The Perils of Dissent

[patg]

fix:

Huh? That does not make sense. No teachings have changed. Not a one. Disciplines have changed. Our understanding has developed, but never has the Church changed her teachings on any issue of faith and morals.

YOU said that teachings and rules have expanded to account for things that exist today which did not exist in ancient times (you mentioned IVF).

Then I said it was illogical to say this process only should work one way - if new concepts require new rules and teachings then new concepts also require reevaluation of old rules and old teachings. Not doing this is what led to the embarassment of Copernicus and Gallileo.

If God could change that would mean He has potential to change and He would not be God. God said I Am who Am. He was not born, He always existed and He cannot change. You do not have to, that is the way it is.

I’ve have heard it said that humans created God in their own image and likeness - and now you are saying what God can and can’t do. Can’t change, can’t try anything new? Must be really boring being a god!

That is a basic flaw in understanding the bible. It comes from self interpretation, which is itself illogical.

There is nothing to interpret in my examples - that’s what it says God did.

Who said that?

You said it was easy to believe and I’m merely disagreeing with you.

Faith and reason are necessary to accept the truth. Reason alone will never get you where you need to be. Although, many have given great proofs that Christ was God through the use of history and reason.

But most of the prime areas of dissent have to do with things that are unreasonable - so then you only have faith… How can “faith” tell you that only men can be priests when it is totally illogical? The heart will never accept what the mind rejects.

As I said God gave us free will. He does not interfer with our choices. If He did it would not be free will.

So when God creates a soul for the IVF human, God is playing along and our only conclusion can be that the use of our free will in that situation is OK. Sounds fine to me.

The Scripture quote was given to show you that Jesus said many would reject His teachings.

I don’t reject any of the teachings which can reasonably be shown to have originated with him.

 

[fix]

patg:
YOU said that teachings and rules have expanded to account for things that exist today which did not exist in ancient times (you mentioned IVF).

Then I said it was illogical to say this process only should work one way - if new concepts require new rules and teachings then new concepts also require reevaluation of old rules and old teachings. Not doing this is what led to the embarassment of Copernicus and Gallileo.
Why is there a need to reevaluate the truth? If it could change we would be relativists and things like nazism would be morally licit. Galileo controversy proves nothing against the church. The Church accepted his science, they rejected his dabbling in theology. There are plenty of sites to read about it.

I’ve have heard it said that humans created God in their own image and likeness - and now you are saying what God can and can’t do. Can’t change, can’t try anything new? Must be really boring being a god!

It sounds boring to a mortal who has no grasp of theology or the Christian faith. Humans have emotions, God is pure love. He does not have emotions.

But most of the prime areas of dissent have to do with things that are unreasonable - so then you only have faith… How can “faith” tell you that only men can be priests when it is totally illogical? The heart will never accept what the mind rejects.

Nothing taught by the church is unreasonable. People dissent because they want their way and use limited human reason, not faith and not obedience. If one is obedient, God will give the grace to accept and understand to their ability.

So when God creates a soul for the IVF human, God is playing along and our only conclusion can be that the use of our free will in that situation is OK.

God does not “play” along. He does not interfer. I could give many examples. How about rape? Plenty of men do it, like it, have no remorse, are never caught and do it again. That means God “plays” along?

I don’t reject any of the teachings which can reasonably be shown to have originated with him.

You sound like relativist. You make yourself an authority unto yourself. Your idea of reason is really whatever you “feel” is right. Authentic reason accepts there is one truth, not 10,000 truths.

 

[patg]

fix:

Why is there a need to reevaluate the truth? If it could change we would be relativists and things like nazism would be morally licit. Galileo controversy proves nothing against the church. The Church accepted his science, they rejected his dabbling in theology. There are plenty of sites to read about it.

It sounds boring to a mortal who has no grasp of theology or the Christian faith. Humans have emotions, God is pure love. He does not have emotions.

Nothing taught by the church is unreasonable. People dissent because they want their way and use limited human reason, not faith and not obedience. If one is obedient, God will give the grace to accept and understand to their ability.

God does not “play” along. He does not interfer. I could give many examples. How about rape? Plenty of men do it, like it, have no remorse, are never caught and do it again. That means God “plays” along?

You sound like relativist. You make yourself an authority unto yourself. Your idea of reason is really whatever you “feel” is right. Authentic reason accepts there is one truth, not 10,000 truths.

 

[patg]

fix:

Why is there a need to reevaluate the truth? If it could change we would be relativists and things like nazism would be morally licit. Galileo controversy proves nothing against the church. The Church accepted his science, they rejected his dabbling in theology. There are plenty of sites to read about it.

Ok, lets here from someone with far more experience and training than us (well me at least). Father Andrew Greeley, an internationally known Catholic scholar, sociologist, author, and priest has some interesting comments in Confessions of a Parish Priest:

The Church was shaped differently in the past than it is today. The essence of Catholicism ought not to be identified with the Counter-Reformation, late nineteenth- and early-twentieth centruy forms in which we find it. Later I would realize that the basic division in the post Vatican Church is between those who take history seriously and those who do not. History tells us of a far more pluralistic church than do the catechisms or theology manuals. St. Gregory and St. Augustine of Canterbury, for example, exchanged correspondence on the dozen or so justifications for remarriage after divorce (none of which would be accepted as such today). In the nineteenth century, the Vatican resolutely refused. to speak out explicitly on contraception, even though France was solving its population explosion by coitus interruptus. “Do not disturb the Faithful,” the Holy Office warned, a position which was repeated in his conferences for confessors by St. John Vianney, the Cure d’Ars. Leo XIII wrote an encyclical at that time in which there was no mention of birth control. Many medieval theologians did not think fornication was a terribly serious sin. In the Diocese of Constance in the 1400s, priests were permitted to have concubines so long as they paid a tax - a fee for each wife and each child. The revenue from the tax constituted one third of the income of the diocese (an interesting idea but one which I suspect would have its drawbacks in this feminist age).

I don’t intend we should return to older policies, I merely cite them as evidence that the posture of a Church which never changes is untenable.

---

Reality is dynamic and changing, not static and timeless as the watered down Aristotelianism we were learning seemed to suggest. You must change to remain the same. The Church remains the same not by immobility but by sensitivity to change.

I realize we can’t get anywhere else with these basic philosophical differences and its way to hard to effectively respond to points and counter points in this media as we have expanded the discussion from that of dissent to the nature of God!

One more comment though - pure love is not an emotion? Man, give us a break (and I hope you’re not married)!

Pat

 

[Strider]

The URL below is Karl’s e-letter from January 20, 2004. Check out Karl’s opinion of Andrew Greeley (which I whole-heartedly share).
It’s a good idea to check out “experts” before using them to bolster your arguments.

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040120.asp

God bless

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

Why is there a need to reevaluate the truth? If it could change we would be relativists and things like nazism would be morally licit.

Dear fix,

If our understanding of the truth could change, then that would prove that we don’t claim to be perfect.

The charge about relativism allowing “things like nazism” is a bit presumtuous. That assumes that the Church would, in fact, condone such a practice, not just that she would be able to if she admitted to relativism. Besides, as I now understand the authority of the Pope, the Magesterium, or whatever the most official part of the Church is, she has the keys and can bind or loose on earth and in heaven. That being the case, I think she already has the authority to condone “things like nazism” if she believes she is led by the Spirit to do so.

Alan

 

[jordan]

patg:

I don’t intend we should return to older policies, I merely cite them as evidence that the posture of a Church which never changes is untenable.

Pat:

When discussing “Perils of Dissent” we should not confuse the “Church” - “the people of God” with the authoritative teachings of the Church. Nothing in the Confessions of a Parish Priest you quoted from speak to errors in Church teachings, only to the failure of individuals, even Popes, to live up to those teachings.

If a Catholic dissents from an authoritative Church teaching, that individual undermines his own faith. Both Scripture and Tradition have been passed to us by this same apostolic Church since the descent of the Holy Spirit at the Feast of the Pentecost, building on the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If this Church does not have the authority to teach us now, the witness of the Old and New Testaments, and the teachings of her predecessors cannot be held as authoritative.

This is what our Church teaches about her own authority (CCC):

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

The dogmas of the faith

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes in a definitive way truths having a necessary connection with them.

The truths that the Church teaches can develop, but cannot contradict previous teachings. It must be faithful to its mission of safeguarding that which has been “handed on to it.”

If a Catholic dissents from authoritative Church teachings, that person should seek, and pray for, understanding. If that person chooses to set their dissenting opinions as superior to the Church’s authoritative teachings, they have chosen to set themselves above the Church, whose head is Jesus Christ himself.

Pray for understanding!

jb

 

[petra]

twf:

The Church can abuse her power, or make mistakes, in manners of practice and disciple. Until only a few decades a go, it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays. Was this too harsh? Perhaps. So the Church may have been wrong to have bound the discipline in such a grave manner, but it was still a mortal sin to break this precept for Christ promised that whatever the Church bound on earth would be bound in HEAVEN.

This is a great example about what drives me crazy and why I have a problem with perfect infallability! Issues seem to be put in the discipline, practice, faith, or morals categories solely at the convenience of maintaining this “proof” of infallibility.

Does God change his mind about what sin is? No way.

Can the Church just invent sins? Apparently it can. It can invent sins and then hold members responsible under threat of damnation.

Wouldn’t you expect that the definitions of what sin is or isn’t fall in the category of faith and morals? -----and even more so if the sin is grave and results in damnation! How can it be said otherwise? This is an issue of faith and morals, and the Church has changed its position.

Augustinian shared previously that centuries ago, the Church simply would not forgive certain serious sins. Even if such sinners were truly repentant, if they happened to live during that unfortunate time, they were sentenced to Hell. Now, the Church indicates that any sin may be forgiven except for the sin of unrepentance. Again, how could it possibly be said that this is not an issue of faith and morals? It clearly is, and the Church has changed.

Just to remind you all, I believe the Church is sufficiently infallible—that upon Christ’s return, the Church will be intact, its teachings will be pretty close to perfect, and the world will have had the chance to be saved. But history does not bear out the idea that the Church is perfectly infallible.

Thus, while the Church may be wrong to impose a certain discipline, we are still obliged to follow it. (Like the Jews were obliged to follow the Pharisees, who sat on the Chair of Moses).

impose a certain discipline = invent sin

Someone earlier in this thread objected to my assertion that the rules of Catholicism rival the Mosaic law. Catholicism can be quite simple, and I prefer to practice my faith that way. But, in truth, Catholics are bound by the whole of Canon Law. St. Paul said the Mosaic law was burdensome. Christ rebuked the Pharisees for their authoritarian legalism! Imagine what He must think of the volumes of made up rules in the Church!

 

[Strider]

petra:

This is a great example about what drives me crazy and why I have a problem with perfect infallability! Issues seem to be put in the discipline, practice, faith, or morals categories solely at the convenience of maintaining this “proof” of infallibility.

Does God change his mind about what sin is? No way.

Can the Church just invent sins? Apparently it can. It can invent sins and then hold members responsible under threat of damnation…

Augustinian shared previously that centuries ago, the Church simply would not forgive certain serious sins. Even if such sinners were truly repentant, if they happened to live during that unfortunate time, they were sentenced to Hell. Now, the Church indicates that any sin may be forgiven except for the sin of unrepentance. Again, how could it possibly be said that this is not an issue of faith and morals? It clearly is, and the Church has changed.

Just to remind you all, I believe the Church is sufficiently infallible—that upon Christ’s return, the Church will be intact, its teachings will be pretty close to perfect, and the world will have had the chance to be saved. But history does not bear out the idea that the Church is perfectly infallible.

impose a certain discipline = invent sin

Petra,
The Augustinian stated that Turtullian wrote that certain sins could not be forgiven.
First, Turtullian didn’t speak for the Church, he was never pope and this was not a Magesterial teaching
Second, he wrote this after he had fallen into the Montanist heresy. He was no longer a Christian. The link below gives the biography of Tertullian.

newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

As far as no meat on Friday is concerned, the discipline was never really done away with. The USCCB explins that abstinance or some other devotion is still required on Fridays.

usccb.org/dpp/penitential.htm

There really has been no substantial change. It’s another one of those, “Oh, Vacitcan II did away with that,” misstatements.

To all posters on this thread:
I have been mulling this whole thread over in my mind as it’s grown. It seems, IMO, to have distilled itself down to the essence of one of the three or four major problems in the Church in America today.
At the risk of seeming to be simplistic, there are two core points of view on this thread. I’ll call one the absolutist view and the other the generalist view. These terms should be innocuous enjough as to be inoffensive to anyone.
The absolutists assert that the doctrine and dogma (“The revealed teachings of Christ which are procalimed by the fullest extent of the exercises of the authority of the Church’s Magesterium. The faithful are obliged to believe the truths or dogmas contained in divine Revelation and defined by the Magesterium.” CCC # 88), are just that, the revealed teachings of Christ. Since Christ is God, these teachings cannot change and must be adhered to.
The generalists seem to aver that, in general (hence the name), the Church teaches the truth, but has and can make errors, and maybe even God can change over time.
I make no bones about it; I am an absolutist as I have defined the term.
Understand, I’m not trying to criticize any individual, but a viewpoint.
continued

 

[Strider]

Continuaton
To those who say that God has changed over time, citing the way He treated the Old Testament Israelites and the way Jesus taught and behaved in the New Testament, I would submit the following example:
You are the parent of three children; a 17 year old, a 12 year old and a 3 year old. You do not speak to, relate to or discipline the toddler in the same way that you speak to, relate to or discipline the 17 year old or the 12 year old, but** you** are still the same you.
God related to the people as their development, degree of civilization and understanding required, but he did not change.That’s the best I can do for an analogy.
As far as the Church and dogma and doctrine is concerned, we must remember to separate the Church, the Body of which Christ is the head, the Bride of Christ, from the actions of her members.
Yes, there have been lousy, sinful and even criminal popes, but they have been prevented by the grace of the Holy Spirit from teaching error.
I put the link to St. Robert Bellarmine here
newadvent.org/cathen/02411d.htm
to illustrate. The germaine information for this thread is really that of Pope Sixtus V (Just the name sounds conflicted to me). Yes, he’s a saint, but he was a lousy Latin scholar. Still, he re-translated the Vulgate. The result was a disaster, full of mistranslations and **error. **He had issued the Papal Bull and was to issue his error-filled bible the following day. A few advance copies even got out.
Was he allowed to publish his Bible? Darned if he didn’t die that night. St. Bellarmine collected the loose copies and cleaned up all of Sixtus V’s errors. That’s just one incident. How many thousands of similar events has the Holy Spirit pulled off in 2000 years? We’ll never know, but I think this is a good example.
We also must remember to separate doctrine and dogma from discipline. That priests in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church are not allowed to marry is a discipline ( St. Paul and I think it’s a
good one) 1 Cor 7:32-33 …The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord, 32 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife.
The next pope, however unlikely, could allow priests in the Latin rite to marry.
Disciplines can change, but doctrine and dogma (such as the male-only priesthood) cannot and will not change.
America is a pluralistic society. We’re used to arguing and voting and disagreeing and protesting and doing our own thing. The Catholic Church is not. She is changeless because she was founded by and is the body of Christ, who is the head. Christ cannot change, neither can his body.
In short, I believe every word of the Nicene Creed I recite every Sunday at Mass.
I think I’m repeating myself. See what can happen when you mull something over for a week?"
God bless​

Heart of Jesus, formed by the Holy Spirit in the Womb of the Virgin Mother
Have Mercy on us.

 

[Antonio_B]

Lorarose:

It is especially frustrating when priests and bishops treat the faith this way.
I know a newly ordained priest who:

rejects Mary’s perpetual virginity
denies unbroken papal succession
denies church teaching on purgatory and indulgences
denies church teaching on birth control and in-vitro

I really don’t understand why he bothered training to become a priest. He is really more a lutheran or episcopalean than he is a catholic.
But he is a product of his diocese and his bishop - he is not rare by a long shot.
Do these non-catholic catholics really believe they are going to change ancient doctrine?
Do they think they’ll get one of their “own” into the papacy?

Gee, was he ordained in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles? One thing is for sure, Bishop Bruskewitz didn’t ordain the man!’

Antonio

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Strider:

We also must remember to separate doctrine and dogma from discipline. That priests in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church are not allowed to marry is a discipline ( St. Paul and I think it’s a
good one) 1 Cor 7:32-33 …The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord, 32 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife.
The next pope, however unlikely, could allow priests in the Latin rite to marry.
Disciplines can change, but doctrine and dogma (such as the male-only priesthood) cannot and will not change.
America is a pluralistic society. We’re used to arguing and voting and disagreeing and protesting and doing our own thing. The Catholic Church is not. She is changeless because she was founded by and is the body of Christ, who is the head. Christ cannot change, neither can his body.

Dear Strider,

Thank you for putting all that work together. I have found this whole thing rather fascinating.

If a vote were taken, I would probably be considered a “generalist” by your definition. Here’s a quick snapshot of “absolutists” viewed from that perspective, as I’ve experienced on this forum. There seems to be an extremely fine line the “absolutists” draw when shown how something changes. It either was not infallibly declared, or it was a discipline rather than a teaching, (which I don’t know if that means it’s infallible or not) or it may look like a change but it really evolved or was clarified instead. At the same time, when disciplines are questioned, I get that we are supposed to be completely obedient and rules are rules and they are for my own good, blah, blah, blah.

Since you mentioned priestly celibacy, I’ll use that as an example. In multiple discussions on several threads, I and others wondered why the Church might not consider changing that practice. While excusing the relativism of this practice (married converts are ordained) by saying it is not an infallible teaching, the absolutist goes on to defend the practice as if our eternal lives depend on it. What I and others are interested in, is speculation on whether the Church would benefit from changing her stance on it. I can see advantages and disadvantages, both from my own opinion and Biblically based. The absolutists, though, seem unwilling to look at both sides, even hypothetically. It would seem they feel duty-bound to trounce any idea that the way the Church does anything at all right now, infallible or not, is less than ideal. Again, this is just a view from my perspective.

That said, why is it that the “Latin Rite” and other sections of the Church have different practices on married priesthood? Until this forum, I thought it was all Catholic priests (except for converts) who had to be celibate. That’s just the type of thing that makes us “generalists” the way we are. The Church herself has multiple practices, and then goes on to denounce Protestants for the same thing. Why is it so disobedient, disrespectful, heretical, or non-Catholic to question why in the world if the Latin Rite feels so strongly about celibate priesthood even in the light of all the bad PR it gets for its sexual failings, then why is it OK for different flavors of Catholic (I don’t even know what they all are) to do it differently? Is it blashphemous to suggest that all Catholic priests have the same qualifications? It would seem that anyone who defends this seemingly arbitrary practice should explain how human nature differs among rites, or risk being stripped of their “absolutist” title.

Anyway there’s something for you to work on. Someone else can take the next move.

Alan

 

[csr]

I think this discussion demonstrates the potential problem when the faithful attempt to apply common, non-faith-based reasoning to the nature and details of the Church (“To examine divine mysteries with curiosity, and secrets of Providence by pure human reason” (1). It’s the demand that everything make perfect sense. We see in petra’s notes the confusion over the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Of course, the relation is not now reversed; that’s impossible. Some things are known only through the traditional teachings of the Church. There is only one truth, and it’s Catholic. There aren’t 29,000 truths. May they be one. Mystics like St. Thomas spent countless hours in meditation and contemplation. It’s easy to get bewildered by the details of the faith.

Everything in Catholicism does make perfect sense. But if it doesn’t, just assume in faith that it will. That’s not the same position as the Protestants who use the same words (‘just believe’) because their position is totally incoherent from the start.

This discussion about Church teaching and infallibility has taken place largely without mention of the fact that the Second Vatican Council tried broadly to introduce vagueness into Church teachings, and conciliation with the Church’s enemies. Oddly enough, this has happened before, at the council of 553, or Constantinople II. This is discussed in The Great Facade by Ferrara and Woods, pp. 326 ff. This Council was met with division and confusion for exactly these reasons: vagueness and conciliation with doctrinal enemies. The Church is infallible, but reasoning is not automatic, and occasionally it takes time to sort out and gain widespread agreement on what is consistent with doctrine and what isn’t. If someone tells you to do something that is inconsistent with the faith, you say no, and the Church is still infallible. Obedience is not the highest virtue. Obedience can be indiscreet. Back around the 500-600 time frame, they eventually decided to just kind of ignore Constantinople II, which is what we should now do with Vatican II.

As for morals changing, I think understanding and implementation of teachings change, but something like fornication has always been wrong. Much confusion about the validity of the Church seems to stem from forgetting that we act through and in time, and that we are imperfect.

 

[csr]

AlanFromWichita:

At the same time, when disciplines are questioned, I get that we are supposed to be completely obedient and rules are rules and they are for my own good, blah, blah, blah.

St. Thomas and others have said that customs received from ancestors are to be regarded as true laws, and that changes should only occur with evident benefit. Our experience after the Second Vatican Council, characterized by imploding Church participation, drop-off of conversions, wholesale destruction of religious communities, plummeting belief and faith, widespread banality and irreverence: this experience surely demonstrates that toying with disciplines is destructive. Furthermore at least one author, Michael Rose, has shown that the priest shortage (to take an example of something cited by people as a “benefit” to ending the male-only discipline) is purely artificial, that countless candidates were sent away for being orthodox non-homosexuals who wanted to pray the Rosary and be generally devout.

Why is it so disobedient, disrespectful, heretical, or non-Catholic to question why in the world if the Latin Rite feels so strongly about celibate priesthood even in the light of all the bad PR it gets for its sexual failings…

This reflects a misunderstanding. The requirements for the priesthood were altered after the Second Vatican Council. Homosexuals were no longer discouraged, and indeed were actively encouraged. There is no male-only priesthood problem issue. It is disrespectful at least because there is at the heart of it a fabricated issue, and it is also disrespectful because changing disciplines to suit an agenda hurts the faithful.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

csr:

This reflects a misunderstanding. The requirements for the priesthood were altered after the Second Vatican Council. Homosexuals were no longer discouraged, and indeed were actively encouraged. There is no male-only priesthood problem issue. It is disrespectful at least because there is at the heart of it a fabricated issue, and it is also disrespectful because changing disciplines to suit an agenda hurts the faithful.

Dear csr,

OK, so forget the comment about sexual failings thing. Apparently that unfortunate comment sidetracked you from the question.

Why is it disrespectful, heretical, or otherwise undesirable to ask why different “flavors” of Catholicism have such different practices concerning married priests? You said in a previous post that there is one Church, not 29,000. Then how come the “Latin Rite” Catholic priests must be celebate (unless, of course, they are converts ) when other priests do not have this restriction?

When one suggests maybe the Latin Rite might considering opening its doors a bit, the “absolutists” come down like a ton of bricks with all sorts of scripture explaining why it is such an imperative. What makes the Latin Rite different from whatever other types of Catholic there are, that its priests should be selected differently. Am I not the one looking for absolutes here, and the Church the one delivering relativism?:banghead:
Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

csr:

Homosexuals were no longer discouraged, and indeed were actively encouraged. There is no male-only priesthood problem issue.

Dear csr,

Oops, I almost let this one get by!

Homosexuals were actively encouraged to join the priesthood, but married priests are not allowed to join?:bigyikes:

I heard through a reliable source (a diocesan priest) that there had been quite a scandal of homosexual behavior in the seminary, but I had no idea homosexuals were being recruited intentionally. Ugh. The Church does stuff like this and then expects us to believe her on issues of faith and morals?:tsktsk:

I hope I’m misunderstanding you here somehow, big time.

Alan

 

[javelin]

AlanFromWichita:

When one suggests maybe the Latin Rite might considering opening its doors a bit, the “absolutists” come down like a ton of bricks with all sorts of scripture explaining why it is such an imperative. What makes the Latin Rite different from whatever other types of Catholic there are, that its priests should be selected differently. Am I not the one looking for absolutes here, and the Church the one delivering relativism?

My knowledge of the other rites is minimal, but I believe they differ in more ways than a few. I know the Eastern rite (Eastern Orthodox Catholics) allow marriage of priests, but they do not recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome. The Latin Rite is also referred to at times as the Roman Catholic Church, because I think it is the only “flavor” of Catholicism that recognizes the Pope’s authority and primacy.

So, there is no relativism on the issue in the Roman Catholic Church. Furthemore, since the other rites are not in complete union with the Pope, they are somewhat schismatic (I believe). When most people here talk about the Catholic Church, they mean specifically the Latin Rite, which is the Church we know here in America and the only one in full union with the Truth of Papal leadership and authority.

AlanFromWichita:

Homosexuals were actively encouraged to join the priesthood, but married priests are not allowed to join?:bigyikes:

I heard through a reliable source (a diocesan priest) that there had been quite a scandal of homosexual behavior in the seminary, but I had no idea homosexuals were being recruited intentionally. Ugh. The Church does stuff like this and then expects us to believe her on issues of faith and morals?:tsktsk:

Yes, unfortunately I had heard the same. I happened to be travelling to Boston for business last fall when the whole abuse scandal and homosexual union legalization was hitting its stride, and heard several stories of “people who knew someone who” wanted to become a priest with very good intentions, only to be scandalized by rampant homosexual activity in the seminaries that the leadership supposedly knew about. Call me callous and uncaring, but this actually seemed more of a black eye on the Church than a few pediphile priests that weren’t dealt with properly by the leadership. This alluded that the sexual abuse mindset was essentially being fostered and almost encouraged in seminary. Yikes. Send them all to prison–serves them right.

Now, back to charity. Please understand that I don’t know any specifics and so the pisture I just painted may not be true in fact, so please don’t re-present it as such. I pray it is not true, but I am not confident that is the case.

And Alan, I agree with you that it is difficult to trust that people such as that will fully relay to us the Truth of the Gospel on faith and moral living. I have to keep remembering that Jesus told His apostles they needed to listen to and obey the same Jewish leaders He knew were going to crucify Him.

Back to the topic, I firmly believe that no one can judge you or treat you harshly for questioning, for it is in our actions that we are defined and ultimately judged by God alone. Just protect yourself when questioning by listening to the Church’s side as well, for if you only seek answers outside of the Church, you may never hear the Truthful answer.

Peace,
javelin

 

[AlanFromWichita]

javelin:

Now, back to charity. Please understand that I don’t know any specifics and so the pisture I just painted may not be true in fact, so please don’t re-present it as such. I pray it is not true, but I am not confident that is the case.

Dear javelin,

Thank you for the reply. I will note that you are not claiming this is true, but hearsay. Unfortunately I have heard about the gay seminary problems from more than one source already, the most reliable of which was a diocesan priest who knew of it. I also have very reliable information (from a friend of the woman involved) that another priest in our diocese, one who gives very good sermons I might add, has had sexual relations with one of his congregation. Of course, we all know too well about the most public scandals, and one of our diocese has made headlines regularly because he was just up for parole, and my ex-pastor (retired) whom I see every week knows him personally so I have extremely reliable information on him – BTW not all that was in the papers were true, but enough of it. I never actually sought out any of this information. What I find most troubling is not that priests are human beings, but the role that bishops played in the whole thing.

And Alan, I agree with you that it is difficult to trust that people such as that will fully relay to us the Truth of the Gospel on faith and moral living. I have to keep remembering that Jesus told His apostles they needed to listen to and obey the same Jewish leaders He knew were going to crucify Him.

True, but He must not have meant unconditional obedience to the letter of the law, or he would not have healed on the sabbath, nor would his apostles have defied the chief priest, even to the point of enduring flogging and rejoicing for it, in Acts 5 where they uttered the famous line, “we must obey God rather than man.” To me, they are setting a precedent for Spirit-filled believers to form their own consciences and weigh the Church’s commands against them. If I simply did exactly as I was told by the Church authorities, I would not have been worthy to receive that flogging. Plus, we all like to believe we would be the one who would not have nailed Jesus to the cross, but those who did were simply obeying orders, were they not? I’d like to be the one who questions or even defies authorities but sticks up for Jesus and is told, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

Back to the topic, I firmly believe that no one can judge you or treat you harshly for questioning, for it is in our actions that we are defined and ultimately judged by God alone. Just protect yourself when questioning by listening to the Church’s side as well, for if you only seek answers outside of the Church, you may never hear the Truthful answer.

I agree. I try not to judge at all, and I try very hard to listen to all sides of a disagreement. Often I have no preferred side myself, but take whatever side I think is not getting a fair hearing. That’s one reason I stand up for those who try to question things but are soundly whipped by hordes of faithful but well-meaning Catholics. I have total respect for someone who says, “I believe this, but I don’t understand it,” or, “I see your very good point and frankly I can’t reconcile it either but I still believe it because deep down I know there is a good reason.” I have a great fear for people who say, “I believe this, it is absolute God-given truth, I can’t explain it to you to save my life or yours, but you are a non-Catholic if you don’t believe it and heed it and you should repent” because these are the types of people who would burn my brothers and sisters at the stake.

Alan

 

[fix]

“we must obey God rather than man.”

Obeying the Church is obeying God.

but take whatever side I think is not getting a fair hearing.

Sorry Alan, but that is moral relativism.

It always comes down to an issue of authority and pride on our parts. Either we trust Christ and obey Him through His Church, or we each make ourselves a god.

 

[javelin]

fix:

Sorry Alan, but that is moral relativism.

I know Alan can stick up for himself, but…

Fix, Alan was clearly referring to taking a side on discussions, not that he gives his consent of faith or will to the side least represented. How you would even come to interpreting what he said that awful way is beyond me.

---

I see what you mean, Alan!

Peace,
javelin