So then what prompted the question?
What it presupposes is what we already knew: you are quite clear about what constitutes Catholic teaching.
I know what some Catholics say is Catholic teaching. Specifically I would describe them as post-Vatican II American conservative Catholics. I also know what traditionalist American conservative Catholics think. I also know what several different groups of sedevacantists think. I’m also conversant with several different factions of liberals. All of these groups claim to be “the real Catholics” and claim that their opinions are “Catholic teaching.” I’m pegging you as a post-Vatican II American conservative Catholic. If that’s not accurate just say so. I think that description fits many on this forum. I think I know what you guys would say, that’s why I brought up some liberals of various kinds. Beyond that, everyone has their own opinion based on their experiences and temperament. Just have a look at the “family life” forum LOL. It’s a giant endless flame war about whether NFP is based in a “contraceptive mentality.”
Perfect question – and one that demolishes your thesis (by the way)!
That doesn’t mean that the teachings are ambiguous – it means that there are lots of personal opinions out there. Perhaps your thesis really is the more trivial assertion “lots of people believe lots of things, and they believe what they want to believe.” Fair enough?
Sure, we can say that. My thesis is based more on the individual’s subjective feelings anyway. Each individual Catholic must answer the question “what is a Catholic?” for themselves, and sometimes in this process hate is what allows them to form a more clear identity. They’re able to answer the question by negating the experience and opinions of others. This is my explanation for why that hate and resentment spills over when the evangelization process fails. Maybe it’s not the best explanation. You’ve given me reasons to doubt it, thanks! Also, not just Catholics or Christians but Atheists too. They have to answer “what is a human being without faith? what am I?” and often hate can help them build an ego out of what they are not.
“Negating the experience and opinions of others”? Well, maybe rejecting it. And, even if that’s part of the process of coming to understand one’s faith, it doesn’t imply that this is an expression of hatred, or even that it necessarily facilitates hatred. Do some people hate those whom they consider “other”? Yes. But, that’s not a characteristic of any faith tradition – it’s a characteristic of some people’s reaction to “others.” Does religion encourage us to categorize folks into “us” and “them”? Hopefully not. But, then again, all human acts could be used to divide and categorize, so it’s unreasonable to suggest that this is representative of Catholicism.
Perhaps. Yet, in order to for your thesis to hold, it has to be characteristic of us all, don’t you think? If not, then the best you can say you’ve identified is “some folks act this way.”
All of the above examples = proof you know what is dissent.I know what some Catholics say is Catholic teaching. Specifically I would describe them as post-Vatican II American conservative Catholics. I also know what traditionalist American conservative Catholics think. I also know what several different groups of sedevacantists think. I’m also conversant with several different factions of liberals. All of these groups claim to be “the real Catholics” and claim that their opinions are “Catholic teaching.” I’m pegging you as a post-Vatican II American conservative Catholic. If that’s not accurate just say so. I think that description fits many on this forum. I think I know what you guys would say, that’s why I brought up some liberals of various kinds. Beyond that, everyone has their own opinion based on their experiences and temperament. Just have a look at the “family life” forum LOL. It’s a giant endless flame war about whether NFP is based in a “contraceptive mentality.”
I don’t want to give away too much info about my identity but I used to live in Rochester NY. I’ve seen womenpriests and sedevacantists in the same day LOL. I’ve read Andrew Greely and the Dimonds. I’ve listened to Sr. Margaret Farley and Michael Voris.
From my perspective, the Catholicism is a huge mess of people running around yelling about how the other Catholics who disagree with them are 1) ignorant and/or 2) sinners. From my perspective, it’s always been that way right from the beginning. Origen, Augustine, Arius, Athanasius, and Tertullian were right there saying “nope…nope…we’re the real Christians”
And, I can offer apologia for several different positions. I can argue the traditionalist case, the modernist case, the moderate case, the postmodernist case, the sedevacantist case, etc. But, I find all of their arguments unconvincing. It’s rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic as they say (in my opinion of course).
But this is good though, we’re fleshing out the ambiguity I mentioned.
Simplistic expression of what I’m putting forward, but yes.
First you have a western romanticized view of eastern religions, history and countries. Ot maybe just a lack of knowledge about them.
I never put forth a thesis. If I had, I would make it longer than a paragraph and it wouldn’t find its debut on an Internet forum.
It’s evidence that you think of it as “dissent.”
Really?
Because I know how you think bro!
Look, PC, it’s so apparent that you set up a question based on a premise that we ALL knew wasn’t true.
Nope.
So you don’t actually believe that wanting to change the subject is an admission of defeat?
Hi PC,From my perspective, the Catholicism is a huge mess of people running around yelling about how the other Catholics who disagree with them are 1) ignorant and/or 2) sinners. From my perspective, it’s always been that way right from the beginning. Origen, Augustine, Arius, Athanasius, and Tertullian were right there saying “nope…nope…we’re the real Christians”
And, I can offer apologia for several different positions. I can argue the traditionalist case, the modernist case, the moderate case, the postmodernist case, the sedevacantist case, etc. But, I find all of their arguments unconvincing. It’s rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic as they say (in my opinion of course).
But this is good though, we’re fleshing out the ambiguity I mentioned.
. I am with you, P.C. I am with the other folks here too.Actually, you’re not remembering right.
Maybe you’re reading something different than PC’s quote – but in that context, she isn’t talking ‘mercy’ or ‘forgiveness’, but rather, is asserting that abortion for a reason other than ‘birth control’ is OK. That’s not Church teaching, and she knows it, and she “has a problem with” it.