Splitting the Roman Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter SpiritMeadow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SpiritMeadow said:
This thread is NOT about Obama. For the record Obama is not pro-abortion. Nobody is. Pro choice is the term, and you use the former as a means to incite anger, I think.

You somehow claim that because Obama appoints pro-choice people he is anti-Catholic. I guess you forgot that the bible belt evangelical fundamentalists have been anti choice/abortion for at least as long as you have.

As I said, back on topic please.
Click to expand...
Since Obama is obviously endorsing one segment of divided Catholics against another, and since that divide is fundamentally about abortion, Obama is inescapably part of the subject matter of this thread, at least to many Catholics. Since this is a Catholic forum, one should not be surprised that many Catholics on here see it that way.

“Pro-choice”. And in that “choice”, no one dies?

I have no desire to incite anger by saying “pro-abortion”. I just want to say it the way it is. If one supports abortion or those who support it, one is pro-abortion. If one enables the act, one necessarily intends the result.

I would dispute that bible belt evangelicals AND fundamentalists (they’re not quite the same thing) have opposed abortion longer than has the Catholic Church. And does the association of those people somehow, in your mind, demean the prolife cause? Do you dislike protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists? If so, why?
 
emeraldcoast said:
Hi HappyRevert,

Great post! Can you please tell me how your local Church is helping to educate adult Roman Catholic about their faith outside of Mass? Often I have read on here some recommending RCIA, but what about Adult Sunday School or Adult Bible Study—are these encouraged by your priest? If you have adult programs, are they well attended?

God Bless!
Click to expand...
Our local church has Bible studies both during the day for Mom’s at home (and men too, I just never saw any) and in the evening as well. They also have programs like Discovering Christ (put out by Christlife) and Discovering Worship which are more about the basics of Catholicism. The Bible studies and Discovering Christ sessions were very well attended (I’d say about 80-100 for each). The Discovering Worship was somewhat less well attended (in the range of 30 or so I’d guess but I only attended one because of scheduling issues).

Our associate priest (who unfortunately just had to leave) also had monthly book club meetings where the group would decide on a book or document (we did Humanae Vitae one month) and then discuss it. Those were fairly small groups, but definitely helped with overall Catholic education.

Our Parish is trying to reach our fringe Catholics (that’s my word to signify those who attend mass periodically on Sunday, but appear not to be totally committed to their faith) to draw them back to their home faith. We have started donuts after mass once a month which we hope will help them feel more involved. Discovering Christ is also aimed at developing a personal relationship with Jesus because that seems to have gotten lost in why we have the sacraments -not just that we do them.

When I read some of the posts which seem hostile toward “liberal” Catholics it makes me sad because some of it isn’t their fault (some is of course). We need to re-evangelize our own - both through education (including correcting politicians like Pelosi) and most of all through welcoming them in again so they can see all that they are missing.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Some Catholics, myself included, aren’t just “stuck” on the holocaust some choose to call a “choice,” abortion. I’m not thrilled with government take-overs of banks, the auto industry, and the tobacco industry. Some of us don’t like the threat to tax health benefits as income. Some don’t like big government running health care or declarations of a new gay, lesbian, transgender day on the gov’t calendar. Some of us don’t like trillions in debt that will be slapped down on our progeny, and some of us don’t like presidents to visit Catholic universities only to request that the IHS sign of Christ Almighty be covered up. I know I’m not crazy about an Administration that declares a crisis to be a great moment of opportunity to be seized politically nor do I like terrorists being shipped to vacation islands.

“Conservatives” don’t JUST vote on abortion. Usually someone foolish and heartless enough to be ok with the termination of an innocent life isn’t too intelligent or brainy in other departments either. The point I’ve heard in Catholic media many times, “how can a candidate that refuses to protect the life of an innocent little baby be competent enough to handle other responsibilities?” is a really valid point to me.

You don’t need to grow up in a hispanic, black, or white household to know these truths. This has nothing to do with color. It’s all about common sense and respect for life as well as the understanding that socialism doesn’t work. That’s the road we’re on…
Click to expand...
Great post! 👍👍👍
 
Ridgerunner said:
As you have adopted the nom de plume “GKC” one might not too greatly fear being wrong in assuming you have an encyclopedic familiarity with Chesterton. On that assumption, I am willing to concede your kind correction is likely accurate.
Click to expand...
Forty-five years of collecting Chesterton (as also Belloc, Lewis, Tolkien, et al)): works, bios, commentaries, and what-not. Roughly a complete collection of Chesterton’s works, as published between book covers. When I first heard the questions raised as to the "believe in anything " quote, about 17 years ago or so, I thought it would be simple indeed to find the source. Nope.

But on p. 211 of Cammaert’s book, I found the origin, most likely.

Still, it’s a very Chestertonian-sounding thing, and fits your post, as even Anglicans such as myself might agree.

GKC
 
SpiritMeadow said:
This thread is NOT about Obama. For the record Obama is not pro-abortion. Nobody is. Pro choice is the term, and you use the former as a means to incite anger, I think.
Click to expand...
So we should classify people as “pro-choice” and “anti-choice”? :rolleyes:

P.S. If nobody were pro-abortion, as you claim, then no abortions would happen. (Just as if nobody were pro-adoption, then no adoptions would happen.)
 
Ridgerunner said:
Another extremist:

Reuters 5/7/07.

"ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (Reuters) - Pope Benedict on Wednesday warned Catholic politicians they risked excommunication from the Church and should not receive communion if they support abortion.

The Pope was asked whether he supported Mexican Church leaders threatening to excommunicate leftist parliamentarians who last month voted to legalize abortion in Mexico City.

“Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon (church) law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ,” he said.

“Selfishness and fear are at the root of (pro-abortion) legislation,” he said. “We in the Church have a great struggle to defend life…life is a gift not a threat.”

You know, I’ll bet he has said even more extremist things than that.
Click to expand...
Why, why…we should take him and buy him a pint at the pub and Praise God for a Godly Man 👍
 
Ridgerunner said:
As you have adopted the nom de plume “GKC” one might not too greatly fear being wrong in assuming you have an encyclopedic familiarity with Chesterton. On that assumption, I am willing to concede your kind correction is likely accurate.
Click to expand...
Don’t you just hate it when facts get in the way? 😉
 
HappyRevert said:
Our local church has Bible studies both during the day for Mom’s at home (and men too, I just never saw any) and in the evening as well. They also have programs like Discovering Christ (put out by Christlife) and Discovering Worship which are more about the basics of Catholicism. The Bible studies and Discovering Christ sessions were very well attended (I’d say about 80-100 for each). The Discovering Worship was somewhat less well attended (in the range of 30 or so I’d guess but I only attended one because of scheduling issues).

Our associate priest (who unfortunately just had to leave) also had monthly book club meetings where the group would decide on a book or document (we did Humanae Vitae one month) and then discuss it. Those were fairly small groups, but definitely helped with overall Catholic education.

Our Parish is trying to reach our fringe Catholics (that’s my word to signify those who attend mass periodically on Sunday, but appear not to be totally committed to their faith) to draw them back to their home faith. We have started donuts after mass once a month which we hope will help them feel more involved. Discovering Christ is also aimed at developing a personal relationship with Jesus because that seems to have gotten lost in why we have the sacraments -not just that we do them.

When I read some of the posts which seem hostile toward “liberal” Catholics it makes me sad because some of it isn’t their fault (some is of course). We need to re-evangelize our own - both through education (including correcting politicians like Pelosi) and most of all through welcoming them in again so they can see all that they are missing.
Click to expand...
Thanks HappyRevert for sharing what your local Church is doing to educate members about their faith. It is wonderful to read about a Church that is committed to adult Christian education for her members.👍

God Bless!
 
Ah … found it.
SpiritMeadow said:
Since God i Gracious has been unable to find the reference she had seen elsewhere to the Vatican’s reaction, I looked up a couple of things I had: I don’t assume validity to these, only that I read them on Catholic sites:

vox-nova.com/2009/05/05/the-american-problem/

nytimes.com/2009/05/09/us/09beliefs.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11636
Click to expand...
BTW, I think John Allen’s article sums it up well, ncronline.org/news/vatican/vaticans-moderate-line-obama-has-deep-roots
 
SpiritMeadow said:
I hope you are right however that this doesn’t result in a split. I was rather surprised when I first heard Catholics suggesting it, and then several suggesting that the less than “real” Catholics should just leave. I recall a thread some time ago entitled, “why don’t dissenters just leave the Church?” and they seemed quite serious in their request. It was certainly asked of me a number of times before I in fact did leave.
Click to expand...
I suppose it is human nature to get annoyed at persons who disagree with you on matters you may prize very highly. So the attitude of “Shoo, go away, ya bother me” which you mentioned is understandable. However, I don’t think it is an attitude to be indulged . If a Catholic truly believed that the Church has the Truth and the Real Presence, it would be uncharitable, if not downright heartless, to encourage others to leave the Church. A much tougher road, but perhaps more in tune with Christ’s love, would be to work and pray to bring cafeteria Catholics around to orthodoxy. I can’t help but think there is a bit of selfishness in the desire to expel anyone who doesn’t measure up to our own personal standards.

But note, please, that I too am not a member of the Catholic Church, at least not in good standing. I lost my faith in it about nine months ago, although I still have a fondness for the Church.
 
GKC said:
Forty-five years of collecting Chesterton (as also Belloc, Lewis, Tolkien, et al)): works, bios, commentaries, and what-not. Roughly a complete collection of Chesterton’s works, as published between book covers. When I first heard the questions raised as to the "believe in anything " quote, about 17 years ago or so, I thought it would be simple indeed to find the source. Nope.

But on p. 211 of Cammaert’s book, I found the origin, most likely.

Still, it’s a very Chestertonian-sounding thing, and fits your post, as even Anglicans such as myself might agree.

GKC
Click to expand...
I’m impressed with the scholarship. Genuinely.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
I guess the next question is how do you think the Vatican views all this?

I visit a number of Catholic sites and monitor some news sources. I am reading that some Vatican sources are “concerned” at the right wing of the American church and it’s over emphasis on only one issue, abortion, its increasing vilification of Obama, which they (the Vatican) believes is a moderate and man they can at least work with, and the increasing adherence to one political party that is being exhibited by some few bishops and members. I’m reading that they were thinking the Notre Dame thing was way over the top from their prospective.

Some here seem to suggest that the Church will crack down on dissidents as they call them. Others, what?

Do you hear these things about the Vatican’s concerns? Is the American Catholic right more right than the Pope and the Vatican?

I’m trying to understand the balance here.
Click to expand...
I think you (or someone) mentioned the fact that the Pope sent a telegram to Obama the day after his election. I found this:

Pope Benedict sent his congratulations Nov. 5, referring to the “historic occasion” of the election, marking the first time a black man has been elected president of the United States.
So I would conclude that the telegram doesn’t in fact indicate support or like-mindedness, but was simply to mark the “historic occasion”.
 
Marsha_Adams said:
The Catholic Church is the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, you don’t get any more pure than that. Either one believes the doctrines of the Church or one does not. It isn’t a matter of a “standard of belief”, if by that you mean, "well, I pretty much 75% believe in the Real Presence, but to be Catholic in need to believe 90%. No, it is a matter of this is what the Church teaches and I choose to believe it, and sometimes my faith weakens, but even when my faith is weak, even when I can’t see Jesus in the consecrated Host, I still choose to believe.

And I am not talking about putting people out of the Church. I am talking about them packing up and leaving because they no longer believe what the Church teaches.
Click to expand...
Forgive me if I misunderstood. I thought you meant that your church wouldn’t be pure until all the Catholics who aren’t in agreement on doctrine “wandered away to become Episcopalian or something.” And so I see you are not in favor of the RCC actively trying to remove those you might consider dissenters on one or more things. You more hope they will leave? I guess the problem some have expressed with that notion, is that they are basically happy, and it seems aren’t particularly motivated to leave. Do you see something different?
 
manualman said:
You are either more charitable than I am or live in an area more deeply rooted than I do. I honestly believe the majority in the pews wouldn’t know:
  1. If the Eucharist is a symbol or the actual body and blood of Christ (not open to opinion in catholicism).
  2. That we cannot be “good enough” through personal character development and excercise of virtue to deserve Heaven (this makes us easy meat for fundamentalists).
  3. The definition of Pentecost.
  4. If the book of Hebrews is in the new or old testament.
  5. That receiving communion with unconfessed mortal sin on one’s conscience is itself sinful.
How do I know? I’ve worked with literally thousands of young catholics across America about to “finish” their formal catholic education (before confirmation). Less than 15% know the above samples. That kind of ignorance isn’t just refusal to join one extreme or the other, it’s apathy. Jesus called it being “lukewarm.” He had other things to say about it too.

I hear you about the “middle of the roaders” who are involved in other issues. I’m one of those too. I get my “conservative credentials” questioned all the time when I side with the church on immigration justice against the ‘build a wall’ folks, get called a commie when I suggest we might spend less on health care if we adopt a two tier system (universal basic coverage and insurance required for advanced treatment), a socialist when I describe Distributism as superior to laizse faire capitalism… I don’t think that’s mostly the case though. Most people without an opinion just haven’t bothered to develop one. (IMO!)
Click to expand...
I would of course defer to your expertise. I have none, just assume that most people know the basics of their faith. I guess I assume that of my own faith tradition as well, but certainly can’t claim it. I can only speak to the fact that during our adult formation classes (bible study), people seem rather well versed, but that might be expected.

I’m of the opinion that there are probably dozens of categories one could place the congregations of any tradition. And perhaps that is why it is difficult to made broad assertions about “groups.” A group is only so by virtue of perhaps an issue or two, and then fades into another on other issues. You are a prime example, though I certainly applaud your social causes! 🙂
 
Ridgerunner said:
I’m not sure “right” and “left” are adequate descriptors, and I suspect you would agree with that. It’s more “faithful” and “dissenting”, to varying degrees. It is my belief, and I’m not sure whether you would share it or not, that oftentimes people do veer “leftward” in a political sense as a substitute for real Christian fidelity. (e.g.,“I’m a good person. I voted for higher taxes to help the poor. The Church is just wrong about my encouraging my girlfriend to have an abortion. It was her rightful choice.” )

Very likely most Catholics have always been in “the middle”, in that laxity has always been a human failing. But nobody is “in the middle” when one wakes up at 3:00 a.m. with a sharp pain in one’s side and ponders the possibilities when it doesn’t go away. It’s kind of like the old saying “There are no atheists in foxholes”. We all have our journeys, and the shocks that are sometimes required to jar us back onto the proper path.

The dissent we have in the Church right now (though it might be correcting very slowly. I’m not sure) is, indeed, a scandal and an affront to God. Among the things we all need to consider during that confrontation with fear at 3:00 a.m. or whatever brings our thoughts to ultimate reality, is whom we might have led astray while we were “being right” as against the teachings of the Church. Those are pieces we really can’t go back and pick up. Those are part of our “permanent crosses” that we will either bear painfully, or throw down.
Click to expand...
I do understand you point. As I’ve said elsewhere, there are many many categories and these shift as the issues shift. So it’s hard to define in some sense a left and right.

I guess my point would be that where you see faithful versus dissenters, I would be more inclined to see faithful in belief versus faithful in belief. By that I mean, that those you disagree with doctrinally don’t see themselves in any sense as compromising fidelity for convenience or to ego if that makes sense. Some probably do, no doubt, but that can be said about the conservative side. Some simply aren’t personally touched with a whole lot of issues and “assent” without bothering to think about the issues.

At core, both sides are reading, studying and praying. Both feel in their hearts that their version of reality is correct. They believe they have the facts to back up their position. Given time, and lots of writing I can show you a senario about same-sex relationships that are not in opposition to the scripture as we understand it today. You may not agree with the analysis, but those who do struggle and ponder just as deeply in coming to their conclusion as you do to yours.

The problem is when we simply don’t allow that there is another reasonable side, and give permission to hear and really listen. Most people are willing to let people be once they feel they have had a fair hearing. I guess my issues are always that each side tends to vilify the other as “evil” rather than as honest, decent, caring Christians, doing their very best to follow the Lord.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Spritmeadow:

I did not notice before that you are Episcopalian. I meant you no offense either in my paraphrase of Chesterton or in speaking of things Catholic as if you were also Catholic. Quite possibly, one of these days I will be more observant.
Click to expand...
None taken. 🙂
 
Ridgerunner said:
I would dispute that bible belt evangelicals AND fundamentalists (they’re not quite the same thing) have opposed abortion longer than has the Catholic Church. And does the association of those people somehow, in your mind, demean the prolife cause? Do you dislike protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists? If so, why?
Click to expand...
If I implied longer, I did not mean that. I’ll not argue who was first. That generally gets to a bad place. My point remains that I see no evidence of "anti-Catholicism so much as you are part of a larger group that doesn’t like the policy.

Do they demean the pro-life cause? Not necessarily.

I find fundamentalists dangerous, whether Protestant or Catholic, Christian, Muslim or Jewish. It is a mindset that is set in stone, based on psychologically personal needs, and often does deteriorate into violence to attain it’s goals. It doesn’t need to of course, but there are examples in every faith, Christian and not, where fundamentalists have determined that it is their duty under God’s call to force people into their definition of orthodox behavior. If it were nothing more than someone stubbornly claiming that every word of the bible was exactly written by God and mean what it meant in English (usually the KJV for reasons unknown to the rest of us), then I would be happy to let them live in that fairy tale, But unfortunately they often decide I gotta live in their world to, and they are prepared to try to force me to do that. I object, quite simply.
 
Peter_J said:
So we should classify people as “pro-choice” and “anti-choice”? :rolleyes:

P.S. If nobody were pro-abortion, as you claim, then no abortions would happen. (Just as if nobody were pro-adoption, then no adoptions would happen.)
Click to expand...
Peter both sides are playing word games. the anti-abortion group found it more persuasive to use the term pro-life, and to refer to pro-choice people as pro-abortion. The Pro-roe/wade people have insisted on pro-choice. Everyone is seeking an advantage.

The fact is that no rational person is for abortions. It remains a serious medical procedure where complications can occur which can be deadly, thus the reason behind making it legal so women didn’t have to resort to back alley abortionists. Those who are pro-choice simply believe that in the end, the choice must be left to the individual woman, and the state cannot dictate the use of her body. We aren’t going to debate that, at least I’m not. Those who are pro-choice, more often than not are willing and do work, for every alternative to be used short of that choice. But in the end, they believe it is not their deciison to make. Pro-choice advocates are always in favor of adoption, help for women who wish to keep their children, better and more effective birth control, education on abstinence and any other alternative that might be used to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top