No, I don’t want to argue. I just don’t want to be falsely accused of using “invective” when I did not do so. I forgive you for making that allegation.
I did answer it. I’m tired of answering it. Listen, you just watch what happens in the next year. It’s going to be interesting.
Okay. Goodnight.
It is surely true that Catholics as a group have squandered their influence but it isn’t correct to say it was lost by trying to tell others how to live. The HHS mandate has nothing to do with the Church looking to impose her position on others. Nor is it really accurate to blame the USCCB or, even worse, to look to them to resolve these problems. Each individual bishop is responsible for his own diocese and each of them has to step up individually; the USCCB has no authority to tell them how to behave.
Sebelius is a bad example because in her case the appropriate steps were taken and she was told not to receive communion. Kennedy would have been a much more appropriate example because he at least appeared to take his faith seriously and the fact that he was never once reprimanded by any bishop for his positions made it seem as if those positions were acceptable. Had the sanctions of the Church been applied to Kennedy the average Catholic might have taken her teachings more seriously.
Regarding contraception, the bishops ignored and to this day continue to ignore what the Church teaches by not addressing the issue forthrightly within their dioceses. I find it impossible to understand how the bishops, knowing that three quarters of their diocese is in violation of Church doctrine, simply have nothing to say on the matter. If the bishops act as if ignoring Church doctrine is no big deal no one should be surprised if the lay Catholic concludes that he can ignore it with impunity.
Really?? If you do just a little research, you will clearly find that the USCCB has almost always sided with the Democrat party. Are you suggesting conservatives change their party affiliation to progressive politics so that we can align ourselves with the bishops on all the hot button issues? Wait, though…….there seems to be a slight catch as we well know not all the bishops agree on every issue – think the economy, for instance. Or the fact that Bishops Finn and Naumann upheld subsidiarity and cautioned that they had no expertise in economic matters, nor even those relating to healthcare. To my knowledge, in spite of this, none of them have called for the healthcare law to be repealed even though we are now on a precipice. They supported universal healthcare for decades and there was no way they could back out despite the fact that surely they knew the risks of allowing Congress to legislate life issues.
Which Bishops and dioceses?
So you have homilies in Mass about contraception in your diocese?
Yes.
I gave an adult ed class on that document at my church so I had to read it fairly carefully. What I came to realize was that it provided statements that allowed Catholics to support any candidate at all. It didn’t provided direction on how to cast one’s vote, it provided cover for casting it any way one wanted. It was worse than useless. What is even more astonishing is that, even though this point was made when it first came out five years ago, the exact same document was re-released for this election cycle with zero changes. One really has to wonder what in the world the bishops were thinking on this subject, but whatever it was they really need to rethink their strategy because the one they are using is hopeless.
I wonder how many Catholics read the Faithful Citizenship Guide before casting their ballot. I never have. If one is looking for a loophole, they will find it even if they read the Scriptures. My Catholic Faith, in following the teachings of the Church, is a main factor in the choices I make on the ballot.
I have wondered what the point of a document is if such a document allows everyone to claim they are right? I mean if one can justify any vote then there is no need for any document.
Did you know that people who are divorced and remarried should not receive communion? I’m sure you know that people who use contraception should not receive communion. If you put that knowledge together with the number of people who go up for communion you have to acknowledge that a lot of people are receiving unworthily. Given that this is itself a grave sin, how is it that priests take no action to prevent people from repeating it week after week? I have no expectation of hearing any homily on these topics more than once a decade.
Faithful Citizenship is not a voter’s guide, just as the USCCB does not speak for the bishops … but the implication / perception is opposite … so who would have guessed?
Receiving the Holy Eucharist unworthily is the most troubling of all Catholic issues!
It also gives scandal to the community of the faithful in a parish where many are well acquainted with their circumstances in not having their previous marriage annulled. It seems as though we are spinning our wheels; in some instances we are receiving the proper catechesis, in fact in our parish, I doubt anyone could claim ignorance. And yet, because the sin is allowed to continue it is temptation for others to say, “it must not be that important.”
Interesting. Yours my be the only parish I’ve ever heard of that does that. Tell me, are the grade school kids and junior high kids in the congregations there when you talk about masturbation in church?
That I will grant you, wynnejj. We should be praying that the Church figures out how to comport itself better in public so that it doesn’t get into these messes. We should also pray for the inspiration to get us out of this mess, and we should pray that more people do what they’re supposed to do, including us!
I’m sure every diocese did things differently but ours was fairly aggressive in making people aware of the document and trying to get them to address its contents. In absolute terms, however, I doubt that even 10% ever read it.
A “loophole” is merely a derogatory term for the reasons other people give for supporting a position contrary to our own. The problem with this document was that it made supporting any position respectable by providing quite reasonable (sounding) arguments.
Well, if one is trying to support a position that appears to be condemned by Church doctrine it really is quite helpful to have an official Church document that argues your case.
I am too naive.