Some Catholic bloggers are calling out other Catholics on their actions (or should I say faith)

[gakroeger]

I also came across this article today in the Washington Post;

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/24/AR2010102401007.html

I immediately went on Catholic.com to post it and discovered it was already posted with quite a bit of comment already. Thank God we have some faithful Catholics who are not afraid to take Christ’s command to spread His Gospel seriously. It is true that we must all be extremely careful that we are in total communion with the magisterium in regard to the issues under dispute, however, when we are convinced of the truthfulness and the complete backing of the magisterium it is our duty to call out any heresy regardless of where it comes from. I think Father Corapi is an excellent example of how this should be done.

Before posting, I took the time to read the previous posts and found it most enlightening; I counted 23 posters that were very clear in their position on this issue. It was encouraging to find that 15 of these posters were on the magisterium’s side and 8 were on the wrong side.

One poster implied that those supporting the magisterium were supporting a political agenda rather than the magisterium because these same people frequently oppose Obama. Well duh, it is totally consistent that if you support the magisterium (Christ’s teaching) you cannot support one of the most anti Catholic teaching President’s we have ever had.

Go all you St. Pauls’ of our time……….

 

[archangel04]

Gee whiz. Cool your jets, or did your “?” key get stuck? Yes, sometimes I have a problem with that. It is why I do not read Jack Chick tracts. It is why I do not care for liturgical police. If Mr. Voris wants to blog and put on his little internet videos, that is his business. However, it is not part of the Catholic Church. It is an independent Catholic doing whatever he does. Personally, I will side with King David want no part of thrusting the spear into the heart of the church, regardless of the reason, and will touch not the Lord’s annointed.

So do you feel it’s wrong to call out evil when it’s in the Church? I am just a little confused by your responce to Liza.

 

[A_Fortiori_33]

I don’t know what you guys would do if you didn’t have the occational liberal poster. The whole thread would be high fives and smiley faces. I have noticed, though, reacting to a liberal seems to energize the populace. What’s up with that?

 

[A_Fortiori_33]

I’m curious to know how may people here send their kids to a Catholic school.

 

[estesbob]

I’m curious to know how may people here send their kids to a Catholic school.

I am curious to know what possible bearing that could have on this topic?

 

[curlycool89]

Gee whiz. Cool your jets, or did your “?” key get stuck? Yes, sometimes I have a problem with that. It is why I do not read Jack Chick tracts. It is why I do not care for liturgical police. If Mr. Voris wants to blog and put on his little internet videos, that is his business. However, it is not part of the Catholic Church. It is an independent Catholic doing whatever he does. Personally, I will side with King David want no part of thrusting the spear into the heart of the church, regardless of the reason, and will touch not the Lord’s annointed.

I agree with this. It’s one thing to try to go about righting some wrongs, it’s another to go around basically “outing” people Perez Hilton style. The bishop’s are the successors to the Apostles, and that I will not discount for anything. The Church is not accountable to me or anyone here on CAF; She’s accountable to God.

People are very impatient it seems (remember, patience is a virtue). People forget that the Church does not change overnight (the Vatican is probably the slowest moving, most conservative minded organization in the world. Nothing is done with haste).

I don’t know what you guys would do if you didn’t have the occational liberal poster. The whole thread would be high fives and smiley faces.

There’s a fairly crude slang term to describe that. Obviously I won’t mention it here.

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t know what you guys would do if you didn’t have the occational liberal poster. The whole thread would be high fives and smiley faces. I have noticed, though, reacting to a liberal seems to energize the populace. What’s up with that?

I know you probably like to think your special, but there are actually plenty of liberal/heterodox posters on CAF, and some of them are mighty fond of “high fives and smiley faces.”. I would list them all out for you, but that wouldn’t be charitable.

 

[CMatt25]

One thing for us all to keep in mind when declaring that somebody is or is not a Catholic is what the Church teaches about the subject.

And what the Church teaches is that all baptized Catholics are members of the Church. When a person is baptized he/she receives an indellible change in character that permanently marks him/her as a Christian. As such, regardless of whether he/she is subjectively in communion with the Church or not, that person is in the Church. No matter how much various atheist groups try to practice otherwise, there is no such thing as “un-baptism.”

Bottom line is that a person can excommunicate themselves (latae sententiae) or can be excommunicated (ferendae senteniae), but they are still Catholic. They can even formally renounce their membership in the Church…they are still, metaphysically at least, Catholic.

Mark, I read on another thread there are 3 ways to no longer be Catholic. 1) Officially join another religion. 2) Write to the bishop to denounce one’s membership. Or 3) by publicly stating and directly declaring oneself an apostate. But that simply disagreeing with something does not constitute such a direct statement. Are you saying none of these except perhaps the first one apply?

 

[markomalley]

Mark, I read on another thread there are 3 ways to no longer be Catholic. 1) Officially join another religion. 2) Write to the bishop to denounce one’s membership. Or 3) by publicly stating and directly declaring oneself an apostate. But that simply disagreeing with something does not constitute such a direct statement. Are you saying none of these except perhaps the first one apply?

Canonically, the person is still subject to the Code of Canon Law.

As far as a formal act of defection, the process defined by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts gives the formal procedure, but is also careful to define the following:

7. It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.
​

This was further reinforced by the Holy Father, with his Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio data” Omnium in mentem, modifying some canons of the Code of Canon Law (October 26, 2009). In that letter, he removed some exceptions for the requirement of marriage for those who have formally defected from the Church.

Canon 11 says, Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

You will note that there is no statement saying that these ecclesiastical laws do not apply to those who have formally defected from the Church. You will not find such a statement in Canon Law (to my knowledge). What you will find is that there are severe restrictions placed on those who have defected: they cannot be a member of a religious institute, they cannot be a member of a association of lay faithful, etc. But they are still held to the law.

The bottom line is that you’ve got to consider one important fact: if a person formally defected from the Church, joined another sect (that confesses Christ) or religion (other than Christianity), or publicly declared himself an apostate and later on recanted, would the person have to be rebaptized? If the answer is, as it should be, no…then the person has not left the Church, at least on an **metaphysical/ontological **basis.

CAVEAT: I am not a Canon Lawyer. Any opinion I give is the opinion of a lay person and should be read with the above in mind. I am more than willing to be corrected by a person who can show me official texts that indicate that I am incorrect. Before taking any action on any statement I’ve made regarding canon law, the reader is advised to consult a licensed canonist.

(I always try to put the above caveat in any post where I discuss canon law, because I’d hate for somebody to say “markomalley said blah blah blah and I acted on it”)

 

[markomalley]

Mark, I read on another thread there are 3 ways to no longer be Catholic. 1) Officially join another religion. 2) Write to the bishop to denounce one’s membership. Or 3) by publicly stating and directly declaring oneself an apostate. But that simply disagreeing with something does not constitute such a direct statement. Are you saying none of these except perhaps the first one apply?

Don’t get me wrong, though…I think that a person who publicly advocates heretical positions should either keep his opinions to himself or should not claim to be a Catholic (a claim to be Catholic implies that the person is a practicing Catholic in communion with the Church). There is no politician in this country who could be so ignorant as to assume that, for example, the mockery of homosexual “marriage” is in concert with the teachings of the Church, nor is there any politician in this country would could think that legalized abortion could in any way be in accord with the Magesterium.

I also think that bishops should be a lot more active in denouncing public positions taken by politicians as being heretical. I think they should make a reasonable effort to do so in a private manner. But, due to the scandal caused to the faithful by a politician publicly taking positions counter to the teachings of the Church, if the politician either doesn’t make him/herself available for pastoral counseling or doesn’t repent following that counseling, I think that the bishop needs to take a public stand. Not only for the good of the politician in question, but also so that the faithful are not scandalized (think about the ecclesiastical definition of scandal, not the normal usage of the word). Actions like Bishop Tobin’s slapdown of Patrick Kennedy a year ago should not be the exception, they should be the norm.

(Having said that…if a politician wants to formally defect from the Church and will no longer call him/herself a Catholic, then any denouncements or public rebukes should immediately cease. It doesn’t excuse any actions nor does it relieve the politician from the constraints of Canon Law, but, as once the politician no longer identifies him/herself with the Church, it is, at that point, not technically a scandal)

 

[SunshineZA]

What Liza said.:clapping:

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen – “Who is going to save our Church? Not our Bishops, not our Priests and Religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your Priests act like Priests, your Bishops like Bishops and your Religious act like Religious.”

Spot on. We (lay people) need to pay attention to attempts made by ‘huminists’ wishing to libiralize the Church to suit the conscience of a modern world system. This is an ongoing process and has never stopped since early Christianity.

KJV. 1 Pe 5:8 … and to all to be sober, watchful, and firm in the faith. … Be sober, be vivilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.

 

[pnewton]

So do you feel it’s wrong to call out evil when it’s in the Church? I am just a little confused by your responce to Liza.

That depends on a bunch of variables, but first let me say that I never said it was wrong. I said that I will not do it, usually. If God instructs one to do so as a special calling, then definitely one should obey. It is possible that M. Voris is hearing God speak to him. Also, it depends on the nature of the evil and whether one has first hand knowledge or not. If one knows of a child molestor from first hand knowledge, then yes, that is good to report.

I know that today that we have reduced the distinction between the laity and the clergy. Just like I am not comfortable with the laity gather around the altar, I am not comfortable with the laity taking on the role the CIA. It is just my opinion and my choice.

 

[pnewton]

So you believe everything you read in the news now? That is a very dangerous way to live. I happen to know Mr. Voris personally, my husband works for him, and I do as well when I can. I’m not even sure what a “Catholic Tea Party” IS! But I can assure you that he does not have one of these — whatever they are.

I do not believe everything in the news, nor what people here post. This issue wasn’t really difficult to resolve

google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=michael+voris+catholic+tea+party&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=956ab502b015b9a1

Let me just say I do not think that Voris would object to the term I use, in light of how he styles himself. I meant nothing insulting by it. Unless this is a case of, “I can talk like that but not you” I do not see the harm.

 

[Joe_5859]

Be very careful before you paint others with broad brushes, especially when you don’t even know the person you are painting.

For me, this is really a key point all around. The same applies to talking about our bishops. We need to be very careful about reading into things. I tend to think that many times our bishops are taking action, they simply do not publicize it as there are many cases where it is simply not our business.

I admit that I tend to be skeptical when someone “calls out” a bishop, particularly when they start hypothesizing on motives. I like to give bishops every possible benefit of the doubt. I know some bishops who are pretty problematic with their beliefs and practices, but I think we should only come to that conclusion after all other reasonable explanations have been exhausted.

I suppose what concerns me the most is that, if we are constantly criticizing our bishops, it can lead us to a knee-jerk distrust of our shepherds. I don’t think that’s a good thing.

On the other hand, if a blogger is calling out a Catholic politician, that’s a whole different story!

 

[Joe_5859]

Before posting, I took the time to read the previous posts and found it most enlightening; I counted 23 posters that were very clear in their position on this issue. It was encouraging to find that 15 of these posters were on the magisterium’s side and 8 were on the wrong side.

Are you going to post your list?

 

[lizaanne]

On the other hand, if a blogger is calling out a Catholic politician, that’s a whole different story!

Why is that? How is it different? Not being confrontational, just want to understand this double standard.

~Liza

 

[pnewton]

Why is that? How is it different? Not being confrontational, just want to understand this double standard.

~Liza

Then the use of the phrase “double standard” was not best. I think I see the difference. If a soldier during war tries to call his command structure on the carpet by starting his own investigative service to determine who were the bad commanders, that would not be appropriate. However, if he were to do the same thing for an investment firm, try to find out which CEO’s were bad managers, it would not be the same. In other words, there are two standards, not a double standard.

As Catholics, we are part of the command structure for a Church at war. While God often operates outside this structure, it is the exception, not the rule. Most of us will never be called to oppose the clergy in any way.

 

[gakroeger]

Don’t get me wrong, though…I think that a person who publicly advocates heretical positions should either keep his opinions to himself or should not claim to be a Catholic (a claim to be Catholic implies that the person is a practicing Catholic in communion with the Church). There is no politician in this country who could be so ignorant as to assume that, for example, the mockery of homosexual “marriage” is in concert with the teachings of the Church, nor is there any politician in this country would could think that legalized abortion could in any way be in accord with the Magesterium.

This is true, however, look how many CINO politicians there are out there pushing anti Catholic agendas. What can possibly be going on in their minds? They must know in their heart of hearts that they are opposing the magisterium and therefore Christ Himself. They obviously think (wrongly IMHO) that their GOOD INTENTIONS outweigh the disobedience to Church teaching. Nancy Pelosi comes right out and publicly attempts to interpret St Augustine (contrary to 2000 years of much wiser theologians) in support of abortion. Ted Kennedy was willing to go meet his maker without reconciling this major difference of opinion (at least publicly). It verily blows my mind. I have to admit however, they are much braver then I. I am concerned about facing my God on the last day without directly confronting His teachings.

I** also think that bishops should be a lot more active in denouncing public positions taken by politicians **as being heretical. I think they should make a reasonable effort to do so in a private manner. But, due to the scandal caused to the faithful by a politician publicly taking positions counter to the teachings of the Church, if the politician either doesn’t make him/herself available for pastoral counseling or doesn’t repent following that counseling, I think that the bishop needs to take a public stand. Not only for the good of the politician in question, but also so that the faithful are not scandalized (think about the ecclesiastical definition of scandal, not the normal usage of the word). Actions like Bishop Tobin’s slapdown of Patrick Kennedy a year ago should not be the exception, they should be the norm.

This I believe (bold) is the purpose of this thread; there are so many priests and bishops that either because they subscribe to the liberal agenda or they just do not want to make waves sit silently on the sidelines of this major challenge to our Catholic faith. When is the last time anyone heard a homily in their local parish teaching the Catholic position on contraception? Is it any wonder that the current generation of young Catholics do not know that artificial contraception and abortion are against Church teaching? In our own Church the laity is attempting to start a pro-life group, the pastor’s only warning was “not to get fanatical”. If he truly believed this fetus being aborted was human as taught by the Catholic Church, is it possible to become fanatical about protecting its life. Break no moral or civil laws, but please become fanatical about ending abortion. Again, I suggest we all follow Father John Corapi’s lead.

 

[lizaanne]

Then the use of the phrase “double standard” was not best…

I did not ask you - I asked the person who made the comment. So now that you have answered for someone else, we’ll see if Joe can answer for himself. But thanks anyway.

~Liza

 

[gakroeger]

Are you going to post your list?

No, I am not.