish those who continue in their heresy.

 

[Starrsmother]

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?

Well, today an Australian priest was apparently defrocked for going against church teaching. I also heard today that old NancyPelosi was presented with a letter from a cardinal at the Vatican telling her to stop receiving communion untll she re-alligned her public opinion to Catholic teaching. The church is very slow to respond however. Very, VERY slow.

 

[GenosFutureWife]

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.

That would be VERY nice. One thing about other types of Christian churches is that they have more fellowship. They really become friends with each other and involved in their lives. We, as Catholics, could learn alot from them.

There was a time when my car broke, and I couldn’t find a ride to church. I didn’t grow up in this area, and live in the country, but still… I missed going to mass. There is a different Christian church within walking distance, so I went there. It was amazing the difference, their doctrine (I felt) was off, but I really felt cared for and embraced by the time they took to talk to me.

In the Catholic church, I feel, that no one really notices if I am there or not, nor do they care.