Vatican to debate teachings on divorce, birth control, gay unions

[Tomdstone]

Luckily I work at a Catholic school that does not focus on tell people they are going to hell everyday, but rather how Christ can work in their lives and how they can go out an serve Him, not by quoting every teaching of the Church, but rather through community service, treating people like they are a child of God, and building their own personal relationship with God on a daily basis.

Do you or your Catholic school teach or believe in a hell, or eternal damnation of hellfire for someone who dies in an unrepented state of mortal sin?

 

[shelby_sun]

Do you or your Catholic school teach or believe in a hell, or eternal damnation of hellfire for someone who dies in an unrepented state of mortal sin?

As I stated before our school teaches what the Church teaches, but it does not focus on hell and damnation. The kids are not taught not to sin in order to gain salvation, but rather to not sin because of their true love for God and for His giving us His son so we have the chance at forgiveness. It is about giving to and serving God, not getting into heaven. If they do that they will get into heaven.

 

[shelby_sun]

What is your opinion on the choice of Jesus to have the 12 apostles to be all male?

My opinion is that at that time if he had chosen a woman apostles no one would have listen to a word He said. What about Mary being such an important part of the Church.

 

[RosslynV]

These issues are non-debatable.

 

[McCall1981]

My opinion is that at that time if he had chosen a woman apostles no one would have listen to a word He said. What about Mary being such an important part of the Church.

Not to get too off-topic, but for the Apostles, Jesus had no problem choosing a tax-collector (ie traitor), poor illiterate fisherman, the man who would betray Him to the Romans, and a man who would deny Him in His hour of need.

He spent His time associating with the poor, the sick, prostitutes, lepers, Samaritans, Roman soldiers, Gentiles and all of those who were most stimatized by that society. He openly broke the Law right in front of the Pharises. He allowed Himself to be killed in the most stigmatizing, humiliating way they had. He openly broke and critisized pretty much every social convention in that society by denouncing the civil and religious authorities.

But when it came time to choose a female Apostle He suddenly said, “even though I want to pick a female, I won’t because people would think poorly of Me.” ???

I’ve never understood this argument because Jesus basically made a career out of flauting social conventions, but we’re suppossed to believe that in this one case He suddenly backed down. No, since Jesus had no problem breaking all these other social conventions, I don’t think He would have a problem breaking this one. I think He picked exactly who He wanted to pick, just like He did all the other times.

 

[McCall1981]

My opinion is that at that time if he had chosen a woman apostles no one would have listen to a word He said. What about Mary being such an important part of the Church.

Besides, as you point out, He had no problem making Mary the central (human) figure of His Church, or giving an important role in the Gospels to Mary Magdalene, or being seen first after the Resurrection by women, treating women as equals, etc, etc, so He had no problem emphasizing women when He chose to.

 

[shelby_sun]

Besides, as you point out, He had no problem making Mary the central (human) figure of His Church, or giving an important role in the Gospels to Mary Magdalene, or being seen first after the Resurrection by women, treating women as equals, etc, etc, so He had no problem emphasizing women when He chose to.

Did Mary write a gospel? Who knew Jesus better than any other human being? Is she known to have any say on the teachings of the Church? Has any woman?

This is just another issue people are finding hard to handle with the Church. Again I am not a feminist in the least and am not pushing for women priest, but I do find it hard that all the Church’s teaching comes from single em with not children, most of whom have never been in a relationship.

 

[FollowChrist34]

You sound very frustrated due to feelings of being judged. What do you love about Christ and His Church? Is it her teachings in these areas, or the way they are presented, that turn you off? See, I love the Church partly because of these teachings. They were presented in a way to me that made sense when my generation has little with which to make sense. We are told we have worth, yes, but then we’re told we’re the result of accident, and that there is no plan but what we make. The teachings in this area helped me more fully appreciate the inestimable dignity of man, God’s Eternal Word, and His mercy. I am an artistic person, so I really sympathize with the natural law. I look and see that God has intentions and purpose for His creation, beyond what we may realize at the time. I want to be caught up in that, in something bigger than me. Definitely challenging to live, but my interior conversion to the Lord was, is, and will be challenging, too. I think these teachings are witnesses to God’s loving plan for us. And, like a loving Father, He is merciful. While I don’t want to end on this note, I have to say that I don’t understand the concept of mercy unless there is something to be forgiven.

I don’t understand mercy before repentance but that’s a whole other can of worms. (Of course I have mercy toward the suffering, defenseless, or the weak.) I stumble a little when I am asked to show mercy to people who are in my view attacking the wrongness of what I believe as taught by my Church. I am not Jesus being scourged forgiving his aggressors. Not there yet.

I do have to say I think there is a lot of anger and hostility being directed at the Church and its teaching (whatever happened to turning the other cheek). I’ve been there. We’ve all resisted one teaching or another. It’s human nature. To this day, there are things I disagree with or don’t follow to the letter. But I approach with it deference and even shame and embarrassment. I would never never never personally or in a group actually approach the Church and ask her to accept my interpretation of something over hers (even in situations where I believe I may actually be right).

I look up to my fellow Catholics who accept and participate more fully than I. I don’t ridicule or antagonize them. I keep my peace and just focus on being the best Catholic I am capable of being at this point in my spiritual life. (I have grown much more orthodox over time.) Just let it go at that. I am thankful for what the Church gives me. I cannot understand the much more aggressive approach to this issue I see in others and I actually think it’s my duty as a Catholic to defend the Church right where she stands now.

 

[migueltojose]

I don’t understand mercy before repentance but that’s a whole other can of worms. (Of course I have mercy toward the suffering, defenseless, or the weak.) I stumble a little when I am asked to show mercy to people who are in my view attacking the wrongness of what I believe as taught by my Church. I am not Jesus being scourged forgiving his aggressors. Not there yet.

I do have to say I think there is a lot of anger and hostility being directed at the Church and its teaching (whatever happened to turning the other cheek). I’ve been there. We’ve all resisted one teaching or another. It’s human nature. To this day, there are things I disagree with or don’t follow to the letter. But I approach with it deference and even shame and embarrassment. I would never never never personally or in a group actually approach the Church and ask her to accept my interpretation of something over hers (even in situations where I believe I may actually be right).

I look up to my fellow Catholics who accept and participate more fully than I. I don’t ridicule or antagonize them. I keep my peace and just focus on being the best Catholic I am capable of being at this point in my spiritual life. (I have grown much more orthodox over time.) Just let it go at that. I am thankful for what the Church gives me. I cannot understand the much more aggressive approach to this issue I see in others and I actually think it’s my duty as a Catholic to defend the Church right where she stands now.

It’s a journey. We are very fortunate to have one. At some point the journey ends. Then we will only be in the eternal present. Time is an exception. We are naïve. Fortunately God is merciful. But only through the blood soaked shield of Christ. Without Christ the mere thought of God could sear our sorry souls. We tend to undervalue Christ and underestimate the wrath of God… I think…

We overvalue our temporal lives and selfishly sacrifice our spouses and children for divorce. We overvalue our temporal lives and are not open to life (contraception). We overvalue our temporal lives to the extent we’ll willingly throw away life (abortion). Our priorities are obviously out of order… It’s a matter of a way of thinking about life… the pithiness of being…

We are creatures endowed with immortal souls by the Grace of God. Regardless, on that day of reckoning we will all be made painfully aware and stunned by our own blindness and ignorant wickedness. According to St. Faustina Jesus is tormented by the threat of lost souls.

But, to know is to become responsible. If you know, you are responsible for your soul and the souls of others.

 

[YoungTradCath]

This is just another issue people are finding hard to handle with the Church. Again I am not a feminist in the least and am not pushing for women priest, but I do find it hard that all the Church’s teaching comes from single em with not children, most of whom have never been in a relationship.

Well that’s just the thing. Does what you are saying make the Church’s teachings untrue?

Do bishops just make up the teachings or are they really, truly and authentically handed down from God via the Apostles (bishops)?

As far as teaching is concerned, why does it matter if a bishop is celibate or married? Well bishops can never be married anyway–it isn’t part of the tradition in either the East or the West–only priests and deacons can be, but that is beside the point.

But anyway, all of what you are saying seems to suggest that, had only priests been allowed to marry for the whole period of Western Catholic history rather than just the first half of it, somehow the Church’s teachings would be different today. But I don’t believe that. Do you? To believe that the historical circumstances of the Church determine not just the way the Church’s doctrines are communicated but to the very validity of those doctrines is, I would say, verging on heresy.

No, no matter who the bishops are, no matter if priests get to have wives, sex and kids or not, the teachings of the Church remain pure.

It is true that historical circumstances–and I think we can consider priestly celibacy in part an historical circumstance–do contribute to how the Church expresses certain teachings, but the teachings themselves remain independent of this. You can explain teachings in any number of legitimate ways, but the Truth of the teachings themselves do not depend upon this.

So even if we had married priests this whole past millennium, the Church would still teach that women priests are impossible, contraception (the forms of which are dependent on historical circumstance) is gravely wrong, abortion is murder, etc., etc. etc. lol.

---

I understand that many people are finding these things “hard to handle with the Church,” but that does not mean the Church is wrong, or that the Church will or even CAN change these things, nor does people’s wanting it admit the possibility that, “If only we had married priests this whole time then the Church would tell us contraception is okay and we can abort our babies 'cuz consequence-free sex is the epitome of human existence and the Church only exists to validate my thoughts, wants, and disordered desires!!!” Note that I am quoting that for rhetorical effect and I am not assigning that statement to you.

Anyway, I do agree that we have a problem, but the problem is not the teachings themselves. And historical circumstances like celibacy–celibacy is not JUST an historical circumstance but it is in part–do not determine what the Church will and will not teach about faith and morals. No, God determines that. Rather, He has already determined it.

 

[nana_again]

I have to ask what brought you to this precipice? After all of this time, what has the Church done now to make you so discouraged?

This has been coming for quite some time. My daughter was in graduate school and wanted to get married (several years ago). She did not have time for classes, retreats and other requirements to marry in the church…not to mention the $$$. She married on the beach because they refused to marry her in the church. Ridiculous!! No study has ever been done that shows all the pre-marriage classes required help in any way to keep the marriage together. Constant collections on Sunday for extra things. The most annoying to me is the one for Catholic education tuition assistance! All of mine went to public schools and got a great education and their religion was taught at home. Albeit I would not be a good teacher of the faith now. State colleges are also fine!!! The church should put more emphasis on helping those truly in need. The list goes on and on but this is not the appropriate thread for it. I’ll refrain from any further comments on this thread.

 

[shelby_sun]

Well that’s just the thing. Does what you are saying make the Church’s teachings untrue?

Do bishops just make up the teachings or are they really, truly and authentically handed down from God via the Apostles (bishops)?

As far as teaching is concerned, why does it matter if a bishop is celibate or married? Well bishops can never be married anyway–it isn’t part of the tradition in either the East or the West–only priests and deacons can be, but that is beside the point.

But anyway, all of what you are saying seems to suggest that, had only priests been allowed to marry for the whole period of Western Catholic history rather than just the first half of it, somehow the Church’s teachings would be different today. But I don’t believe that. Do you? To believe that the historical circumstances of the Church determine not just the way the Church’s doctrines are communicated but to the very validity of those doctrines is, I would say, verging on heresy.

No, no matter who the bishops are, no matter if priests get to have wives, sex and kids or not, the teachings of the Church remain pure.

It is true that historical circumstances–and I think we can consider priestly celibacy in part an historical circumstance–do contribute to how the Church expresses certain teachings, but the teachings themselves remain independent of this. You can explain teachings in any number of legitimate ways, but the Truth of the teachings themselves do not depend upon this.

So even if we had married priests this whole past millennium, the Church would still teach that women priests are impossible, contraception (the forms of which are dependent on historical circumstance) is gravely wrong, abortion is murder, etc., etc. etc. lol.

---

I understand that many people are finding these things “hard to handle with the Church,” but that does not mean the Church is wrong, or that the Church will or even CAN change these things, nor does people’s wanting it admit the possibility that, “If only we had married priests this whole time then the Church would tell us contraception is okay and we can abort our babies 'cuz consequence-free sex is the epitome of human existence and the Church only exists to validate my thoughts, wants, and disordered desires!!!” Note that I am quoting that for rhetorical effect and I am not assigning that statement to you.

Anyway, I do agree that we have a problem, but the problem is not the teachings themselves. And historical circumstances like celibacy–celibacy is not JUST an historical circumstance but it is in part–do not determine what the Church will and will not teach about faith and morals. No, God determines that. Rather, He has already determined it.

I always find it interesting that many on this forum speak as if they are talking about hard core proven facts instead of their faith. I have NEVER said the Church’s teachings are wrong or that they should have been different or should be different or that I know or am right about anything, like so many others do.

I was not raised to worship the Church like many seem to do here. I was raised to worship God, Jesus Christ, and The Holy Spirit as the Trinity, and the Church was a means and guide to worship. I was never taught that others were gong to hell over these differences, because they believe in the same God as we do, Protestants, Jews. In fact many on this site sound very much like the Southern Baptist toward Catholics when I was growing up.

I was raised with faith, not facts. Again many seem to appear that they are less of a sinner than others that they can then go on and judge those others. To me it will be those who will be surprised with God’s response. It is hard for me to even believe that there are so many people who feel as worthy as they do of being forgiven. None of us deserve that, it is the ultimate gift from God given through His son Jesus Christ.

 

[TCEL]

I am not frustrated by being judged at all, I fully expect that on this site because of my beliefs which I have always said I do not claim to be right. My story is much to long to get into here, but simply put I was an “accident baby” that came while my parents were on NFP. From the day my parents told my siblings she was pregnant again, my brothers have wanted nothing to do with me, and one sister resented me until the day she died. My parents youngest child at the time was 10 years old and she never wanted another child. She had a nervous breakdown, drinking 24/7, that last until I was almost seven and it destroyed my family causing huge issues for everyone throughout there life.

There are simply people that mentally, emotionally, spiritually that should not be open to having more children and NFP is not always the best way for them to handle that it is that simple. I respect that these things are what you love about the church and completely understand why you feel that way, but God above anyone else knows the true trials and pain in peoples’ live and I believe He is much more forgiving than many on this site.

I also have an issue with in all the 2000 years of Church teaching it has been unmarried men with no children deciding some of these things. Does God only inspire men on these major issues in our lives even though they effect women just as much? I am not a feminist, but over the years, especially when so many priests have been so sinful, I just cannot believe the Church has been right about everything it has ever stated. Yes they were inspired by God but that does mean were correct in how the interpreted his plan.

Thank you for sharing in honesty. I appreciate hearing it. I just have to say though, that I think it’s good you’re here! That’s an answer from an outsider to your situation, which sounds difficult. I think this really is where the rubber hits the road, and why these issues will be discussed. I really do believe God didn’t leave his people fatherless, and that the Holy Spirit guides his Church. That is my small statement of faith.

 

[nana_again]

nana again, II see that you are upset and you’ve unfortunately found a rather tense thread to begin looking on. I’d like to encourage you in your faith and applaud you and your husband for 34 years of marriage, and note that you are NOT in grave sin as far as your post. Thank you for being so open, please take comfort that what you wrote:

This is not entirely correct. If you are divorced and remarried without annulment, you are not removed from the Church. If you remarry, you may not receive the Eucharist until your first marriage is annulled, but you are not removed from the Church or forbidden to celebrate Mass.

You should not have to “pay” for an annulment if you did nothing to contribute to the cause of a divorce and you SHOULD be allowed to receive the Eucharist without one!

You state objections to the Church’s teaching on birth control and gay marriage. Are these sufficient to compel you to leave the Church, even knowing that you are not in grave sin for having had to suffer a hysterectomy?

These are sufficient when they are combined with lots of other reasons that I have not mentioned in my post. And I was told that sex is only for procreation purposes. Depends on who you listen to and that in and of itself is a problem…the lack of consistency in the church leaders. This is not the correct thread for my comments so I’ll not reply with all those reasons. In the meantime, I’ll continue to pray and trust that God will lead me in the right direction.

 

[Thorns]

but I do find it hard that all the Church’s teaching comes from single em with not children, most of whom have never been in a relationship.

You mean, like Jesus?

 

[nana_again]

losh14:

I inadvertently included part of my answer in your original post. Sorry about that. I’m new to the forum and I don’t know how to edit it. This was part of my reply:

“You should not have to “pay” for an annulment if you did nothing to contribute to the cause of a divorce and you SHOULD be allowed to receive the Eucharist without one!”

Again, I apologize for making it appear it was part of your comment.

 

[shelby_sun]

You mean, like Jesus?

I believe the Commandments were sent by God, as was Jesus, through Mary.

 

[shelby_sun]

Thank you for sharing in honesty. I appreciate hearing it. I just have to say though, that I think it’s good you’re here! That’s an answer from an outsider to your situation, which sounds difficult. I think this really is where the rubber hits the road, and why these issues will be discussed. I really do believe God didn’t leave his people fatherless, and that the Holy Spirit guides his Church. That is my small statement of faith.

Thank you. I have spoken to a number of priests who know I fully understand the teachings of the Church and that I do not agree with a few of them. Not one has told me to leave the Church. They also know I do not take the Eucharist except possibly at Christmas or Easter Sunday if I truly feel God calling me, possibly to help me see things differently.

 

[TCEL]

Thank you. I have spoken to a number of priests who know I fully understand the teachings of the Church and that I do not agree with a few of them. Not one has told me to leave the Church. They also know I do not take the Eucharist except possibly at Christmas or Easter Sunday if I truly feel God calling me, possibly to help me see things differently.

I ask you to pray for me, and I will pray for you!

 

[Thorns]

I believe the Commandments were sent by God, as was Jesus, through Mary.

And the Church promotes those Commandments and embraces them, hence why they speak out against divorce and remarriage; it is adultery. Christ said so Himself.

It is also useless to pit the Church against God. Jesus said those who hear the Church, hear Him. Jesus is the one who instituted and guides the Church, even still today. So if you have a problem with the Church, you basically have a problem with Jesus.