Social Issues Within The Church

[CarrieSpooner]

You keep saying he deserves respect, but what post are you referring to?

No, I do not keep saying such things. I actually never said that in such words. I stated that “others” deserve respect exactly one time and it was in response to another poster’s criticism of my advice to the OP where he then made the claim that no one deserves any behaviors from anyone which is incorrect according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Where was he personally attacked, instead of corrected on whether his opinions were true? The first time I can find him complaining of bad treatment, he said he was called a child murderer. Unless I’m missing something, no one called him any such thing! They simply corrected his impression that giving an adult the choice to end a child’s life before birth was a “personal choice” and that the Church had no right to interfere with the exercise of “free will.”

I don’t know if he was personally attacked nor did I claim that he was. What I saw was that he was feeling as if people were being harsh to him so I gave some general advice that has helped me when I feel that way. In giving the advice that it helps to have empathy and understand towards those who treat us harshly, I wanted to make clear that this does not mean that it’s ok for others to treat people with a lack of love. It’s ok to think, “I empathize with that person” while still realizing that their actions were not ok.

If by respect you mean the freedom to post things that are factually wrong without correction, well, that isn’t respect.

We’ve already been over this – I do not condemn just correction.

The Lord himself did not adhere to that concept of “respect”, and I still think it is wrong to teach people that it is right to expect that no one will ever correct you when your posts are seriously in error, particularly when the serious error concerns matters of such serious gravity.

No one is saying that anyone has the right to never be corrected. The CCC states that people deserve respect as pasted earlier. I agree with the Church.

If by being “accepted” in the Church he means will he be free to express his struggles with Church teaching, the answer is “yes, there are Catholics who admit that they struggle to accept some parts of Church teaching.” That inevitably happens.

If he means by being accepted that he can feel free to espouse incorrect views that he knows are against what the Church teaches as if they were just as true and worthy of belief as what the Church does teach, then the answer is “no, that is not acceptable.” People do it, but it is not appropriate. The Church is the authoritative teacher of faith and morals, and the faithful do need to strive to take everything to heart that she teaches, as do all who have the grace to choose to accept those truths. Those who can accept the truth must do it; that is the duty of all.

Agreed!

 

[tstrong728]

The Church’s stance on abortion and gay marriage are rigid, it is true.

But I personally think that abortion and gay marriage (and contraception, and euthanasia, and so on) are a small part in the actual practice of living a Catholic life and being a member of the Church. Our Pope himself even stated recently that we are focusing far too much of our energy as a Church on these political issues - we need to focus more on the day-to-day concerns of our ministries in the world - healing those in need and evangelization come to mind.

The way the thread started was with a statement to the effect that the OP believes the Church is wrong about Abortion and Homosexuality and that the OP believes the Church shouldn’t force Catholics to accept what she teaches. So now, given that Pope Francis is encouraging Catholics to be open-minded about those issues, perhaps the OP can join the Catholic Church and have his/her views be accepted as just as valid as those the Church previously taught.

So if you had to pick one piece of that to respond to, you would say “I’m sorry the Catholic Church is rigid.”

Yes?

 

[NSFrame]

The way the thread started was with a statement to the effect that the OP believes the Church is wrong about Abortion and Homosexuality and that the OP believes the Church shouldn’t force Catholics to accept what she teaches. So now, given that Pope Francis is encouraging Catholics to be open-minded about those issues, perhaps the OP can join the Catholic Church and have his/her views be accepted as just as valid as those the Church previously taught.

So if you had to pick one piece of that to respond to, you would say “I’m sorry the Catholic Church is rigid.”

Yes?

#1 Pope Francis did not say that we should be more open-minded about these issues, simply that we should shift some of our focus away from pontificating (no pun intended) on these particular political issues and direct it towards the charitable and evangelical goals of the Church.

#2 I perceived that the OP truly wants to join the Church but that he/she has some secular views that he/she is not sure they’re ready to give up. I think that’s understandable given the complex nature of Catholic morality and how it is out of sync with current social values. It’s not something that can be picked up via sound bites (which is what quite a few of the responses were). Therefore I am encouraging the OP to move forward anyway, because I think it will come in time. I would never, ever, ever discourage anyone who is seeking to join the Church and who has questions to turn away simply because they aren’t sure yet about political issues.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

So now, given that Pope Francis is encouraging Catholics to be open-minded about those issues,
?

Pope Francis has done no such thing. You are repeating spin that is a complete falsehood. When did Pope Francis say that Catholics should be “open minded about abortion or homosexual” marriage?"

This is the problem with the Pope’s approach, it is being construed to something it is not.

The thing that gets me is how can people who consider themselves Catholic actually believe this stuff. Pope Francis when he was a cardinal had some pretty harsh things to say about homosexual marriage. This idea that accepting satan is “open minded” is sickening to me.

You are accusing the Pope of being anti Catholic. Please respect him more than that.

 

[tstrong728]

Pope Francis has done no such thing. You are repeating spin that is a complete falsehood. When did Pope Francis say that Catholics should be “open minded about abortion or homosexual” marriage?"

This is the problem with the Pope’s approach, it is being construed to something it is not.

The thing that gets me is how can people who consider themselves Catholic actually believe this stuff. Pope Francis when he was a cardinal had some pretty harsh things to say about homosexual marriage. This idea that accepting satan is “open minded” is sickening to me.

You are accusing the Pope of being anti Catholic. Please respect him more than that.

Yes, you are correct about what the Holy Father said… I was trying to restate how OP got the thread started. Where it ended is that the OP now thinks that we aren’t as open-minded as he/she thought we should be, so now “maybe” the OP is going back to the well to see if he/she can find some “better” living water.

I’m a straight up, conservative, pope-loving, CCC and bible reading cradle Catholic - no discrepancy between what I accept and the Catholic Church teaches.

Peace and God bless.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

With that having been said, I personally am against abortion. I think it is acceptable in some circumstances though, being the lesser of two evils. If the mother’s life is at stake, or in the case of rape.
You can’t be against abortion, but find it allowable in some circumstances. Saying that is similar to saying that you are against torture, but find it ok to use it on “really bad people.”

Two stories come to mind, one happening in Chicago, where a woman was raped, she kept it, then the rapist got partial custody. 31 states have laws that say that partial custody can be granted to victims of rape. Could you imagine the pain that woman goes through every time she has to drop off or child? Or imagine having to explain to that child that he was not actually wanted and when the child discovers the implications. I couldn’t imagine the psychological trauma of it all.
-I’d think the more logical conclusion would be to argue against the idiotic laws in those states that give rapists parental rights (different from parental responsibilities).
-Your above contradicts what you stated earlier in your statement concerning the value of life. In the above, the value of/right to life of the child is dependent on the impact the child will have on another. In effect, a person only has the right to live/a value if that person has a positive impact on others/society and/or a higher value placed on their life than the other person’s.
-Turn your above around. Can we not also argue that both the rapist and mother need to be “aborted” and the child placed with a better family in order to spare the child the constant and painful reminders of how the child came into this world? Perhaps we should “abort” all three (assuming the rapist is remorseful, if he is not, then there really isn’t any painful experiences he regrets and therefore no need to “abort” him) in order to spare them all painful memories?

Now, I don’t wanna be misunderstood. If a woman gets pregnant by sleeping around of her own free will, that child is her responsibility. I am not advocating abortion just because, but only in serious circumstances.
-The child is both the mother’s and father’s responsibility.
-You are advocating abortion, just a limited use of it.

The next issue will be a bit shorter. It is the issue of gay marriage. I know the Church stance regarding it and I respect it. However, I also know that the Church lobbies against this as well.

The main thing that I’m trying to get at here is that when I talked to my sponsor, he told me free will was a gift from God. One that I personally feel is one of the most important, if not the most important rights we have as human beings. I was also told that the Church accepts people where they are in life.
-If you don’t have a fundamental right to life, you surely don’t have a fundamental right to free will or marriage.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The way the thread started was with a statement to the effect that the OP believes the Church is wrong about Abortion and Homosexuality and that the OP believes the Church shouldn’t force Catholics to accept what she teaches. So now, given that Pope Francis is encouraging Catholics to be open-minded about those issues, perhaps the OP can join the Catholic Church and have his/her views be accepted as just as valid as those the Church previously taught.

So if you had to pick one piece of that to respond to, you would say “I’m sorry the Catholic Church is rigid.”

Yes?

-No, I’d say “I’m sorry, but the Catholic Church’s teachings are based on the Truth.” The Truth isn’t rigid or flexible (both terms imply that it can change/be changed).
-Reread what the Holy Father is actually stating. A Jesuit (review the history of why that order was founded) whose Papal name is from St. Francis of Assisi (review his teachings/views concerning the Church and it’s authority) isn’t going to teach or approve of something that contradicts the Church or her teachings.

 

[Cider]

But I personally think that abortion and gay marriage (and contraception, and euthanasia, and so on) are a small part in the actual practice of living a Catholic life and being a member of the Church.

How can the Churches teachings on life be a small part of living a Catholic life? We make life decisions every day.

 

[JCC1990]

So when the Church decided to execute gay couple after Rome’s state religion had switched, were they within their rights? When should we start implementing this procedure again?

When missionaries were sent to Asia, they destroyed much of the culture, and provoked wars. I know in Japan missionaries sold weapons to local governments in an attempt to weaken them so that it could become another colony. Is that right?

Should we start up the Inquisition again?

What about Galileo? On this historic timeline of things, he was just recently given an apology for his prosecution. Should we start persecuting those that discover new ideas?

What about the witch hunts and the treatment of Jews? Shouldn’t we still carry those out today?

Truth is truth, what applies then, applies now. Morality isn’t negotiable.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

So when the Church decided to execute gay couple after Rome’s state religion had switched, were they within their rights? When should we start implementing this procedure again?

When missionaries were sent to Asia, they destroyed much of the culture, and provoked wars. I know in Japan missionaries sold weapons to local governments in an attempt to weaken them so that it could become another colony. Is that right?

Should we start up the Inquisition again?

What about Galileo? On this historic timeline of things, he was just recently given an apology for his prosecution. Should we start persecuting those that discover new ideas?

What about the witch hunts and the treatment of Jews? Shouldn’t we still carry those out today?

Truth is truth, what applies then, applies now. Morality isn’t negotiable.

You come here with questions. You get answers and you think they are rigid and that people are being ugly to you. Now you bring all of this up…you are beginning to seem like either a person who wants to be told that you can think and do how ever you want to and the church doesn’t matter or that you are trolling.

 

[EasterJoy]

So when the Church decided to execute gay couple after Rome’s state religion had switched, were they within their rights? When should we start implementing this procedure again?

When missionaries were sent to Asia, they destroyed much of the culture, and provoked wars. I know in Japan missionaries sold weapons to local governments in an attempt to weaken them so that it could become another colony. Is that right?

Should we start up the Inquisition again?

What about Galileo? On this historic timeline of things, he was just recently given an apology for his prosecution. Should we start persecuting those that discover new ideas?

What about the witch hunts and the treatment of Jews? Shouldn’t we still carry those out today?

Truth is truth, what applies then, applies now. Morality isn’t negotiable.

Who on earth ever said that homosexuals ought to be executed?

What religion or political ideology has never been used as an excuse to either commit atrocities or to stand by and do nothing while atrocities were committed by others? What country do you live in, since it has a government that’s never done wrong by anyone?

What is the point of this line of questioning? Do you think that throwing out the Inquisition gives some kind of carte blanche for something? What would that be?

 

[JCC1990]

Who on earth ever said that homosexuals ought to be executed?

What religion or political ideology has never been used as an excuse to either commit atrocities or to stand by and do nothing while atrocities were committed by others? What country do you live in, since it has a government that’s never done wrong by anyone?

What is the point of this line of questioning? Do you think that throwing out the Inquisition gives some kind of carte blanche for something? What would that be?

No. No I don’t.

It doesn’t matter at this point. I have spoken to my sponsor. Does anyone know if this thread can be deleted? I have gotten the answers I needed, and I’m going to stick with the Church, and see how it develops. I don’t think this thread will help anyone, it has become quite toxic for everyone.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

No. No I don’t.

It doesn’t matter at this point. I have spoken to my sponsor. Does anyone know if this thread can be deleted? I have gotten the answers I needed, and I’m going to stick with the Church, and see how it develops. I don’t think this thread will help anyone, it has become quite toxic for everyone.

I think this thread has value and is quite helpful. As you can see there is a value in being able to explain God’s Church, and there is also value in seeing how those who struggle with accepting part of the faith dig up tons of excuses and examples that have nothing to do with the original topic.

When an argument fails on logic then it is quite common for the faithful to hear screaming about inquisitions, galileo, crusades, etc. It is almost comical how predictable it becomes.

Cling to your faith and your Church mt friend. It will not lead you astray! That big wide path is so easy, so inviting, and I even hear they have cookies on it. Strait and narrow is the way to go!

 

[JCC1990]

I think this thread has value and is quite helpful. As you can see there is a value in being able to explain God’s Church, and there is also value in seeing how those who struggle with accepting part of the faith dig up tons of excuses and examples that have nothing to do with the original topic.

When an argument fails on logic then it is quite common for the faithful to hear screaming about inquisitions, galileo, crusades, etc. It is almost comical how predictable it becomes.

Cling to your faith and your Church mt friend. It will not lead you astray! That big wide path is so easy, so inviting, and I even hear they have cookies on it. Strait and narrow is the way to go!

My original point on asking those things were, like people said, is that mortality doesn’t change, but it does. I’m not asking to change Church doctrine, I just wanted to know if I would still be welcome. When my sponsor replied, he gave me the answer. This is just two issues, that do not majorly effect me. Yes, I have personal feelings about the matter. But we are all sinners. If we reject one person because of a sin they have, then we must reject them all. As far as I know, Jesus doesn’t reject sinners, but rather redeems them.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

My original point on asking those things were, like people said, is that mortality doesn’t change, but it does. I’m not asking to change Church doctrine, I just wanted to know if I would still be welcome. When my sponsor replied, he gave me the answer. This is just two issues, that do not majorly effect me. Yes, I have personal feelings about the matter. But we are all sinners. If we reject one person because of a sin they have, then we must reject them all. As far as I know, Jesus doesn’t reject sinners, but rather redeems them.

We have all been redeemed, we can all be saved, we must be repentant to be forgiven.

Every single person is welcome in the Church. Every sinner is welcome. However, not a single sin is welcome in the Church. Not one. For sin is unholy anti-christ and anti heaven. Luckily the Church and Jesus have the cure for sin.

I’m not sure what you mean about morality changing, You would have to define that more specifically to continue.

 

[JCC1990]

We have all been redeemed, we can all be saved, we must be repentant to be forgiven.

Every single person is welcome in the Church. Every sinner is welcome. However, not a single sin is welcome in the Church. Not one. For sin is unholy anti-christ and anti heaven. Luckily the Church and Jesus have the cure for sin.

I’m not sure what you mean about morality changing, You would have to define that more specifically to continue.

For instance, Catholics don’t burn and torture suspected witches anymore. If you are suspect of a heresy, Catholics don’t torture a person anymore. Times change, and ideas are constantly changing.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

For instance, Catholics don’t burn and torture suspected witches anymore. If you are suspect of a heresy, Catholics don’t torture a person anymore. Times change, and ideas are constantly changing.

Again. This is a common argument against the Church. I wonder where you are getting this influence from. But what you are pointing out has nothing to do with morality or the Church at all. Catholics were also in the Mob and in the german army.

Why are you equating false ideas about the faith and teachings with those issues that you don’t agree with. Do you think there is a link with homosexual marriage or something. It is odd how some people will bend logic to convince themselves that the Church will conform to their understanding of the world. What ego!

 

[EasterJoy]

No. No I don’t.

It doesn’t matter at this point. I have spoken to my sponsor. Does anyone know if this thread can be deleted? I have gotten the answers I needed, and I’m going to stick with the Church, and see how it develops. I don’t think this thread will help anyone, it has become quite toxic for everyone.

Yes, you can ask to have it locked. Then just do not come back to this thread. It will die.

I’m sorry you have hard feelings about how this went. I do not think anyone wanted to attack you personally, but rather meant to give no room to a tolerance for such a grave misconception. Obviously, the topic of when and why a woman can do something as drastic as end a pregnancy is bound to arouse very strong feelings and very strong rhetoric. It is literally a life and death question, and a question that reverberates for a lifetime for the woman, no matter how she becomes pregnant. You have strong feelings about it, yourself, and I do not doubt that you hold them sincerely. I believe that you hold them in error, but I don’t think there is a drop of bad or flippant attitude behind your stance, but rather a desire to empathize with an incredibly difficult situation.

I hope neither of us will draw any conclusions about the other based on how this conversation went. I hope you’ll be back. You are wise, though, to talk to your sponsor. The people who can give you an eye-to-eye conversation are far less likely to give you these bad feelings.

God be with you and good luck!

 

[JCC1990]

Again. This is a common argument against the Church. I wonder where you are getting this influence from. But what you are pointing out has nothing to do with morality or the Church at all. Catholics were also in the Mob and in the german army.

Why are you equating false ideas about the faith and teachings with those issues that you don’t agree with. Do you think there is a link with homosexual marriage or something. It is odd how some people will bend logic to convince themselves that the Church will conform to their understanding of the world. What ego!

It’s called history. It has nothing to do with faith.

At this point, it’s not even about gay marriage. it’s a point to say the Church does and has changed its view of things. I’m not saying the Church is going to accept it. I’m not ‘bending’ logic, I’m using it. It’s kind of sad to see someone in denial of what actually happened. If you actually read anything I posted, I never once said I support it, nor do I not support it. In your silly mind that equates to me being an enemy.

 

[JCC1990]

Yes, you can ask to have it locked. Then just do not come back to this thread. It will die.

I’m sorry you have hard feelings about how this went. I do not think anyone wanted to attack you personally, but rather meant to give no room to a tolerance for such a grave misconception. Obviously, the topic of when and why a woman can do something as drastic as end a pregnancy is bound to arouse very strong feelings and very strong rhetoric. It is literally a life and death question, and a question that reverberates for a lifetime for the woman, no matter how she becomes pregnant. You have strong feelings about it, yourself, and I do not doubt that you hold them sincerely. I believe that you hold them in error, but I don’t think there is a drop of bad or flippant attitude behind your stance, but rather a desire to empathize with an incredibly difficult situation.

I hope neither of us will draw any conclusions about the other based on how this conversation went. I hope you’ll be back. You are wise, though, to talk to your sponsor. The people who can give you an eye-to-eye conversation are far less likely to give you these bad feelings.

God be with you and good luck!

God be with you as well

My sponsor said that the Church accepts me as I am, though with time and prayer I may be able to change. I asked my mom, (Unfortunately she is a fundamentalist, but oh well) how she felt about cases of abortion from rape. Having some experience in the field, she told me no and gave her answer. She as it may have been, it was effective at reaching me. I still stand on not forcing others to believe the same way that I do. It’s by example that we should reach the world, not by force.