Swiss Catholics call for same-sex partnerships, change in teaching on Communion [CWN]

[Memaw]

People in every century are always “hurting”. Usually when we are “hurting” it is because we fail to follow good instruction. Smokers are “hurting” when they see commercials on TV that remind them of the damage smoking does. Should we stop the “hurting” by ending anti-smoking commercials?

My feelings were “hurting” when I went to the doctor and he put a diagnosis on me, “obese”. He said as a result of that diagnosis, I should eat less, and exercise more. “Hurt”! I am tempted to say he should drop the diagnosis and change the weight scale, to match up with me (and other baby boomers) the way most of us are now. But down deep I know this would not benefit me, I need to lose weight. Conversion is the real way to stop the hurting.

Millions of children are “hurting” now because marriage has been ridiculed or cast aside by much of society, and clergy of all denominations are afraid to affirm its indissolubility. The hurting of the children of divorce, not to mention same sex unions or common law unions, is unheard cry in this debate. They pay the price for the liberal theologians.

I suspect Christ was advised by some people to ease up on divorce, and it would help his movement grow. The Church should be faithful to Christ, and not the media.

AMEN, AMEN and AMEN, When will we ever learn !! Thanks and God Bless, Memaw

 

[Brendan]

But the Church has eased up on reasons for granting a marriage annulment. In 1929, there were 9 annulments granted per year in the USA, whereas in recent years it has run as high as 50,000 in the USA. Note: whether the couple gets divorced or has its marriage annulled, the result is the same for the children.

That is not idictive of any ‘easing’ but might have to do a lot more with people just not careing about things like form or other requirements.

It would have been unheard of for anyone back then going into marriage without any intent, or even expectation of having children. This is far too common nowadays

Likewise with form. Catholics who attempted marriage from a Justice of the Peace were considered back then to be not married, just as they are today. What was uncommon was anyone actually trying to do that.

Finally, an annulment, then, as now, must be proceeded by a civil divorce. That was far, far less common back then

So the increase in annulments has a LOT more to do with the people attempting marriage than any change in Church teaching among them.

 

[Tigg]

People in every century are always “hurting”. Usually when we are “hurting” it is because we fail to follow good instruction. Smokers are “hurting” when they see commercials on TV that remind them of the damage smoking does. Should we stop the “hurting” by ending anti-smoking commercials?

My feelings were “hurting” when I went to the doctor and he put a diagnosis on me, “obese”. He said as a result of that diagnosis, I should eat less, and exercise more. “Hurt”! I am tempted to say he should drop the diagnosis and change the weight scale, to match up with me (and other baby boomers) the way most of us are now. But down deep I know this would not benefit me, I need to lose weight. **Conversion is the real way to stop the hurting. **

**Millions of children are “hurting” now because marriage has been ridiculed or cast aside by much of society, and clergy of all denominations are afraid to affirm its indissolubility. The hurting of the children of divorce, not to mention same sex unions or common law unions, is unheard cry in this debate. They pay the price for the liberal theologians. **

I suspect Christ was advised by some people to ease up on divorce, and it would help his movement grow. The Church should be faithful to Christ, and not the media.

Hear, hear!! Pleasing someone is very often the opposite of doing him good.

 

[DCNBILL]

That is not idictive of any ‘easing’ but might have to do a lot more with people just not careing about things like form or other requirements.

It would have been unheard of for anyone back then going into marriage without any intent, or even expectation of having children. This is far too common nowadays

**Likewise with form. Catholics who attempted marriage from a Justice of the Peace were considered back then to be not married, just as they are today. What was uncommon was anyone actually trying to do that. **

Finally, an annulment, then, as now, must be proceeded by a civil divorce. That was far, far less common back then

So the increase in annulments has a LOT more to do with the people attempting marriage than any change in Church teaching among them.

This is very true, the vast majority of cases I see are “Lack of Form.”

 

[commenter]

What false teachings has the Catholic church taught after Vatican II?

.

The Catholic Church hasn’t taught any false teachings before, during or after Vatican II. The secularists have always offered false teachings. They gained more power after the 1960s as a result of a corporate concentration of the media in fewer hands. They had strong inroads in higher education prior to the 1960s, but now influence education as a whole.

Individual Catholics, like everyone else, have always been influenced by the secular culture. If a Catholic repeats as “gospel” some doctrine he picked up from Huffington Post, that doesn’t mean the Church is teaching falsely. The Magisterium is still reliable.

 

[Tomdstone]

the church teaching hasn’t changed. The status of those receiving has changed.

Who changed the status of Protestants and Eastern Orthodox? When did this occur?

 

[Memaw]

What false teachings has the Catholic church taught after Vatican II?

.

I didn’t say the Church ever taught any false teachings after Vat. II. I was talking about the many false things that were being taught after Vat. II by others, blaming it on Vat. II Certainly you know about all that. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Pulvis]

Well, seems you’ve got it all worked out after much mental gymnastics here.
But I think it’s much simpler than what you have concocted.
I understand why you want to blame the media, spin, and slanted polls and why you don’t want to consider the alternative…which is that the reason people feel this way is not because of those things at all.
It’s the other way around.
The opinions on same-sex marriage, etc, IMO and in the opinion of many others (including law-makers) is an organic development and understanding that has been in process and simmering for a long time among the majority of people in this evolving world.
The media is merely reflecting that.

.

well i must suggest that what you call reflecting, i call propagandizing. I do not know your age, but I am 60. I have watched the re-education of America by the media over the last 50 years. I have witnessed the efforts of those who control what we watch and read use their influence to modify public opinion on a myriad of social and political issues. This social engineering has been most effective. And it has worked in no small part due to the Church loosing Her moral authority. When our Priests and Bishops stopped taking hard stands against sin and moral depravity, that left the faithful to the whims of the progressives who have redesigned morality in this country, and across Europe as well. That is why the comments from Cardinal Marx and the Church in Germany do not surprise me. Nor the comments from the Swiss. If the USCCB were to make similar statements, they would find many supporters here as well. Poorly catechized Catholics who have little amunition with which to fight. And fight we must. This is a spiritual war, has been since the fall, and will be until Christ returns.

 

[commenter]

What do you mean?
What “false teachings” have “the secularists” offered?

.

The Secularists’ Religion:

• Nothing is absolutely true or false, inherently right or wrong; everything is relative.
• People don’t discover truth or morality; they develop what works for them. My truth might be different from your truth; your good might not be my definition.
• Each couple defines what marriage is.
• I have to follow my good. If an unborn child is against my interest, I can have it destroyed. For that matter, if I decide my newborn child is against my interest, since the child has not “joined” the society yet, I can have that child destroyed. The society, not some supernatural God, confers rights on persons. But once the child has been accepted by the parents, the parents are subordinate to the government in child rearing.
• The society - in effect the government - is the primary educator, not the parents.
• Spirituality in itself is a good thing. It is not a means to an end, it is an end in itself, and each person’s spirituality can be, should be, different.
• Males and females are not only equal, but interchangeable, especially in parenting.
• Religion is good, but in a limited way. It helps people express their unique feelings, comparable to poetry and music. But it is dangerous if people start thinking about dogmas - facts that are true for more than one person. Thus religion must be fixated on “values”, which are free floating, can vary from one person to another, from one decade to another.
• Transformation is good, in the sense of becoming more open minded, more sensitive to feelings of oneself, and others. Conversion (dying to self) is bad. Evangelism is bad.
• Diversity is good. However, it is better if all schools were identical.
• Books over 100 years old are likely to be misleading, and are best avoided.

 

[Memaw]

well i must suggest that what you call reflecting, i call propagandizing. I do not know your age, but I am 60. I have watched the re-education of America by the media over the last 50 years. I have witnessed the efforts of those who control what we watch and read use their influence to modify public opinion on a myriad of social and political issues. This social engineering has been most effective. And it has worked in no small part due to the Church loosing Her moral authority. When our Priests and Bishops stopped taking hard stands against sin and moral depravity, that left the faithful to the whims of the progressives who have redesigned morality in this country, and across Europe as well. That is why the comments from Cardinal Marx and the Church in Germany do not surprise me. Nor the comments from the Swiss. If the USCCB were to make similar statements, they would find many supporters here as well. Poorly catechized Catholics who have little amunition with which to fight. And fight we must. This is a spiritual war, has been since the fall, and will be until Christ returns.

AMEN, I agree 100%. Praying the Rosary (as Our Lady requested MANY times over the past few centuries), is need now more than ever. Teach our children and grandchildren to LOVE our Faith. They are the hope for the future.Saint Pope John Paul II showed us that years ago. We seem to be sooo slow to catch on. ONlY God can help us out of this mess. Jesus I TRUST in THEE. God Bless, Memaw

 

[LongingSoul]

The Secularists’ Religion:

• Books over 100 years old are likely to be misleading, and are best avoided.

Apart from the Bible which is the inspired word of God and therefore timeless, old books while they are valuable reference points, have limited capacity to impart the fullness of truth. To revere them as immutable in some way is to make an idol of what has no intrinsic divine qualities. Especially in an institution like the Catholic Church, we give deference to the teaching authority of the living Pope and the current teachings of Catholic doctrine.

So yes, it is best to avoid giving any unwarranted esteem to past writings as more relevant than the writings of the Church today.

 

[commenter]

Originally Posted by commenter View Post

The Secularists’ Religion:

• Books over 100 years old are likely to be misleading, and are best avoided.

Apart from the Bible which is the inspired word of God and therefore timeless, old books while they are valuable reference points, have limited capacity to impart the fullness of truth. To revere them as immutable in some way is to make an idol of what has no intrinsic divine qualities. Especially in an institution like the Catholic Church, we give deference to the teaching authority of the living Pope and the current teachings of Catholic doctrine.

So yes, it is best to avoid giving any unwarranted esteem to past writings as more relevant than the writings of the Church today.

I didn’t say this was right or wrong, I simply said this point about books, and the other points, are part of the “secularists’ religion”. I think you would agree that secularists are mostly opposed to old books.

 

[Louie1983]

It is your opinion that they are trying to change morality. I don;t see where they claim to be doing so.

They don’t need to claim it, by making suggestions that are contrary to church teaching especially when it comes to same sex marriage etc then this is a ***change ***from tradition and from Dogma.

 

[commenter]

The Secularists’ Religion:

• Nothing is absolutely true or false, inherently right or wrong; everything is relative.
• People don’t discover truth or morality; they develop what works for them. My truth might be different from your truth; your good might not be my definition.
• Each couple defines what marriage is.
• I have to follow my good. If an unborn child is against my interest, I can have it destroyed. For that matter, if I decide my newborn child is against my interest, since the child has not “joined” the society yet, I can have that child destroyed. The society, not some supernatural God, confers rights on persons. But once the child has been accepted by the parents, the parents are subordinate to the government in child rearing.
• The society - in effect the government - is the primary educator, not the parents.
• Spirituality in itself is a good thing. It is not a means to an end, it is an end in itself, and each person’s spirituality can be, should be, different.
• Males and females are not only equal, but interchangeable, especially in parenting.
• Religion is good, but in a limited way. It helps people express their unique feelings, comparable to poetry and music. But it is dangerous if people start thinking about dogmas - facts that are true for more than one person. Thus religion must be fixated on “values”, which are free floating, can vary from one person to another, from one decade to another.
• Transformation is good, in the sense of becoming more open minded, more sensitive to feelings of oneself, and others. Conversion (dying to self) is bad. Evangelism is bad.
• Diversity is good. However, it is better if all schools were identical.
• Books over 100 years old are likely to be misleading, and are best avoided.

100 years ago secularists were indifferent to religion, or hoped Christianity just disappeared. Not now. They support ordination of women, not because they believe in “sacraments” at all, but as a step towards making it a right, for everyone, with or without seminary. They won’t persecute priests, they want it so anyone can be a priest, just by filling out a form.
100 years ago secularists attacked the Bible. Today they seek to add books to the New Testament. Their goal is a world where “the gospel of Mark may be in YOUR bible, but not in mine; for me, the* gospel of Mary *is ‘scripture’”; you choose your New Testament like you make choices at a salad bar, omitting any books that don’t feel inspiring.

 

[Micosil]

As a journalist and someone who has been in the media for three decades working in the main news rooms in the US and Canada, I can tell you that when editors assign us to do a story, it’s rarely with an angle in mind. The editor tells a reporter or writer to find out what the people are thinking and feeling and listen to all sides, then report on it—not the other way around.

A reporter’s job may indeed be to report, as honestly as they can, the opinions on popular topics; the Church has a somewhat more ambitious job – to teach doctrinal and moral truths. Truths are not (necessarily) opinions

Perhaps the church has lost some moral authority because…fewer people agree with the teachings.

It doesn’t matter how many people agree with the teachings; what matters is, are they true or not?

 

[Memaw]

But different churches and religions also have tried for thousands of years and still do try today to " control what we watch and read and use their influence to modify opinion on a myriad of social and political issues."
Why is it that when the Catholic church does it, you don’t call it “propaganda”?
When Christianity came onto the scene, Jews and Pagans would have considered the gospel stories and Paul’s letters, etc, as “propaganda”.
And indeed, many do today as well.

As a journalist and someone who has been in the media for three decades working in the main news rooms in the US and Canada, I can tell you that when editors assign us to do a story, it’s rarely with an angle in mind. The editor tells a reporter or writer to find out what the people are thinking and feeling and listen to all sides, then report on it—not the other way around.

Perhaps the church has lost some moral authority because…fewer people agree with the teachings.

.

It’s those who disagree that are the losers. The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth. Study the TRUTH about Her and find out. God Bless. Memaw

 

[Tigg]

Perhaps the church has lost some moral authority because…fewer people agree with the teachings.

Who should set the standard of right behavior - people or God?

 

[commenter]

A reporter’s job may indeed be to report, as honestly as they can, the opinions on popular topics; the Church has a somewhat more ambitious job – to teach doctrinal and moral truths. Truths are not (necessarily) opinions

The Media is owned and controlled by far fewer people than a few decades ago. It’s not just the conscientious reporter, there is also the corporate climate that influences what stories to cover,or not to cover, which opinions to survey, and how to present it.

It doesn’t matter how many people agree with the teachings; what matters is, are they true or not?

This statement says it all. Actually it’s not just the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Church reflects basic teachings about human nature that were once defended by other Christians, Jews, and non believers. The Media and educational systems don’t really try to logically refute historic teaching, on abortion for instance. (I wish they would try to refute it.) Instead, they assume the proof has already been convincingly demonstrated somewhere else, and that assumption is built into lectures, textbooks and media coverage.

In my decades of occasional involvement at a public university, I have not seen secularists use “logic” in arguments at all. They keep saying certain ideas are contemporary, so they must be true, while other ideas are older, so they must have been disproved. (But disproved by who? when? where? how disproved?) If I had access to the university media or podium that is what I would ask, but people with my ideas don’t usually have such access.

I would welcome the public use of Reason by secularists to logically disprove Christianity and the Natural Law, for instance. Even if they came to conclusions I disagree with, just the process of using Reason in logical argument would be healthy for them, and readers.
That would start mental processes dormant in recent decades.

 

[Brendan_64]

Perhaps they are hoping it “develops” in that way.

.

Church doctrine cannot ‘develop’ in such a way that it contradicts the teachings it is seeking to explain.

The norms of secular society should not inform what the Church teaches, that really is looking at things upside down, and is opposed to what has been written in scripture. We should seek to conform the world to the teachings of the Church, not seek to conform the teachings of the Church to the world.

 

[JesusPeaceLove]

Huh?
I have never heard secularists say this–ever. And I’ve probably attended or listened to at least 100 debates.
Can you cite just one example where a Secularist argues an opinion or side by saying, “it’s contemporary, so it must be true.”?

Just one? I’d really like to see it.

My experience watching debates is the exact opposite of yours. I’ve rarely heard a Theist use “reason”.
.

That is just unbelievable. Theists rarely use reason to argue? About Gods existence? Historicity of Jesus? Falseness of gay marriage? Evil of abortion? Which arguments are these where reason is supposedly lacking on the part of theists arguments? I’d like to see you point that out and show the illogic or failure of reason.