Splitting the Roman Catholic Church

[SpiritMeadow]

Dear Anglican,

Just because Catholics voted for Obama doesn’t make them anticatholics. It makes them ignorant Catholics and ignorant voters. Most Catholics voted for Obama because he would end the war, help American families, lower crime, and unite America. They did not vote for him because of his stance on abortion. Abortion is the law. Catholics have been unsuccessful in getting this law changed.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The label “fundamentalist” is one I struggle with. At the heart of the issue, ANYONE with firm religious conviction is a “fundamentalist.” Those without firm religious convictions aren’t.

SpiritMeadow, you are quite clear in your posts that you believe that all men and women of sincere religious intention and conscience are equal in standing before God. What you don’t seem to see is that you are as rigid in this belief as any bible - thumping tent revival preacher! You pretty clearly have derision for those who are conviced that God has revealed to humanity that (for example) abortion or homosexual acts are utterly wrong and not to be permitted under any circumstance. How is that any different from those who deride the people who commit those acts?

What I see in your posts is a deep uncertainty whether humans can have much moral certainty in this life (at least in some issues). I hope you can come to see that this attitude is just as much a principle open to question as those you ask others to hold open and refrain from being dogmatic about.

It is a self - contradiction to state that no one may be dogmatic about anything. Such a statement is, itself, dogmatic. I’m with you that no mere human should be dogmatic about moral issues. That is the place of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, not individuals. That’s our stance, anyways. I’m not sure how the Episcopal Church decides hard questions (or decides not to…)

I think manual, there is a pretty precise definition of fundamentalism around. It relates to a determination that the plain meaning of the words controls. It is usually, for inexplicable reasons tied to the KJV (proven to be a rather horrid translation in most respects). All fundamentalists of course pick and choose what they take literally. They will claim that homosexuality is forbidden, but that somehow the blood requirements of meat are superceded, although this was help still applicable by the Jerusalem Council described in Acts. What I cannot fathom is that we know the plain words aren’t the “necessary” words used by the writer, since in another language, and we are all too aware that various words are quite nuanced and there can be several words that technically fit the bill in translation. It can be hard to know the correct one, and only through a very thorough understanding of the language and context can correct choices be made. That is what they will not allow. If it’s not in the bible, they aren’t going to listen, yet if they would listen, they might find that some of what they believe was said wasn’t in the least meant in the way they conclude. I’m not in favor of rigidly held beliefs period. We as a species are ever learning, ever growing in understanding and this most certainly means faith.

Your second point as to my rigidity is well taken. Let me respond. I don’t deride the persons, when sincere, what I deride is the need (which according to experts in the field of psychology) to literally stop one’s ears as to any other point of view. It is the unwillingness to even entertain the idea one might be wrong. There have been people on this forum, not many I admit, who say they will not read anything about the bible or faith that is not written by a “traditionalist” within the RCC. That is not the way to arrive at truth in my opinion. I come from the world where it is precisely the free interplay of thought that is best used to arrive at the best truth. I am unlike them, in that I am the antithesis of what they stand for–a held belief so rigid that it will allow no contrary information in. I read broadly and try to at least keep abreast of conservative thought both poltiically and religiously.

I understand that you believe there is “written in stone” truth. I’m not at all sure there is as to most things. Quite frankly, it is the antithesis of everything for me to conclude that ANY institution be granted exclusive or near exclusive possession of this truth. That to me is giving over to others what God has given to man–reason and spirit, soul and mind. These are our special gifts, to be used carefully but fully in arriving at truth. What you advocate, in the hands of the lazy and in the mad, are keys to control people and do great evil, or at the least to simply not bother to think, just obey. Obedience, for the sake of it, because some entity “has authority” hasn’t been a defense in court, and I sincerely believe won’t impress God much. Perhaps I will find out I am wrong. I remain open to listening in any event.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That’s a naïve statement. If no-one was pro-abortion, there wouldn’t be any doctors to perform abortion…

You’re being exceedingly narrow in your definition. Being willing to do a legal medical procedure deemed appropriate under current medical practices, to women who desire them is not being “pro-abortion.” It’s merely being a doctor.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I really have to disagree with you there. There most definitely are people with firm religious convictions who are not fundamentalist – Pope Benedict XVI for example.

There are certainly those who think he is. And I think it’s one of the great ironies that people, including Catholics, deride “literalism” in Christian biblical interpretation. I don’t doubt Pope Benedict believe every one of the following “literalist” readings of the bible.

How about “This is my body…This is my blood…”
How about “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. Whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”
How about “Whoever eats my body and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day…”
How about “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…”

Catholicism is a lot more literalist than people often think. In fact, in many ways it’s more literal in biblical interpretation than is often the case with Protestantism.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You’re being exceedingly narrow in your definition. Being willing to do a legal medical procedure deemed appropriate under current medical practices, to women who desire them is not being “pro-abortion.” It’s merely being a doctor.

And shooting prisoners of war out of hand is merely being a soldier.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It does not make them ignorant, and I’m fed up with those statements. I could just as easily say that Catholics who voted for McCain are ignorant. He wanted to continue the war, continue to give tax breaks to the wealthy, and continue to abuse the resources we have left. You think that he was going to stop abortion? Or get it outlawed? That’s incredibly ignorant. The neo-cons have been dangling that as a carrot in front of the religious conservative to get their vote. In the whole time that the republicans were in control (since Clinton) they did nothing significant to change it. And don’t tell me it’s because democrats blocked legislation. They most certainly were able to get other legislation through that’s helped to put us in our current condition.

Frankly, to vote for someone who would incite the racism the Republican ticket ignited in people would be against what I learned as a Catholic. I think many conservatives got blinded by Obama’s pro-CHOICE stance and couldn’t see the hope he was looking to instill and inspire in people (rather than hate, war, and continued crushing of the poor by McCain). Many people saw that. Just because someone voted for Obama doesn’t make them ignorant. An Obama voter can make the same claim for a McCain voter.

Well, Obama still has soldiers in Iraq. He is expanding the number of soldiers in Afghanistan. He has done nothing and proposes nothing for the neediest of all…the disabled needy, who must subsist somehow on less than $600/month. On the other hand, he has a welfare progam for billionaires called PPIP. Recently, he approved knocking down a mountain in West Virginia and shoving it into a valley so the mining company could strip mine the coal. He has made it clear that he is going to continue the policy of “rendition”, which all the liberals said was so horrible before the election. Every economist knows “the poor” are going to get crushed by rising interest rates in anywhere from one to two years, due to profligate spending.

All the worst things some said would happen if I voted for McCain. It was, indeed, prophetic, because I voted for McCain and sure enough, they happened.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Well, Obama still has soldiers in Iraq. He is expanding the number of soldiers in Afghanistan. He has done nothing and proposes nothing for the neediest of all…the disabled needy, who must subsist somehow on less than $600/month. On the other hand, he has a welfare progam for billionaires called PPIP. Recently, he approved knocking down a mountain in West Virginia and shoving it into a valley so the mining company could strip mine the coal. He has made it clear that he is going to continue the policy of “rendition”, which all the liberals said was so horrible before the election. Every economist knows “the poor” are going to get crushed by rising interest rates in anywhere from one to two years, due to profligate spending.

All the worst things some said would happen if I voted for McCain. It was, indeed, prophetic, because I voted for McCain and sure enough, they happened.

Uhm. Obama is not God. He just started in January.

Personally, I think you’re just finding anything and everything wrong with him because he hasn’t already stopped all abortions.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

And shooting prisoners of war out of hand is merely being a soldier.

Actually under Military law in the US, such an act is criminal and is prosecuted and the person, if convicted is imprisoned. It is considered a war crime by the Geneva Accords as well.

 

[Peter_J]

There are certainly those who think he is.

I don’t deny that there are some who consider him to be a fundamentalist. But those people are wrong. There are Catholics (and Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox) who are fundamentalists, but Pope Benedict isn’t one of them.

 

[Peter_J]

The sad thing is Peter, that you are fine when I agree with you.

Interesting. I’m “fine” when you agree with me … but I’m not “fine” if I say something that you disagree with? Should I censor myself, whenever I’m on the verge of saying something you disagree with, since your agreement or disagreement determines what’s “fine” and what isn’t? (Or maybe I should just decide that you’re “fine” if and only if I agree with you. )

That reminds me of the Protestant attitude toward Church teachings – i.e. “Church teachings are fine, as long as I agree with them.”

 

[adrift]

. Nobody as I said is pro-abortion. …Nobody is “for abortion.”" My point exactly.

Webster dictionary defines pro abortion as

favoring the legalization of abortion

So if you think that abortion should be legal by definition you are pro abortion. It is a good sign however when someone does not want to be associated with abortion. It means they have a conscience that is pricking them. That may not hold true however for a politician whose motives are “politically” motivated.

 

[GRATEFULONEjim]

A TRUE CATHOLIC BELIEVES “YOU CAN’T ACCEPT PART OF IT, WITHOUT REJECTING ALL OF IT.” I think G.K. Chesterton said that. We need to stand by the Catechism of the Catholic Church and stop being so “a la carte”
Keep the Faith
G1j

 

[Peter_J]

Webster dictionary defines pro abortion as

So if you think that abortion should be legal by definition you are pro abortion. It is a good sign however when someone does not want to be associated with abortion. It means they have a conscience that is pricking them. That may not hold true however for a politician whose motives are “politically” motivated.

Hi adrift,

I hear what you’re saying; but, just to repeat and/or clarify what I said before, if someone prefers to describe themselves as “favoring the legalization of abortion” rather than “pro-abortion”, then I have no problem with that. As a matter of fact, I would salute him or her for precision of language.

 

[Peter_J]

A TRUE CATHOLIC BELIEVES “YOU CAN’T ACCEPT PART OF IT, WITHOUT REJECTING ALL OF IT.”

Well … I imagine there are some people who can’t accept part of it, without rejecting all of it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Uhm. Obama is not God. He just started in January. I agree totally that he isn’t God.

Personally, I think you’re just finding anything and everything wrong with him because he hasn’t already stopped all abortions.

No, actually, I approve of his following Bush’s timetable in Iraq. I don’t approve of his continuing with “rendition” of terrorists because that means they’ll REALLY be tortured. We just won’t hear about it. I’m queasy about his expanding the war in Afghanistan. Nobody has ever been able to truly pacify that place, and it’s not exactly even a “place”. It’s just a big wilderness full of warring tribes, that goes off in every direction.

I don’t approve of his making overburdened borrowers pay their debts off in full when he’s discounting those very debts to billionaires. I don’t approve of his cutting Medicare. Guess I’m just too liberal to fully approve of the guy.

I don’t hold Obama accountable for failing to stop all abortions. I doubt anyone could do that. Of course, he has no intention of doing that, and I knew he didn’t from the first. What I do hold him accountable for is promoting abortion, and he has done a lot in that way. He told us all he wanted to be sure his daughter could abort his own grandchild if his daughter wanted it, and I believe him. A heart of cold stone.

 

[Matariel]

You’re being exceedingly narrow in your definition. Being willing to do a legal medical procedure deemed appropriate under current medical practices, to women who desire them is not being “pro-abortion.” It’s merely being a doctor.

That’s twisting words, I think. There’re people who believe abortion should be legal. That position is termed “pro-abortion”. The term “pro-choice” is a rather asinine euphemism, which doesn’t really describe the position held. Pro-choice about what? Ice cream flavours? kinds of healthcare? What? It’s a term people use to sanitize a morally reprehensible practice, a violation of human rights.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Actually under Military law in the US, such an act is criminal and is prosecuted and the person, if convicted is imprisoned. It is considered a war crime by the Geneva Accords as well.

And in similar manner, it should be a crime for a doctor to commit an abortion. The only differences between a Tiller and a Roeder is the perversity of the law and the methodology. Otherwise, there is no difference at all between them.

 

[Peter_J]

Pro-choice about what? Ice cream flavours? kinds of healthcare? What?

Exactly. It wouldn’t be so bad if they at least said “I’m pro-choice on the abortion issue”. But they don’t. Rather we are all just conditioned to think of the abortion issue when we hear the term “pro-choice”.

 

[GodIsGracious]

No, actually, I approve of his following Bush’s timetable in Iraq. I don’t approve of his continuing with “rendition” of terrorists because that means they’ll REALLY be tortured. We just won’t hear about it. I’m queasy about his expanding the war in Afghanistan. Nobody has ever been able to truly pacify that place, and it’s not exactly even a “place”. It’s just a big wilderness full of warring tribes, that goes off in every direction.

We’re not too far off in agreement here.

I don’t approve of his making overburdened borrowers pay their debts off in full when he’s discounting those very debts to billionaires. I don’t approve of his cutting Medicare. Guess I’m just too liberal to fully approve of the guy.

Source? How is he cutting Medicare? I haven’t heard that.

BTW, I doubt you’re liberal. Not from what I’ve read of your posts. You actually sound like a political conservative. If that’s the case, then I must be conservative, and I by no means consider myself politically conservative, I consider myself liberal.

I don’t hold Obama accountable for failing to stop all abortions. I doubt anyone could do that. Of course, he has no intention of doing that, and I knew he didn’t from the first. What I do hold him accountable for is promoting abortion, and he has done a lot in that way. He told us all he wanted to be sure his daughter could abort his own grandchild if his daughter wanted it, and I believe him. A heart of cold stone.

Well, that’s fine. That’s him. He’s supporting choice. At least he’s consistent.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Exactly. It wouldn’t be so bad if they at least said “I’m pro-choice on the abortion issue”. But they don’t. Rather we are all just conditioned to think of the abortion issue when we hear the term “pro-choice”.

That’s because the terms have a very near universal (at least, here in the U.S.) association on the abortion issue. People know what you’re talking about when you say “pro-choice,” “pro-life,” etc.

I could just as easily say, “It wouldn’t be so bad if they at least said, ‘I’m against a woman’s choice in what to do with her body.’”