- Status
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
At some point, there will have to be public excommunication of these so call “Catholic” politicians. It will be the only way the message will get through to them.
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
Archbishop Hickey has come out in support of Pell and is now coping the same flak.
Anger over Archbishop’s stem cell threats
theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21859913-1702,00.html
Mary, Help of Christians, Patroness of Australia
Pray for us.
Anger over Archbishop’s stem cell threats
theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21859913-1702,00.html
Mary, Help of Christians, Patroness of Australia
Pray for us.
B
beckers
Guest
I thought we had it bad here in america but your politicans take the top. Ours try to get everyone to believe that they are somewhat following the church on the otherhand yours are very blunt and rude about it. May God give strength to your bishops for speaking the truth.
C
cathgal
Guest
"The Archbishop is a very important person but no matter who he is, it is inappropriate for him to threaten politicians with consequences. "
Better the Bishop threatens them than God judging them after their last breathe !
Better the Bishop threatens them than God judging them after their last breathe !
B
beckers
Guest
Very true…
M
M_Hains
Guest
Sadly yes. I can see some of these individuals manoeuvering next year to get the best seats next to the Pope - during world youth day celebrations.
P
peterhude
Guest
George Pell is a vocal opponent of the ‘primacy of conscience’ teachings of the Church, which I think is quite disappointing.
It is stated quite clearly in the Catechism that “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters”. This is an active, living teaching of the Church.
I think that this applies very well to this situation. While Archbishop Pell is very much entitled to put his case forward, and I would encourage him to do so, it is not his place to threaten Catholics with excommunication if they don’t agree with him!
It is stated quite clearly in the Catechism that “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters”. This is an active, living teaching of the Church.
I think that this applies very well to this situation. While Archbishop Pell is very much entitled to put his case forward, and I would encourage him to do so, it is not his place to threaten Catholics with excommunication if they don’t agree with him!
S
Servulus
Guest
Every right has its parallel responsibility, every freedom its corresponding obligation. The right to act in conscience cannot be separated from the obligation to form a right conscience. The alternative is relativitism and the practice of excusing any behavior on the basis of conscience.
Cardinal Pell is not putting his case forward. He is reminding those in his care of the objective truth of things.
A public excommunication in these cases would merely be an official recognition that these individuals have separated themselves from the Church.
P
Pondero
Guest
Well said, Servulus.
We are witnessing the disintegration of society in the Western World. The barbarians are now elected to Parliament and I fear the next step is a more open persecution of Catholic bishops and priests who speak out against cloning, or human embryonic research, and like matters.
We are witnessing the disintegration of society in the Western World. The barbarians are now elected to Parliament and I fear the next step is a more open persecution of Catholic bishops and priests who speak out against cloning, or human embryonic research, and like matters.
M
M_Hains
Guest
Can I suggest you read what the Cardinal said before you attack him. The Cardinal made it clear he was NOT talking about excommunication. I even gave the link to his press release.
Looking forward to you posting an apology to the Cardinal.
M
M-Dent
Guest
Actually i has been quite clear the good Cardinal is in favor of the “primacy of conscience” teaching. Thus why he, as well as some others have defended the correct teaching.
J
Jedinovice
Guest
The concept of Primacy of conscience is very misunderstood, interpreted as it is in the Western climate of moral relativism where there is concept of absolute truth, no real concept of right or wrong (except that which is inconsistently yelled about by intolerant liberals who can’t see the intellectual dichotomy.)
So, we need to explain!
Primacy of conscience is the moral right for the individual to take action based on what they perceive as the absolute good – knowing that they will face judgement for it. This belief enables an individual to refuse to carry out the gassing of Jews in WW2 even though orders from the Furher demand it from a soldier.
However, the Church also states that a conscience must be well informed and the individual whose conscience conflicts with the Church is objectively in error because the Church claims to be speaking the will of God on judgements of moral matters – certainly the most important. Therefore, someone whose conscience is opposed to the teaching of the Church has a mis-informed conscience and the individual, as a Catholic is REQUIRED to research, received teaching from the Church who should GENTLY explain our position (I accept that component is very lacking in the Church today.) The individual should, through correct understand, re-align their conscience peacefully with the teaching of the Church. Primacy of conscience does not mean “Believe what you like – it’s good man.” It means the individual who is mis-informed, does not have good knowledge and operates with their conscience in the absence of anything has the right and duty to act on what they know. When they know they must adjust to the objective morality taught by the Church. Scripture is quite clear on this point.
J
Jedinovice
Guest
Also, an individual who defies Church teaching is, by definition, no longer Catholic especially if they reject the most fundamental, most important moral precepts of the Church. I mean, the Catholic Church – indeed all Christians, hold that abortion is MURDER! You don’t get much more serious than that! So, for a politican to claim to be Catholic and PUBLICALLY repudiate Church teaching on one of the single most important moral matters held by Christians everywhere (The only ‘Christians’ who you will find who support abortion also – by logical necessity – effectively deny the basic tenets of Christianity full stop; including the creeds) is not excercising primacy of conscience – they are denying Catholic teaching at a fundamental level! As such, they are bound to at least shut up and withdraw from public office until they have aligned their conscience (primacy of conscience allows the individual time to ‘work it through’ but not to shout against the Church and assume greater authority than the Pope) and not lose the sacraments in the meantime, or to carry on but accept that they are ipso facto not Catholics! I mean, if you deny Church teaching, if you deny the authority of the Bishops to define doctrine or inform conscience at the level of mass murder – you are not theologically Catholic! So closing the sacraments shouldn’t matter anyway. I mean, I’m not a Baptist and I don’t lose sleep over not receiving full immersion, adult baptism – even though I see as a better symbol. I don’t demand the ‘Workers Union’ give me support in legal costs when secularists sue me for ‘homophobic discrimination’ (which is a form of persecution taking off in the West now) because I don’t subscribe to their ideology.
You can’t have your cake and eat it. Primacy of conscience is the point of God understanding where an individual is ‘at in terms of knowledge. It is the safeguard against ‘just following orders.’ It does not give a ‘get out of jail free card’ for those who wish all the perks of being Catholic and accepting none of the responsibilities. If a ‘Catholic’ Politician wants to defend abortion then they have every right to do so but not while claiming to be ‘A Catholic in good standing.’ The bishops are starting to stand up and make that point. I predict they will soon be arrested for such. It already looks like Pell is going to have sanctions put against for carrying out his job – informing people’s consciences and defending Church teaching.
Anyway, I’m not having a go at you and I’m not attacking you – honest (text always sounds more assertive than speech.) I am just explaining because people are really, really ignorant of the way religion, conscience and authority work these days. So we have to try and reduce the ignorance.
Politicians can be Catholic and receive the sacraments or Pro-abortion and not be Catholic. But they can’t be both. If you go down that path you can rip up all moral codes, all moral authority, all standards of behaviour and it eventually boils down to the individual asserts his ‘primacy of conscience’ authority by sheer might over everyone else. Might becomes right.
You can’t have your cake and eat it. Primacy of conscience is the point of God understanding where an individual is ‘at in terms of knowledge. It is the safeguard against ‘just following orders.’ It does not give a ‘get out of jail free card’ for those who wish all the perks of being Catholic and accepting none of the responsibilities. If a ‘Catholic’ Politician wants to defend abortion then they have every right to do so but not while claiming to be ‘A Catholic in good standing.’ The bishops are starting to stand up and make that point. I predict they will soon be arrested for such. It already looks like Pell is going to have sanctions put against for carrying out his job – informing people’s consciences and defending Church teaching.
Anyway, I’m not having a go at you and I’m not attacking you – honest (text always sounds more assertive than speech.) I am just explaining because people are really, really ignorant of the way religion, conscience and authority work these days. So we have to try and reduce the ignorance.
Politicians can be Catholic and receive the sacraments or Pro-abortion and not be Catholic. But they can’t be both. If you go down that path you can rip up all moral codes, all moral authority, all standards of behaviour and it eventually boils down to the individual asserts his ‘primacy of conscience’ authority by sheer might over everyone else. Might becomes right.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
If so, sounds like they are as arrogant as our politicians. God bless those wonderful bishops who keep the Word.
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
It was bad witness and teaching on the ‘primacy of conscience’ from my godmother that led me, without realising that what I was doing was both wrong and in the category of ‘serious’ or ‘grave’, into doing something against Church teaching, insisting that I had the right to decide for myself. She forgot, I suppose, that although I was taught right from wrong, I was not raised in any religion and had influences from several. I am a convert. I did not have the benefit of years of catechism as a child to be taught what I needed to know to have a properly formed conscience. My short seven months of RCIA just could not cover it all.
My godmother, a cradle Catholic from pre-VII, should have known better but she, like these politicians, believed that each of us had the right to decide for ourselves, and if we come to a conclusion that is in opposition to Church teaching, then we are still right and the Church is wrong. We should go ahead with our decision with a clear conscience.
It was a mortal sin, and I just did not realise it. I relied on my godmother, whose counsel I had sought, and who implied that if the priest told me differently, that I could ignore him. I was horrified when the truth dawned on me. (largely through this CA forum, I might add, thank all of you very much) I might have had an ‘invincible ignorance’ defense but what about when we willfully put blinders on to keep from seeing/learning, which you could say I was doing. I think that is more ‘willful ignorance’ than ‘invincible ignorance’ and no defense.
These prominent politicians, who use their Catholicism to garner votes and then, publicly deny Church teaching on a grave matter, are giving bad witness to the rest of the faithful. If they want to publicly declaim that they can vote to legalise the creation and murder of innocent victims for medical research and still be a ‘Catholic in good standing’, then they must grit their teeth and bear it when the Church says, “No, you can’t and if you do that, you have separated yourself from the Church, you are in grave sin and you should not present yourself for the Sacraments until you have Reconciled.”
If the Church allows them to say they are good Catholics while they continue to publicly rebel in a grave matter, then many other of the faithful could be led into the same pit. She is obligated to give true leadership to the faithful and to call to task public sinners who count themselves members of the Church.
When will they understand?
It’s not about the politics. It is about our immortal souls.
We had a priest here who was fond of saying,
“We are immortal creatures on a mortal journey.”
Couple that with Fr. Corapi.
“In the end, one thing is certain. You and I will spend Eternity, in Heaven, or in Hell.”
My godmother, a cradle Catholic from pre-VII, should have known better but she, like these politicians, believed that each of us had the right to decide for ourselves, and if we come to a conclusion that is in opposition to Church teaching, then we are still right and the Church is wrong. We should go ahead with our decision with a clear conscience.
It was a mortal sin, and I just did not realise it. I relied on my godmother, whose counsel I had sought, and who implied that if the priest told me differently, that I could ignore him. I was horrified when the truth dawned on me. (largely through this CA forum, I might add, thank all of you very much) I might have had an ‘invincible ignorance’ defense but what about when we willfully put blinders on to keep from seeing/learning, which you could say I was doing. I think that is more ‘willful ignorance’ than ‘invincible ignorance’ and no defense.
These prominent politicians, who use their Catholicism to garner votes and then, publicly deny Church teaching on a grave matter, are giving bad witness to the rest of the faithful. If they want to publicly declaim that they can vote to legalise the creation and murder of innocent victims for medical research and still be a ‘Catholic in good standing’, then they must grit their teeth and bear it when the Church says, “No, you can’t and if you do that, you have separated yourself from the Church, you are in grave sin and you should not present yourself for the Sacraments until you have Reconciled.”
If the Church allows them to say they are good Catholics while they continue to publicly rebel in a grave matter, then many other of the faithful could be led into the same pit. She is obligated to give true leadership to the faithful and to call to task public sinners who count themselves members of the Church.
When will they understand?
It’s not about the politics. It is about our immortal souls.
We had a priest here who was fond of saying,
“We are immortal creatures on a mortal journey.”
Couple that with Fr. Corapi.
“In the end, one thing is certain. You and I will spend Eternity, in Heaven, or in Hell.”
E
estesbob
Guest
It appears you do not understand what the "primacy of conscience " teachings of the Church are. What you posted above is not a disageement with them-it affirms them.
The key is that we must follow a “well formed” conscience". Given the explicit teachings of the Church on cloning it would not be possble for a Catholic Politican to vote for cloning and remain faithful to his Church.
S
stbruno
Guest
I totally agree with the definition of primacy of conscience but when you try to explain that to other people…they say…I have a right to make up my own definition of conscience. More reasons to pray. I voted in the poll of the Sydney Herald…and right now the church leaders have a right to make a decision public is ahead. I hope that sends a clear message to the poll maker, since I think they wanted it to go a different way. And if the politicians are taking notice…and they follow the polls, maybe this will be a way for them to face the music of their clearly immoral choices.
- Status