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

[embear]

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-

Not talking about sinners, I’m talking about heretics. Those who reject the Church’s authority. There is a difference.

 

[HerrZJA]

Wow… are you really sure we should fire up the inquisition again? That worked so well last time.

 

[OraLabora]

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.

Even when doctors tell their patients to lose weight, many of them don’t (my wife is a doctor). She has many patients, for example, that have type II diabetes that refuse to even treat their condition, let alone lose weight. She even has “heretics” that come to her that use alternative medicines that she considers whacky, if not dangerous.

But here’s the kicker: the doctor is morally obligated to continue treating the patient regardless of whether he or she follows her advice.

There are grounds to “excommunicate” a patient, but they are fairly rare and extreme, and she’s obligated to try to find them another family doctor if she does except in rare cases of physical threat. They are things like threats to sue, sexual misconduct, physically threatening or abusive behaviour. Simply continuing to “sin” by ignoring sound advice, isn’t one of them, and even being a “heretic” by going around and saying all doctors are quacks and using alternative medicines, are not grounds to dismiss the patient-doctor relationship at least in my country though it can make that relationship a little testy at times.

If we extend the analogy to the Church being a hospital for sick souls, then there too the grounds to excommunicate must be (and usually are) quite severe. Excommunicating a priest who conducts gay “marriages” or a bishop who ordains a woman is understandable. But one doesn’t excommunicate a layperson for believing that the Church should marry gays or ordain women unless perhaps that layperson is notorious and trying to actively cause scandal.

Sometimes the medicine and treatment for a sick and misguided soul can be a lengthy process, and there’s no guarantee of a cure either, but you can’t withhold the medicine. IMHO it’s best that the person be in the church and in active dialogue, than frightened away. The Church has not attempted to do what you suggest in spite of Pope Emeritus Benedict’s musings on the topic. I am going to go with her 2000 years of collective wisdom on this.

I can’t say I understand your approach either. I much prefer a messy Church that welcomes all humanity and where sometimes that humanity can challenge our cherished beliefs, than a sterile one that forces or only welcomes conformity. Because sometimes when we dialogue with someone who doesn’t think the way we think the Church says we should think, we gain fresh insights that may in fact strengthen our faith although I must confess I haven’t had too much of that on this sub-forum recently, and in particular on this thread.

 

[anthonymarie]

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.

Yes, but

1. Why is infant baptism allowed? It seems to me by nature of their family’s faith and the fact that they have now begun their Christian journey.
2. Has she not reduced a sacrament to a “magic trick” and created a “stumbling block” for many?

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.

This is still not official Church teaching see the International Theological Commission on The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised

The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation.

St Paul teaches that the unbelieving husband or wife of a Christian believer is “consecrated” through their wife or husband, respectively, and moreover that their children too are “holy” (1 Cor 7:14)

It goes on to say:

When an infant is baptised, he or she cannot personally make a profession of faith. Rather, at that moment, the parents and the Church as a whole provide a context of faith for the sacramental action.

This suggests to me that the faith of the parents and of the whole Church are what make infant baptism possible. If the parents are without faith and less and less members of the Church accept the Gospel in its entirety does that not raise doubts over this issue?

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.

Not all, for example Mormon baptisms are not recognised.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its proper place here.

This, I think, is what I am trying to say and why Canon Law says that infants should not be baptised unless the priest thinks the parents will raise the child in the faith.

 

[Julianna]

Even when doctors tell their patients to lose weight, many of them don’t (my wife is a doctor). She has many patients, for example, that have type II diabetes that refuse to even treat their condition, let alone lose weight. She even has “heretics” that come to her that use alternative medicines that she considers whacky, if not dangerous.

But here’s the kicker: the doctor is morally obligated to continue treating the patient regardless of whether he or she follows her advice.

There are grounds to “excommunicate” a patient, but they are fairly rare and extreme, and she’s obligated to try to find them another family doctor if she does except in rare cases of physical threat. They are things like threats to sue, sexual misconduct, physically threatening or abusive behaviour. Simply continuing to “sin” by ignoring sound advice, isn’t one of them, and even being a “heretic” by going around and saying all doctors are quacks and using alternative medicines, are not grounds to dismiss the patient-doctor relationship at least in my country though it can make that relationship a little testy at times.

If we extend the analogy to the Church being a hospital for sick souls, then there too the grounds to excommunicate must be (and usually are) quite severe. Excommunicating a priest who conducts gay “marriages” or a bishop who ordains a woman is understandable. But one doesn’t excommunicate a layperson for believing that the Church should marry gays or ordain women unless perhaps that layperson is notorious and trying to actively cause scandal.

Sometimes the medicine and treatment for a sick and misguided soul can be a lengthy process, and there’s no guarantee of a cure either, but you can’t withhold the medicine. IMHO it’s best that the person be in the church and in active dialogue, than frightened away. The Church has not attempted to do what you suggest in spite of Pope Emeritus Benedict’s musings on the topic. I am going to go with her 2000 years of collective wisdom on this.

I can’t say I understand your approach either. I much prefer a messy Church that welcomes all humanity and where sometimes that humanity can challenge our cherished beliefs, than a sterile one that forces or only welcomes conformity. Because sometimes when we dialogue with someone who doesn’t think the way we think the Church says we should think, we gain fresh insights that may in fact strengthen our faith although I must confess I haven’t had too much of that on this sub-forum recently, and in particular on this thread.

I had lapband surgery. FEHB paid for the whole thing. Medicaid/care will also pay for it. However the consensus is…"if I lose tbe weight to vet rid of tbe diabetes. …the high blood pressure…the back, knee pain…then I won’t be disabled and there goes the tbe disability check. For me…it saved my life.

 

[TimothyH]

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.

This is a beautiful post.

-Tim-

 

[Moonbug]

Yes, but

1. Why is infant baptism allowed? It seems to me by nature of their family’s faith and the fact that they have now begun their Christian journey.
2. Has she not reduced a sacrament to a “magic trick” and created a “stumbling block” for many?

This is still not official Church teaching see the International Theological Commission on The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised

It goes on to say:

This suggests to me that the faith of the parents and of the whole Church are what make infant baptism possible. If the parents are without faith and less and less members of the Church accept the Gospel in its entirety does that not raise doubts over this issue?

Not all, for example Mormon baptisms are not recognised.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

This, I think, is what I am trying to say and why Canon Law says that infants should not be baptised unless the priest thinks the parents will raise the child in the faith.

Some excellent questions, here. First, forget about the parents’ faith . This is a sacrament that is totally centered on the newly created soul and the removal of the stain of Original Sin. As for starting their Christian journey, we should hope so, unless they die in the immediate future. If so, baptism gives them the right to see God face to face. But who knows what the future holds even for a child with a Christian father and mother. Remember, Hitler’s mother and father were Catholic. Only the Holy Spirit knows what journey we will follow through life.

Has she reduced a sacrament to a “magic trick?” By the word “magic” you mean “slight of Hand.” Not at all. On the face of it the sacrament appears to be simple, and the requirements are simple so any Christian man or woman of faith can bestow this on others within the contest of his Christian understanding and the gravity of the situation This is how St. Thomas Aquinas explained this sacrament:

“The baptism of Christ by John sanctified baptism. This is made clear to us by the fact that when Christ was baptized in the Jordan, the heavens were opened, the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove and rested over the head of Christ, and the voice of God was heard saying, “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. III, 17). Through the sin of Adam the gates of heaven were closed to all men. But at the baptism of Christ the heavens were opened. This signified that through the sacrament of baptism which Christ would institute, the gates of heaven are reopened to man. In addition, the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove and the voice of God the Father show us that the whole Trinity was present at the baptism of Christ. Since baptism sanctifies man in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Sprit, it was fitting that the Trinity should be manifested at the baptism of Christ.”

John’s baptism did not forgive sin or give grace, but Christ, who possessed the fullness of grace, accepted John’s baptism, and by so acting, sanctified baptism.

The International Theological Commission is not a body that makes official dogma for the Church. It is very important body, but can only make recommendations. The statement they have made only confirms the teaching of the Church that we have followed in the past five hundred years. That these souls are in heaven is the official teaching of the Church. Whether it has been proclaimed “Ex Cathedra” (from the Chair of Peter) I’m not sure, but it has been taught for hundreds of years.

The biblical quotation you cite I believe is taken out of context. Catholic biblical scholars say this passage must be studied in the framework of Cor7: 12-14. This passage is saying (TO THE REST) marriages in which only one partner is a baptized Christian. Jesus" probation against divorce is not addressed to them, but Paul extends the principle of nun-separation to such unions provided they are marked with peacefulness and shared sanctification. This is the sole meaning Catholics derive from this passage.

Anyone who refuses baptism to an infant is in grave error.

 

[John_Freeman]

Clearly we need another Crusade, Albigensian style. Mob rule for the win!

In all seriousness though, while we should be accepting of sinners and heretics, we must also not forget to slowly nudge them back into orthodoxy and show them the error of their ways. Much like people with weight problems, I think. One can’t and shouldn’t berate an overweight or obese person because that person will feel afraid, ridiculed and hopeless of getting better. But one also cannot pander to that person’s condition and be overly accepting and tolerant or else he will never see an error and get better. One must gently but firmly nudge that person into becoming healthy. This process also takes time, and will likely take as long to fix as long as it took to get that bad.

 

[anthonymarie]

First, forget about the parents’ faith. This is a sacrament that is totally centered on the newly created soul and the removal of the stain of Original Sin.

I would argue that it is centred on the newly created soul in the context of their spiritual family.

If so, baptism gives them the right to see God face to face.

It seems the “right to see God” is like a passport given a person by virtue of where they are born in the world or who they just so happened to meet? A loving Mormon familiy’s son or daughter doesn’t get this right (or passport) but a lapsed Catholic family, with open contempt for the Church, would?

This is how St. Thomas Aquinas explained this sacrament:

“The baptism of Christ by John sanctified baptism. This is made clear to us by the fact that when Christ was baptized in the Jordan, the heavens were opened, the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove and rested over the head of Christ, and the voice of God was heard saying, “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. III, 17). Through the sin of Adam the gates of heaven were closed to all men. But at the baptism of Christ the heavens were opened. This signified that through the sacrament of baptism which Christ would institute, the gates of heaven are reopened to man. In addition, the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove and the voice of God the Father show us that the whole Trinity was present at the baptism of Christ. Since baptism sanctifies man in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Sprit, it was fitting that the Trinity should be manifested at the baptism of Christ.”

The words “in whom I am well pleased” strike me as important here. Someone’s actions or intentions count. I do not believe John the Baptist would have baptised a baby, especially if its parents were in clear opposition to the message he was proclaiming.

The International Theological Commission is not a body that makes official dogma for the Church. It is very important body, but can only make recommendations. The statement they have made only confirms the teaching of the Church that we have followed in the past five hundred years. That these souls are in heaven is the official teaching of the Church. Whether it has been proclaimed “Ex Cathedra” (from the Chair of Peter) I’m not sure, but it has been taught for hundreds of years.

They are not a body that can make Dogma, true. But they are scholars of worth, commissioned by the Church, to spend a large amount of time and effort researching this topic and their conclusion was that the there is no “official teaching” on the state of un-baptised infants, instead there is cause for hope! The idea of Limbo may have gathered support but we are not bound to believe it.

The biblical quotation you cite I believe is taken out of context.

Yes I know, I did it on purpose. The point I was trying to make is that there is a precedent for the faith of members of a family somehow being able to extend cause for hope to other members of the family. There is no precedent for a ritual that provides an automatic passport to heaven without a context.

Anyone who refuses baptism to an infant is in grave error.

Even if they are following Canon Law?

Can. 865 §1 To be admitted to baptism, an adult must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, must be adequately instructed in the truths of the faith and in the duties of a christian, and tested in the christian life over the course of the catechumenate. The person must moreover be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

Can. 868 §1 For an infant to be baptised lawfully it is required:

1. that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;

1. that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this.

What did you think of the Catechism on this by the way? How do you interpret that?

1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way.*** By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate.*** Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its proper place here.

It seems to me, according to my interpretation, Canon Law and the Catechism are saying the same thing I am. However, I am open to an intelligent, alternative explanation?

I believe in my religion because it has always seemed to me reasonable and true. I find the “passport” understanding of the sacrament of baptism to be out of step with this.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

What punishements do you suggest?

 

[Starrsmother]

What punishements do you suggest?

To me, I think any “punishment” that the church issues should be well thought out, sound and consistent. I think we would all agree that God is our ultimate judge and “punishments” from the Catholic church must be dealt with judiciously and with mercy toward the sinner. However–and this may just be my own personal soap box—but I sincerely believe and have said this over and over to the point that even I am getting tired of caring one way or another enough to say it even one more time again , that when a person in a prominent position with access to the media and who influences others by their position, thought, vote or whatever, says that they are a practicing Catholic–but then makes a point of publicly promoting things that are in direct violation of Catholic teaching, that the Catholic church should hold them accountable and make an example of them-- by EXCOMMUNICATING THEM EVERY TIME and RAPIDLY!!!

In a nutshell, I’m saying that for the Catholic church to have NOT publicly excommunicated Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi a LONG time ago–to name only two–shows a complete lack of courage, almost a church hypocrisy in words vs actions, and is scandalous to Catholics and non Catholics alike! More than once, I personally have had someone say something to me along the line of “Yeah, I know the pope says it’s wrong to use birth control–but Nancy Pelosi supports it and so what? She isn’t in any trouble–it’s just an old rule that nobody is really expected to listen to anymore!”

I have a daughter who is gay–a sad personal situation that causes me untold heartbreak which I won’t get into. Can you even imagine what it’s like to have to face her with my refusal to attend her gay “wedding” when there’s a damn busload of Catholic nuns out there going from city to city (They call themselves “Nuns on a Bus”) promoting everything from a liberal view of same sex marriage to women priests? And yes, she sent me a nice big article on these nuns which made it on page 1 of the newspaper where she lives!

So. Do the teachings of the Catholic church matter or not? Does the church leadership speak out of both sides of its mouth or are they serious? If my daughter waits a year, will she be able to have a big Catholic church gay wedding if she chooses to? Does the Catholic church really believe that artificial birth control is a grave sin? If so, why is it acceptable for Biden to promote Obamacare which will make Catholic businesses and charities pay for such for women? Is the church just a bunch of old, fat, white haired, Italian rhinos–and as soon as they die off will the church come into the 21st century? Because believe me–that’s what a lot of people–especially younger people-- think!

The church needs to either give up on having rules or grow a pair and try ENFORCING them–especially in high profile situations where the people breaking the rules are in the limelight and are teaching by bad example what it means to be Catholic. Some of us in the trenches are getting a bit tired of making excuses for our hierarchy and that what they say doesn’t measure well with what they do.

 

[Aramis]

Public excommunication is a very serious matter. I’ve known a few people who have been publicly barred from communion. It has to be handled carefully.

Public excommunication of laity is for when the person’s already been quietly excommunicated, hasn’t taken the hint, and continues to present for communion while publicly teaching error, advocating error, or attacking the church. It is not a “remedy for the person” but a warning to those who might follow them.

That said, some of the “Public Heretics” claiming to be Catholic have defected to the Old Catholic schism. Others have gone over to the “Liberal Catholic Church”. The OCC allows contraception and abortion, and has married priests as normative, and ordains women to the diaconate. The LCC goes further, and was a schism from the OCC… and allows gay marriage, women priests and bishops, etc. But one might not realize that a given parish in a new city is of a different communion.

 

[Brendan_64]

I just discovered that there is a punishment. Automatic excommunication is incurred for heresy

A Catholic is not guilty of heresy if he holds a view that is contrary to the teachings of the Church. Heresy is when someone attempts to corrupt the dogmas of the Church. If a person teaches others something that is contrary to Church teachings and portrays it as the teaching of the Church, then that is heresy. Simply holding a view that is contrary to Church teaching is not heresy, nor does believing that certain Church teachings are wrong constitute heresy.

 

[Julianna]

A Catholic is not guilty of heresy if he holds a view that is contrary to the teachings of the Church. Heresy is when someone attempts to corrupt the dogmas of the Church. If a person teaches others something that is contrary to Church teachings and portrays it as the teaching of the Church, then that is heresy. Simply holding a view that is contrary to Church teaching is not heresy, nor does believing that certain Church teachings are wrong constitute heresy.

:thumbsup:Thank you. Just another example of scare tactics and “control via fear”

 

[Moonbug]

I would argue that it is centred on the newly created soul in the context of their spiritual family.

Anthonymarie, I agree with you on this . The family is vitally important as to the spiritual maturity of the infant’s soul. My apology! I was looking at it solely from the perspective of an infant who dies at birth or soon after. To a child that lives and has a family, the spiritual neutering is vital. But removing the stain of original sin from the infant that comes into this world for only a few seconds and is gone to heaven is also of vital importance. Hopefully, his few seconds are spent in the hands of a Catholic nurse who can free him from Adam’s sin.

It seems the “right to see God” is like a passport given a person by virtue of where they are born in the world or who they just so happened to meet? A loving Mormon familiy’s son or daughter doesn’t get this right (or passport) but a lapsed Catholic family, with open contempt for the Church, would?

A Marmon is not a Christian. They have taken many things from Christianity and incorporated them in their religion, as have the Moslems, but they are not Christians. They believe that Jesus Christ was a holy man and a prophet, but they don’t accept him as the Son of God. These people have a chance to get to heaven as any Christian does. They are all God’s children. It says in the Pentateuch that when God made Man, he wrote THE TEN COMMANDMENTS on the fleshy tablets of Men’s hearts. In other words, he gave him a conscience. He may live his life in a cave, but if he does right according to his conscience, he will have eternal life in heaven. Any lapsed Catholic family with open contempt for the Church will not gain heaven without repentance As for a Mormon son or daughter losing out. They don’t care because thery don’t believe. They have their own concept of eternity. .

The words “in whom I am well pleased” strike me as important here. Someone’s actions or intentions count. I do not believe John the Baptist would have baptised a baby, especially if its parents were in clear opposition to the message he was proclaiming.

Neither do I. John’s baptism was not the baptism of Jesus Christ, but as I mentioned before, Christ sanctified his baptism. John’s baptism was a call to repent and make ready fore the coming Messiah.

They are not a body that can make Dogma, true. But they are scholars of worth, commissioned by the Church, to spend a large amount of time and effort researching this topic and their conclusion was that the there is no “official teaching” on the state of un-baptised infants, instead there is cause for hope! The idea of Limbo may have gathered support but we are not bound to believe it.

Actually, they ARE NOT commissioned by the Church. They are an international group of theologians, usually holding teaching positions in universities throughout the world. Many of their group are Protestant theologians. These are people from various Christian religions coming to an agreed consensus. Though more than half of them are Catholic, they have no official connection with the Church in this association…

Yes I know, I did it on purpose. The point I was trying to make is that there is a precedent for the faith of members of a family somehow being able to extend cause for hope to other members of the family. There is no precedent for a ritual that provides an automatic passport to heaven without a context.

Even if they are following Canon Law?

If you read all of both Cannon 865& 1 and Cannon 865, you will see that it agrees with both of us. They approve of emergency at birth baptism and it approves of your point of family spiritual neutering.

What did you think of the Catechism on this by the way? How do you interpret that?
I agree with the Catechism. I have never found it at fault.

It seems to me, according to my interpretation, Canon Law and the Catechism are saying the same thing I am. However, I am open to an intelligent, alternative explanation? We are basically saying the same thing. If you detect any confusion in my statements, please let me know.

I believe in my religion because it has always seemed to me reasonable and true. I find the “passport” understanding of the sacrament of baptism to be out of step with this.

It is not a "passport to heaven. An infant is born and quickly dies. The child has a soul. When it returns to heaven, it is not judged by God because it has not faced temptation in this world. The soul goes to heaven because it has not sinned, but if the stain of original sin has not been removed, it will enjoy all the blessing of heaven for eternity, but not the “Beatific Vision.” The Doctors of the Church (our greatest theologians over the past two thousand years) have described it as seeing the face of God. What it is we don’t really know, but this is the teaching that has been taught in the Church for centuries.

One last point, if I may. To say that a fellow Christian is good or bad is not for us to say. This is something God retains for himself. we in our limited understanding of this world have plenty to worry about trying to save our own soul. Please recall that we have all sorts of saints in the Church who have lived terrible lives, but through the grace of God have became greats saints. The good thief who lived a life of sin is a good example…

 

[Mark121359]

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.

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?

Nobody is afraid of others whose views differ from their own. But when those views happen to be believing in, and supporting abortion rights, believing homosexual behavior is not really sinful, contraception not being a sin etc. etc. etc. And then, they continue to unabashedly promote these things contrary to the Catholic Faith with absolutely no remorse, and they continue to receive the Most Holy Eucharist…then yes, you’re damn right I’m offended, and you should be too because you’re witnessing a grave sacrilege!

Peace, Mark

 

[TimothyH]

Not talking about sinners, I’m talking about heretics. Those who reject the Church’s authority. There is a difference.

I was a heretic for 33 years. Thankfully God is more patient than many men I have met.

-Tim-

 

[Starrsmother]

I was a heretic for 33 years. Thankfully God is more patient than many men I have met.

-Tim-

And if you were a heretic in your private life, that’s one thing. BUT if you were a prominent heretic in public office who said you were a practicing catholic, all the while spewing misinformation and scandal on TV–or if you wore a nun’s habit, rode all over the country doing the same–then the church SHOULD have excommunicated you too! If they had a pair, of course–but for the most part they didn’t 30 years ago and don’t today! And that, my friend, is a sad but true fact!

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

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.

:clapping:

The Mystical Body of Christ is going through its Passion and I have no doubt that there will be the equivalent of one apostle and one penitent standing there on Calvary with Our Blessed Mother, faithfully sticking by the Church until the very end.

Our Lady of Sorrows; Pray for us!

All Catholics should read: “A Plea for Intolerance” by Ven. Fulton J. Sheen

Bishop Sheen; Pray for us!

 

[Brendan_64]

Nobody is afraid of others whose views differ from their own. But when those views happen to be believing in, and supporting abortion rights, believing homosexual behavior is not really sinful, contraception not being a sin etc. etc. etc. And then, they continue to unabashedly promote these things contrary to the Catholic Faith with absolutely no remorse, and they continue to receive the Most Holy Eucharist…then yes, you’re damn right I’m offended, and you should be too because you’re witnessing a grave sacrilege!

Peace, Mark

Everything you have said above is correct and such behaviour is indeed considered gravely sinful. And yes, people who are in that state should not receive Holy Communion.

Even though these people may not be guilty of heresy (unless they promote such views as being Catholic teachings or Catholic views) that does not make their actions any less wrong. Gravely sinful actions are gravely sinful actions.

For a person to receive Communion in this state would indeed be gravely sinful.

We may be free to hold views that are contrary to Church teaching, but that does not mean that we are free to act upon or promote such views. To act in contrary to the teachings of our Church, or to promote a view that is contrary to the teachings of our Church is indeed sinful., and if it involves what is considered by the Church to be grave matter, then it may be gravely sinful.

This is the Catholic Church, we are not free to make up our own dogmas.