What is wrong with Unitarian Universalism?

[PRmerger]

I tried to go back and edit that, but the time limit had been passed.

Well, then, good. I would hate to see your congregation reject anyone for who they are.

But the truth is, Catholic’s reject people all the time. Bishops and pastors regularly deny the Eucharist to politicians and gay people.

I think you are misinformed about what denying the Eucharist means. It is not a rejection of the person at all.

Baptism is denied to children because of their parent’s perceived sins.

I think you are also misinformed about why a child may be denied baptism. Parents need not be sinless in order to have their child baptized. They need only be truthful about the fact that they plan to live their lives as a Catholic family.

As a matter of everyday life, Eucharist is denied to people who have divorced and remarried.

Yet this is not a rejection of them. They are welcome to come, and actually, they may receive the Eucharist if they are not living an adulterous life.

One must assent to a Creed to be Catholic, or else, while you may be welcome in building, you are excluded from the sacraments.

But of course. Just like an unmarried couple is welcome to date, but they are excluded from the right to the marital embrace until they are, well, married.

So you’ll excuse me if I take your protestations of “tolerance” with a few grains of salt.

Just a few.

Huh? Tolerance? Who mentioned tolerance in our discussion?

I was talking about welcoming all into the embrace of Christ.

 

[CMatt25]

Please don’t read too much into my examples. They were examples only. And made to give a bigger picture.

If a congregation decides “A is true” does that make it true?

So, for example, if a congregation decides that homosexual unions are sacred, does that make it true?

What if a congregation decides that women cannot be physicians, does that make it true?

See how absurd it is that truth is discerned by majority vote?

Sorry PR. I think you reminded me of that once before. I only was reading what was writtten. But I’ll try to do better with that and not take your examples as literally.

 

[CMatt25]

Parents need not be sinless in order to have their child baptized. They need only be truthful about the fact that they plan to live their lives as a Catholic family.

Yes in the territorial parish for Catholics where I live, they don’t need to be sinless but they not only need to be registered for 6 mos, they also must use the envelope system.

 

[cheese_sdc]

I think you are misinformed about what denying the Eucharist means. It is not a rejection of the person at all.

I think 4 years of seminary, 4 years in the Charismatic Renewal, and 10 years of volunteer work at my parish left me more informed than misinformed about Catholicism.

I think you are also misinformed about why a child may be denied baptism. Parents need not be sinless in order to have their child baptized. They need only be truthful about the fact that they plan to live their lives as a Catholic family.

It happened to an aquaintence of mine who tried to get his child baptized at my old parish. The DRE looked him straight into his eye and said “Since y’all don’t go to Mass regularly, we will not baptize your children”. True story. My boss at the time had to pull strings with the Pastor in order for the baptism to happen.

Yet this is not a rejection of them. They are welcome to come, and actually, they may receive the Eucharist if they are not living an adulterous life.

Sure, they are welcome as second class citizens.

Huh? Tolerance? Who mentioned tolerance in our discussion?

I was talking about welcoming all into the embrace of Christ.

You stated earlier “Except we wouldn’t say that “we reject those that would not uphold our principles”. We Catholics are taught to love them, not reject them, but bring them to the Truth.”

That is a backhanded tolerance. "We will tolerate your presence only because you will eventually see that we are right and you are wrong.

Aaaannnnndddd, my irritation with Catholicism is starting to show. I’ll bow out now. Enjoy the rest of the thread.

 

[CMatt25]

I think you are also misinformed about why a child may be denied baptism. Parents need not be sinless in order to have their child baptized. They need only be truthful about the fact that they plan to live their lives as a Catholic family.

Yet this is not a rejection of them. They are welcome to come, and actually, they may receive the Eucharist if they are not living an adulterous life.

Yes in the territorial parish for Catholics where I live, they don’t need to be sinless but they not only need to be registered for 6 mos, they also must use the envelope system. LIke Cheese had an aquaintance, I know of someone who was registered and regularly attended Mass there, but was told he couldn’t have his adopted baby baptized because he was not using envelopes. Fortunately he found a priest 7 mi down the road, whose church this parent had never set foot in before, who baptized the child.

If they have your " " around their membership, they need to be doing a lot more than not living an adulterous life, PR.

 

[PRmerger]

I think 4 years of seminary, 4 years in the Charismatic Renewal, and 10 years of volunteer work at my parish left me more informed than misinformed about Catholicism.

I have no doubt that you are more informed about Catholicism than the average Joe-Lump-in-the-pew “Catholic”, however, you are certainly misinformed about why we do not allow non-Catholics or Catholics who have separated themselves from His Body to receive communion.

It’s like a man telling his wife, “You’re fat and ugly. And you’re horrible in bed, too.”

And then saying, “Come on, Honey. Let’s get it on tonight.”

It happened to an aquaintence of mine who tried to get his child baptized at my old parish. The DRE looked him straight into his eye and said “Since y’all don’t go to Mass regularly, we will not baptize your children”.

Exactly right. If they’re not going to raise their child as a Catholic, then they cannot receive the sacrament that initiates them into Catholicism.

Sure, they are welcome as second class citizens.

This makes me think you really did not listen when you were in “seminary”. Just so we’re clear: you went to a Catholic seminary in order to study for the priesthood?

You stated earlier “Except we wouldn’t say that “we reject those that would not uphold our principles”. We Catholics are taught to love them, not reject them, but bring them to the Truth.”

That is a backhanded tolerance. "We will tolerate your presence only because you will eventually see that we are right and you are wrong.

Aaaannnnndddd, my irritation with Catholicism is starting to show. I’ll bow out now. Enjoy the rest of the thread.

As you wish.

However, perhaps if you were able to receive the Eucharist and be infused with God’s grace you would be able to have patience with things that annoy you.

 

[PRmerger]

If they have your " " around their membership, they need to be doing a lot more than not living an adulterous life, PR.

I don’t have a problem with anything that occurred in your parish. Nor with the fact that they found another priest who was willing to baptize the baby.

Again, to use the marriage analogy: it’s like a husband telling his wife, “No, you cannot have access to my credit card” and then saying, “Hey, babe, want to have some fun tonight?”

Now, maybe there’s a wife who will say, “Sure, honey!” and this is like the priest who was willing to baptize the little guy. But no one would fault a wife for saying “Go to where the sun don’t shine and take your **** credit card with you!” (Not that this is part of my lexicon, but I’m kind of having fun getting into this scenario. )

 

[cheese_sdc]

I have no doubt that you are more informed about Catholicism than the average Joe-Lump-in-the-pew “Catholic”, however, you are certainly misinformed about why we do not allow non-Catholics or Catholics who have separated themselves from His Body to receive communion.

Not quite. I’m quite informed as to the why. I just don’t agree.

Exactly right. If they’re not going to raise their child as a Catholic, then they cannot receive the sacrament that initiates them into Catholicism.

I think you need to check your own Canon Law again. They fully planned to raise the children Catholic, they were just truthful about their less than regular mass attendance.

This makes me think you really did not listen when you were in “seminary”. Just so we’re clear: you went to a Catholic seminary in order to study for the priesthood?

Yes. Graduated Magna Cum Laude from a seminary run by Benedictine monks on the Gulf coast. That’s enough information to narrow the school down. Had I decided to go on, I would have attended a major seminary in another Gulf Coast city. I went to Mass daily, attended liturgy of the hours daily, spent time in front of the tabernacle daily. I went to confession monthly, if not weekly. I did all the things that a good “uber-catholic” is supposed to do.

After seminary, I was married in the Church, played guitar in the choir, and spent lots of time in the parish. I attended continuing education classes as part of my volunteer work, taught RCIA and CCD. My wife and I did not use artificial birth control, and when we had fertility issues, we used the Pius XXII institute to help concieve. We even did a novena of 9 first Friday Masses for the intention of conceiving.

Misinformed about Catholicism, I am not.

I understand your need to tear down my supposed Catholicism, though. It is scary to face someone who has lived as you do, and rejected it. It introduces just that little bit of doubt. And doubt is uncertain, and uncertainity (to some) can be scary.

I embraced the uncertainity, and do not regret it at all.

However, perhaps if you were able to receive the Eucharist and be infused with God’s grace you would be able to have patience with things that annoy you.

I’d actually love to, but cannot. It’s Catholicism’s loss.

 

[PRmerger]

Not quite. I’m quite informed as to the why. I just don’t agree.

Could you please then explain the “why”? Why does the Catholic Church not allow non-Catholics and Catholics in mortal sin to receive the Eucharist? In your own words, please.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Could you please then explain the “why”? Why does the Catholic Church not allow non-Catholics and Catholics in mortal sin to receive the Eucharist? In your own words, please.

Sigh.

The CC doesn’t allow non-Catholics to receive because the Eucharist is a sign of unity. Non-Catholics do not share Catholic belief, so they are excluded.

Catholics in mortal sin are excluded because of Paul’s admonition (to the Corinthians IIRC) that those who eat and drink unworthily eat and drink judgment upon themselves.

HOWEVER.

In one of our many, many late night bull sessions while in seminary (there’s no girls there, so there’s not much to do besides study, pray, argue, and play sports) we asked one of the priests about this. His emphatic comment was this:
*
“If a person presents themselves to you for communion, you must give it to them. It doesn’t matter if they are the Marquis de Sade, because you have no idea what is going on between them and God. If they present themselves to you, give them communion. The people know the rules, and if their conscience is telling them to receive, then let them. Also, they may have gone to confession and you just don’t know it.”*

That sounds sensible to me. However, bishops are more inclined to use communion as a political ploy to further ingratiate themselves to the frothing at the mouth conservatives in their diocese. Usually the ones with lots of money.

 

[PRmerger]

I think you need to check your own Canon Law again. They fully planned to raise the children Catholic, they were just truthful about their less than regular mass attendance.

Ah, well then, if they fully intended to raise their child in the faith then, IMHO, this child should have been baptized. However, it was a pastoral decision and one that the priest had the liberty and authority to discern.

Yes. Graduated Magna Cum Laude from a seminary run by Benedictine monks on the Gulf coast. That’s enough information to narrow the school down. Had I decided to go on, I would have attended a major seminary in another Gulf Coast city. I went to Mass daily, attended liturgy of the hours daily, spent time in front of the tabernacle daily. I went to confession monthly, if not weekly. I did all the things that a good “uber-catholic” is supposed to do.

After seminary, I was married in the Church, played guitar in the choir, and spent lots of time in the parish. I attended continuing education classes as part of my volunteer work, taught RCIA and CCD. My wife and I did not use artificial birth control, and when we had fertility issues, we used the Pius XXII institute to help concieve. We even did a novena of 9 first Friday Masses for the intention of conceiving.

Misinformed about Catholicism, I am not.

I stand corrected then! I did believe you were one of the many ex-Catholics I’ve encountered (see my Profile Page) who like to preface their ga-ga la-la nonsensical things they were allegedly taught as a Catholic with, “I was an altar boy for 5 years!” or “I was taught by Dominican nuns in full habits!” as if this gives them credibility.

I understand your need to tear down my supposed Catholicism, though. It is scary to face someone who has lived as you do, and rejected it. It introduces just that little bit of doubt. And doubt is uncertain, and uncertainity (to some) can be scary.

Now, this is quite un-UU of you to make a judgment about me here. Just like it would not be quite Christian of me to say, “Oh, I see now why you left the seminary. It’s because you could not control your sexual urges.” I would never make such an unwarranted presumption.

So, no, cheese, doubts do not scare me. I question. I *embrace *the journey of faith seeking understanding.

I embraced the uncertainity, and do not regret it at all.

Now this, I do not embrace. Uncertainty, chaos, confusion–those are instruments of the Author of Lies.

I’d actually love to, but cannot. It’s Catholicism’s loss.

Indeed, it is our loss that you have left the faith, brother.

But, as my Catholic faith teaches, you have an indelible mark on your soul and even though you continue to remain recusant (your choice) you will be continually called Home.

I have no doubts that is why you are here on the CAFs. For why else would a UU come here except he was drawn by the Holy Spirit?

 

[cheese_sdc]

Now, this is quite un-UU of you to make a judgment about me here. Just like it would not be quite Christian of me to say, “Oh, I see now why you left the seminary. It’s because you could not control your sexual urges.” I would never make such an unwarranted presumption.

Apologies. As Yoda would say, “There is much anger with this one.” Sometimes, despite my best intentions, it shows.

Now this, I do not embrace. Uncertainty, chaos, confusion–those are instruments of the Author of Lies.

Chaos and confusion, perhaps. But not uncertainty. Life is uncertain.

 

[PRmerger]

Sigh.

The CC doesn’t allow non-Catholics to receive because the Eucharist is a sign of unity. Non-Catholics do not share Catholic belief, so they are excluded.

Catholics in mortal sin are excluded because of Paul’s admonition (to the Corinthians IIRC) that those who eat and drink unworthily eat and drink judgment upon themselves.

'zactly.

So, do you think if a married someone goes out in public and proclaims, "I don’t love my wife. I don’t believe that she’s the best thing that happened to me. And, ever since the kids she’s gained a little too much in that pooch to my liking " you would blame the wife for saying, “No, sweetheart. Not tonight. Make your amends to me first and then we’ll chat.”?

If someone is going to declare that he is not in communion with his bride, then he ought not be entertaining thoughts of enjoying the One Flesh Union.

In one of our many, many late night bull sessions while in seminary (there’s no girls there, so there’s not much to do besides study, pray, argue, and play sports) we asked one of the priests about this. His emphatic comment was this:
*
“If a person presents themselves to you for communion, you must give it to them. It doesn’t matter if they are the Marquis de Sade, because you have no idea what is going on between them and God. If they present themselves to you, give them communion. The people know the rules, and if their conscience is telling them to receive, then let them. Also, they may have gone to confession and you just don’t know it.”*

That sounds sensible to me.

I have no problem with this.

However, bishops are more inclined to use communion as a political ploy to further ingratiate themselves to the frothing at the mouth conservatives in their diocese. Usually the ones with lots of money.

This is quite judgmental, again, esp. egregious coming from a UU.

You have no idea what motivates a bishop to refuse to give communion to a politician. How can you see into his heart to determine what discernment he made.

Perhaps this politician even met privately with the bishop and told him, “I am going to present myself to you in public at Mass and I tell you point-blank, ‘I don’t believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist’ so what are you going to do about that?”

You just have no idea, do you, cheese? Judging!!!

 

[cheese_sdc]

This is quite judgmental, again, esp. egregious coming from a UU.

And now we are in the game of “let’s point fingers at each other and shout ‘You’re judging!’.”

I won’t play.

UU’s aren’t nonjudgmental. If three dudes wearing gang-like clothing walk into a gas station, I judge the situation and take action based on those judgments.

If a man presents himself to me decked out with KKK tattoo’s, I make a judgment about his politics and act accordingly.

UU’s are namby pamby pushovers. We seek Truth where ever It is. We look at a religious tradition and judge each part of it as worthy or not. That search takes intellectual honestly, backbone, and strength of character. If that path is not for you, I do not judge you less of a person (the real meaning of the trite phrase “don’t judge”), nor do I hold you in any less esteem.

The path of Catholicism is no less arduous. It takes discipline, integrity, and strength of backbone to stand in the line of 4000 years of tradition against the tides of culture.

 

[PRmerger]

And now we are in the game of “let’s point fingers at each other and shout ‘You’re judging!’.”

I won’t play.

Good. I don’t like that game either. Scripture commands us to judge.

I just thought that UUs embraced that non-judging nonsense. Again, I stand corrected.

We seek Truth where ever It is. We look at a religious tradition and judge each part of it as worthy or not.

Based on what? What canon do you use? The Bible? Private revelation? Feeling?

The path of Catholicism is no less arduous. It takes discipline, integrity, and strength of backbone to stand in the line of 4000 years of tradition against the tides of culture.

Indeed!

 

[cheese_sdc]

Indeed!

We agree!

 

[PRmerger]

We agree!

<sound of angelic choirs singing>!!

 

[CMatt25]

Indeed, it is our loss that you have left the faith, brother.

But, as my Catholic faith teaches, you have an indelible mark on your soul and even though you continue to remain recusant (your choice) you will be continually called Home.

I have no doubts that is why you are here on the CAFs. For why else would a UU come here except he was drawn by the Holy Spirit?

PR, as your faith teaches, does that mark make Cheese Catholic, “Catholic”, or UU?

Or PR someone might come to the non Catholic religion forum to discuss and answer questions about UU so we all can be better informed. Though I’ve tried to explore various faiths in my lifetime since there are many faiths besides the Catholic faith, I actually welcome the opportunity here to still learn more about others too.

 

[CMatt25]

'Originally Posted by cheese_sdc
Sigh. The CC doesn’t allow non-Catholics to receive because the Eucharist is a sign of unity. Non-Catholics do not share Catholic belief, so they are excluded. Catholics in mortal sin are excluded because of Paul’s admonition (to the Corinthians IIRC) that those who eat and drink unworthily eat and drink judgment upon themselves.

zactly.

Since this was being discussed.

Prayer said at Mass for years: “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”

Changed upcoming wording: “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

old.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-people.shtml#dei

I always did find these words curious. PR, what if a UU or “Catholic” (note OMs for your pleasure) felt healed and called to receive after reciting this prayer just before Commuion?

 

[CMatt25]

Prayer said at Mass for years: “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”

Changed upcoming wording: “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

old.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-people.shtml#dei

I always did find these words curious. PR, what if a UU or “Catholic” (note OMs for your pleasure) felt healed and called to receive after reciting this prayer just before Commuion?