Why are these Fora so overwhelming Conservative

[sw85]

If I were a person seeking for religious truth I think in general I would be put off the Catholic religion by some of these fora.

OK, but is that deficiency necessarily on CAF’s part or on the part of the person doing the seeking?

Most people are put off by Catholicism for bad reasons. “It’s judgmental.” “It’s so convinced of its own truth.” “It’s intolerant.” Yadda yadda yadda. Is there any way of talking that would make Catholicism appeal to such people?

Many of them are over concerned with externals and sacramentals.

Who are you and why do you get to decide what constitutes a sufficient level of concern with liturgical fidelity and the rosary and so on? Is it not possible you are simply under-concerned with these things?

And others display an a almost uniform demand that the Church is viewed through an arch conservative lens.

Well, this just makes sense. Catholicism properly understood is flatly incompatible with liberalism. I don’t even know what a coherent liberal Catholicism would look like.

The only way to reconcile the one is to mutilate the other to the point that it’s unrecognizable. For instance, what is a liberal Catholic who prioritizes his Catholicism? Pretty much like any other Catholic, though he perhaps emphasizes the “social justice” aspect a little more strongly. On the other hand, what does he look like if he emphasizes his liberalism? Catholicism ceases to matter to him – the only way to make the combination work is to reduce his Catholicism to an arbitrary, irrational, and irrelevant value preference – incidentally, an extreme emphasis on externals and accidentals at the expense of internals and essentials. Thus, Nancy Pelosi.

This is true, to a lesser extent, of those who are modern “conservatives,” but, again, to a lesser extent. Since most people aren’t aware there are live options beyond the modern liberal/conservative divide, of course they’re going to gravitate to the end of the spectrum that is less obviously, overtly, actively malicious and hostile toward Catholicism. They’re to be commended for their faithfulness, not condemned for their refusal to integrate into a zeitgeist that despises them.

Personally, my impression of these boards is far from one that is “overwhelming conservative.” These boards seem to me to be dominated by aggressive dissent in everything and an active desire to make liberal Catholicism a real live option for people. I think the latter is failing (has failed) and the former amounts to pointlessly destructive bomb-throwing which nothing is seriously done to contain. Then again, my impression of genuine conservatism is that it died with the last of the French counterrevolutionaries and what we have today is an extremely weak form of liberalism to counter the aggressive and metastatic strain we all know and hate today.

This website is run by apologists. Apologists seem to be more of the “Peter” and “James” types. Tradition, dotting i’s and crossing t’s, vehemently holding one’s intellectual position. Others, like me, see ourselves more as “Paul” or “John” type. We want to know, where is the love? Why are our leaders hypocrites? We talk more about the Holy Spirit – not a good topic for the Peter and James type because they like traditional rules and the Holy Spirit implies there is guidance beyond what is written and what we can humanly extrapolate from it.
**
Also I notice a great deal of emphasis on sins of the flesh. I have ideas about why, but so does everyone else I suspect.**

The way these two paragraphs are worded and joined gives me the impression you think the “emphasis on sins of the flesh” comes from the people you seem to be libeling as Pharisees (including Peter, for Heaven’s sake!), as if we’re the ones constantly bringing it up.

Yet the moral theology section, at least in my experience, consists largely in people asking if X is a loophole they can exploit to contracept without censure, then kvetching about what a mean old fart the Pope is when they’re told that it isn’t. The Pharisees, in this case, are doing their duty in Christ to keep their brothers from sin. So sentiments like the one you express above certainly aren’t helpful to the few of us who take this duty seriously.

Do you really find it odd? Given that modernity is actively trying to repeal every last limitation on sexual license? Given that our enemies are largely perverts trying to get us to subsidize their fetishes and attacking the Church (sometimes literally) for its principled refusal to do so? Given that we have the consensus of generations and the words of Our Lady herself to the effect that sins of the flesh damn more souls than anything else? Do you really think, in light of all this, that these issues are “overrated,” just because of your self-stated dislike of structure, rules, and authority?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The way these two paragraphs are worded and joined gives me the impression you think the “emphasis on sins of the flesh” comes from the people you seem to be libeling as Pharisees (including Peter, for Heaven’s sake!), as if we’re the ones constantly bringing it up.

No, they weren’t intended to be related. I just didn’t organize the post optimally.

The Pharisees, in this case, are doing their duty in Christ to keep their brothers from sin. So sentiments like the one you express above certainly aren’t helpful to the few of us who take this duty seriously.

Fair enough. You play the role of Pharisee, I’ll play a different role. Many parts, one Body.

Do you really find it odd?

I didn’t say anything about it being odd. I just didn’t give any reasons.

Given that modernity is actively trying to repeal every last limitation on sexual license? Given that our enemies are largely perverts trying to get us to subsidize their fetishes and attacking the Church (sometimes literally) for its principled refusal to do so? Given that we have the consensus of generations and the words of Our Lady herself to the effect that sins of the flesh damn more souls than anything else? Do you really think, in light of all this, that these issues are “overrated,” just because of your self-stated dislike of structure, rules, and authority?

I don’t dislike structure, rules, and authority. I just happen to have some ideas on how they could get the job moving along a little better. The fact that we even divide ourselves as this-Catholic or that-Catholic is a telltale things could be improved, no?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Most people are put off by Catholicism for bad reasons. “It’s judgmental.” “It’s so convinced of its own truth.” “It’s intolerant.” Yadda yadda yadda. Is there any way of talking that would make Catholicism appeal to such people?

You could try by saying, “I do want to understand the point you are trying to make to me.”

Alan

 

[Ohana]

So someone said, “die, old person!” based on your preference for the OF Mass, and you didn’t Report it to the moderators? (The comment is an infraction.)

I did not know I could. It was n ot said exactly like that, but was certainly the meaning - more than once too. I just do not go to the traditional catholic forum anymore. I really did not know it was restricted to just those who preferred the TLM. I thought I was traditional. Thomas Casey provided a definition for that forum for which I am grateful.

 

[CMatt25]

I don’t have to have it both ways, That’s a diversion. I can say “reportedly” and that can include belief or disbelief. Unless you are like the lady who wouldn’t learn a foreign tongue because “God writ the Bible in English and that’s good enough for me!” And if I say something about Jesus from the Scriptures and disagree, even then we are talking, most likely, about something you believe or are influenced by as faith. So it is still part of the discussion as stands should that occur.

And what do you know about Him? Ever play “telephone?” Yes, you can claim inspration, tradition, and divine guidance, but even a pure “message” from “the other side” has to go through the filter of interpretation of the mind(s) translating it from the non verbal. and according to their less than Jesus like understandings. We could write a book on just that.

And how would I, claiming not to know Him personally then claim that “Jesus wouldn’t______” And if I say “Jesus said______,” neither of us speak Aramaic of Greek, eh? So thereby we invite, due to distance in time, space, culture, intention, meaning, nuance, colloquialism, translation, the nature of witnessing, collections, canons, and a host of other factors, not just a few disciplines, including self knowledge, semantics, critical thinking, etc,etc, etc into the equation. I’d say that you display an inordinate level of conviction given what is indeed at hand when anyone says “Jesus said____” and you assume with 1/1 certainty that you personally know exactly and without any iota of deviation what He meant.

I won’t say He did mean, but I will say, eg, “What He said fits, by my lights, what has been proponed by mystery teachings, especially non dualism, since the dawn of history.” I can’t speak for Jesus. Perhaps you can, by third partying your understanding to the Magesterium. I can’t do that and be honest with myself or have integrity, other than to use that as included information.

And I can question all that, because if one can experience, even for a moment, an emotional divorce from the inculcations of that or any belief system, one is in a radically different perspective of assessment. While there is no such thing in my book as absolute objectivity, because that breaks a fundamental law of experience, there is interpretive commonality in many things to the point of near certainty given certain limits. And that is not to be confused with consensus reality, which is what nearly all of faith is.

So you see, neither of us can claim “something about Jesus,” What we might claim is an understanding we have arrived at either from experience, research, inculcation, faith, agreement, or whatever and their combinations. But neither of us does or can have direct knowledge of Jesus. We have no direct knowledge even of the totality of our personality, that showing itself in fragments and various masks according to situations, or even our dearest ones, beyond what we assume from our interactions. Or are you going to tell me that you have never misunderstood any of your beloved children, even a bit?

If yes, how can you or anyone be so blessed adamantly certain that they have a 1/1 knowledge of Jesus, His Teachings as He intended, and for whom He intended, personally or beyond? (Remember, you have Paul to thank for winning out against Peter about who can be Christian, eh? Lord, he went up against the first Pope, for heaven/s sake!) And, as I have often said, there is Mark 4:33,34, and some other related matters.

So, from my perspective, given all that and some other factors not mentioned here, I think that there is just a bit of wiggle room regarding Jesus and what His actual intentions and meaning were. So far as I can see, from the evidence at hand, my interpratations fit as well. And that by no means implies that you can’t or shouldn’t have yours according to your lights. because you obviously do.

Wow that was one of the most profound posts I’ve ever read on CAF. Thank you Gaber for it. I felt blessed to have the opportunity to read it.

I’ll just say anyone who is so adamantly blessed to be absolutely certain of Jesus’ teachings as He intended and of the one ultimate truth, is because they believe in faith they are. After that it’s a small step to convince themselves and to think they know with absolute certainty. When in fact and the truth is, faith has played such a role.

May the infinite God bless you Gaber and all of us other humans with finite minds along our lifetime faith journeys, as we seek and hope in faith to someday with absolute certainty truly know. In the meantime as the Apostle Paul said, we walk by faith. Not by sight. Peace.

 

[Elizabeth502]

OK, but is that deficiency necessarily on CAF’s part or on the part of the person doing the seeking?..Personally, my impression of these boards is far from one that is “overwhelming conservative.” These boards seem to me to be dominated by aggressive dissent in everything and an active desire to make liberal Catholicism a real live option for people

demonstrated by this, which I also referred to in an earlier post:

the moral theology section, at least in my experience, consists largely in people asking if X is a loophole they can exploit to contracept/masturbate/fornicate/engage in homosexual acts/ without censure, then kvetching about what a mean old fart the Pope is when they’re told that it isn’t. [additions mine]

They’re engaging in whatever pleasurable sins of the flesh most of us like to engage in with licence, but their conscience (hmmm…natural law) is bothering them, and/or their Catholic upbringing is in clear conflict with their behavior. That troubles them and/or angers them. They come to CAF to request validation for their sins. They ask a question with an objective answer Is X a sin? or Isn’t it not a sin? or Please, please tell me it’s not sinful, and by the way here is my own subjective justification for these sins]. They want an approving, comforting answer or a subjective answer so that they can continue with their many layers of rationalization and enjoyment. And I’m not talking about those who come asking for comfort & advice, admitting their sin. Those who ask, receive comfort, advice, & compassion. And by the way, I will add that sw85 himself has posted some of this compassionate advice from his own experience. And I have engaged in many private-messaged empathetic advice over the last 3.5 years. So have lots and lots of orthodox Catholics on this forum, including those on this thread.

Who are you and why do you get to decide what constitutes a sufficient level of concern with liturgical fidelity and the rosary and so on? Is it not possible you are simply under-concerned with these things?

Given that we have the consensus of generations and the words of Our Lady herself to the effect that sins of the flesh damn more souls than anything else? Do you really think, in light of all this, that these issues are “overrated,” just because of your self-stated dislike of structure, rules, and authority?

the people you seem to be libeling as Pharisees

(Irony appreciated. )

 

[CMatt25]

But possibly this website’s supposedly “judgmental” (without the first ‘e’) members are “vastly” (or slightly) more educated.

On the topic of this website being conservative and how the above post relates to its members, I’d just like to say that “more educated” has nothing to do with it. Even in the realm of theology, there are conservative theologians as well as liberal theologians. Both I know more educated in terms of degrees than me. Although I don’t equate education solely in those terms. And if not more so, both at least equally as educated than most other members here I would say as well.

 

[sw85]

No, they weren’t intended to be related. I just didn’t organize the post optimally.

OK, then, I withdraw those parts of my earlier comments that assumed as much.

You could try by saying, “I do want to understand the point you are trying to make to me.”

Alan

I used to be one such person, so trust me, I understand where they’re coming from. What saved me was being clobbered over the head repeatedly by unsolicited grace until every last bone of resistance in my body was utterly broken. No apologist did anything for me, nor could they have. I not only didn’t want the Church, I wanted to burn it to the ground.

Again, reflect on my statement: “Most people are put off by Catholicism for bad reasons.” Actually, this is extremely generous. Catholicism represents the fullness of truth, so there is no good reason for anyone to be put off by it. Like Plato said, men do evil out of ignorance. So when I say “bad reasons” I mean reasons that are *obviously *bad, that are facially completely without merit. My own mother, for instance, apostasized from Catholicism on the basis of a passage in Scripture that simply isn’t there! And, of course, because this imagined (non-existent) passage in Scripture offended her sensibilities as a feminist. Among my many apostate friends the usual answers are: I don’t like its teachings about abortion or homosexuality. Get it? It doesn’t matter if the teachings are true or not – they don’t like them. The question of whether or not feminism, abortion, or homosexuality are good, right, or true never arises. Catholicism is treated in their minds as one equally valid and irrational preference out of an infinite number of them.

How does one engage with someone who thinks they know better than 2,000 years of thinkers and saints and holy people? Who is ignorant even of their own ignorance?

I know the reasons people don’t want to convert to Catholicism. I know them because I went through each and every one of them myself in a desperate bid to avoid having to convert. Show me one reason that isn’t lousy and I will eat my own head. I can guarantee, virtually without fail, that anyone who considers joining the Church and decides against it because CAF is not sufficiently anti-death penalty (or whatever complaint re: its supposed conservatism they have) was not seriously considering the joining the Church at all. They were looking for excuses not to join.

 

[Gaber]

… Who is ignorant even of their own ignorance?..

Just for clarification: does this refer to non Catholics, Catholics who have serious questions, or devout unquestioning Catholics, however they got there?

 

[LisaA]

OK, then, I withdraw those parts of my earlier comments that assumed as much.

I used to be one such person, so trust me, I understand where they’re coming from. What saved me was being clobbered over the head repeatedly by unsolicited grace until every last bone of resistance in my body was utterly broken. No apologist did anything for me, nor could they have. I not only didn’t want the Church, I wanted to burn it to the ground.

Again, reflect on my statement: “Most people are put off by Catholicism for bad reasons.” Actually, this is extremely generous. Catholicism represents the fullness of truth, so there is no good reason for anyone to be put off by it. Like Plato said, men do evil out of ignorance. So when I say “bad reasons” I mean reasons that are *obviously *bad, that are facially completely without merit. My own mother, for instance, apostasized from Catholicism on the basis of a passage in Scripture that simply isn’t there! And, of course, because this imagined (non-existent) passage in Scripture offended her sensibilities as a feminist. Among my many apostate friends the usual answers are: I don’t like its teachings about abortion or homosexuality. Get it? It doesn’t matter if the teachings are true or not – they don’t like them. The question of whether or not feminism, abortion, or homosexuality are good, right, or true never arises. Catholicism is treated in their minds as one equally valid and irrational preference out of an infinite number of them.

How does one engage with someone who thinks they know better than 2,000 years of thinkers and saints and holy people? Who is ignorant even of their own ignorance?

I know the reasons people don’t want to convert to Catholicism. I know them because I went through each and every one of them myself in a desperate bid to avoid having to convert. Show me one reason that isn’t lousy and I will eat my own head. I can guarantee, virtually without fail, that anyone who considers joining the Church and decides against it because CAF is not sufficiently anti-death penalty (or whatever complaint re: its supposed conservatism they have) was not seriously considering the joining the Church at all. They were looking for excuses not to join.

Wonderful post and welcome Home from another convert!

The line bolded above says it all, although I see immediately one poster is trying to split hairs. It amazes me that as you said, simply because someone doesn’t like or approve of or more importantly doesn’t want to live their life by a teaching of the Church, they think they know more than the Church Fathers, saints and all those in the history of the Church who have also questioned and confirmed these teachings.

But somehow nine black robed justices magically found a right to abortion and more currently many (even Catholic) politicians are grasping for something upon which to hang “gay marriage.” If the Church or its followers point out the fallacy of these incantations and new age ideas, it simply proves the Chuch is bigoted, hateful or mired in the past.

Again thank you for the series of really thoughtful posts

LIsa

 

[Elizabeth502]

On the topic of this website being conservative and how the above post relates to its members, I’d just like to say that “more educated” has nothing to do with it. Even in the realm of theology, there are conservative theologians as well as liberal theologians. Both I know more educated in terms of degrees than me. Although I don’t equate education solely in those terms. And if not more so, both at least equally as educated than most other members here I would say as well.

Let me clarify, CMatt. It’s tricky to distinguish “liberal” from “conservative” in the realm of moral theology, as moral law in Roman Catholicism is based on absolutes, which are by definition non-“liberal” (not open to legitimate disagreement within Catholicism). I am actually restricting my discussion to this subforum, and let me add I am disappointed that the question (the thread subject) was asked so broadly. I.m.o., the tone of those who open challenging threads in Moral Theology is decidedly different from those (often) asking questions in the World News forum!

I do not agree that responses, overall, to threads opened in Moral Theology are inappropriately “conservative…” If a moral theology question is asked – unless it is really complicated – there is generally a non-complex answer, one which is not subject to a whole variety of legitimately Catholic answers. I do think, however, that often there are inapppropriate labels, divisions, and categories assumed or expressed in the News subforums. Definitely. For example, many of us do object on both practical and moral grounds to the current ACA, but agree on the Catholic social justice mandate for affordable health care! And we have ideas that have not come before the gov’t, to address those. Yet it seems that if someone doesn’t agree with the Prevailing Opinion on how everything a Democrat proposes must be evil, the poster is categorized as a friend of “evil.” And – on the other side – if they don’t agree with this particular ACA, they are categorized as lacking compassion! If that is what the OP is referring to (it doesn’t sound like it) then I could agree with a certain level of dismay. He opened his thread in Apologetics, not in News. (He couldn’t have opened it in News.) And the references he made were not to News issues but to individual moral behavior issues.

Back to education & theologians:
There are, for example, legitimately “liberal” (I don’t like that word as I think it stereotypes) theologians who will write thoughtfully about moral doctrine, questioning assumptions. But if they’re to be respected in such questioning, they’re not questioning settled doctrine. They are, rather, looking at moral & social doctrine in ways which sometimes appear to oppose each other on contemporary issues, and asking for a deeper, more considered approach in order to resolve these dilemmas. Many such dilemmas can be applied to contemporary issues (in making voting decisions), but not to the subject of personal sin. Some areas of moral judgment are open to discussion, others are not. Overwhelmingly, threads opened in CAF’s Moral Theology are not among those open to discussion.

 

[Elizabeth502]

many of us do object on both practical and moral grounds to the current ACA, but agree on the Catholic social justice mandate for affordable health care!

I apologize for my misstatement! “Agreement” is not the issue. The social justice mandate is a doctrine. What I meant was, “support” (assent to!) the doctrine. Accessible to affordable health care is a doctrine; it’s how we get there, and how those decisions affect other people (which is also part of Catholic moral/social doctrine) which can be legitimately debated without the debater being marginalized due to having a different proposal to get there.

 

[CMatt25]

What saved me was being clobbered over the head repeatedly by unsolicited grace until every last bone of resistance in my body was utterly broken. No apologist did anything for me, nor could they have. I not only didn’t want the Church, I wanted to burn it to the ground.

How does one engage with someone who thinks they know better than 2,000 years of thinkers and saints and holy people?

I can just as easily believe as you do about yourself that I am being saved by being clobbered over the head by grace. And I can say too no apologist has done a thing for me either. Other than in my case to perhaps actually drive me further away from your faith. But I leave that to be between their conscience and God.

But irregardless of any of that, what you and others appear to entirely miss is what faith is. And this is why it is nearly impossible I find to engage sometimes with some Catholics. Because you can believe you speak for Jesus only by first putting faith in a God and in the NT story of Christ. Then faith in the Catholic Church’s interpretations of Herself, faith in Her intepretations of ECFs, faith in the Magesterium, faith in Her interpretations of those 2000 yrs and history you speak of, and of time before that.

Others have a different faith. People of faith had their reasons why they believed Christ was reforming His Church for instance.

In any case, God bless you along your faith journey in the Catholic Church. God bless all others along their faith walks as well. Peace.

 

[LisaA]

I can just as easily believe as you do about yourself that I am being saved by being clobbered over the head by grace. And I can say too no apologist has done a thing for me either. Other than in my case to perhaps actually drive me further away from your faith. But I leave that to be between their conscience and God.

But irregardless of any of that, what you and others appear to entirely miss is what faith is. And this is why it is nearly impossible I find to engage sometimes with some Catholics. Because you can believe you speak for Jesus only by first putting faith in a God and in the NT story of Christ. Then faith in the Catholic Church’s interpretations of Herself, faith in Her intepretations of ECFs, faith in the Magesterium, faith in Her interpretations of those 2000 yrs and history you speak of, and of time before that.

Others have a different faith. People of faith had their reasons why they believed Christ was reforming His Church for instance.

In any case, God bless you along your faith journey in the Catholic Church. God bless all others along their faith walks as well. Peace.

CMatt your characterization makes it sound like our faith is both blind and mindless. Do you think Catholics for the last 2000 years haven’t questioned, considered, debated and come to conclusions regarding Christ, His teachings, and His Church?

If we follow this tradition and wisdom could it be that a) they might have something there! and b) we’re smart enough to read, study and consider said teachings, thereby concluding that it is more likely than not that such a long and well documented tradition has more credibility than say Jim Wallis a “pastor” who clearly believes “Christ was reforming His Church.”? I do.

I came Catholicism from atheism after a jaunt through Unitarianism (ain’t no there, there) and then Methodism (a woman’s right to CHOOSE!!! as sacred cow). I came to it because I loved the incredible consistency and basis for the Church’s teaching. I don’t have to twist logic into a pretzel to “have faith” as you suggest.

Lisa

 

[CMatt25]

CMatt your characterization makes it sound like our faith is both blind and mindless. Do you think Catholics for the last 2000 years haven’t questioned, considered, debated and come to conclusions regarding Christ, His teachings, and His Church?

If we follow this tradition and wisdom could it be that a) they might have something there! and b) we’re smart enough to read, study and consider said teachings, thereby concluding that it is more likely than not that such a long and well documented tradition has more credibility than say Jim Wallis a “pastor” who clearly believes “Christ was reforming His Church.”? I do.

I came Catholicism from atheism after a jaunt through Unitarianism (ain’t no there, there) and then Methodism (a woman’s right to CHOOSE!!! as sacred cow). I came to it because I loved the incredible consistency and basis for the Church’s teaching. I don’t have to twist logic into a pretzel to “have faith” as you suggest.

Lisa

Lisa, while our faith walks have been different in the sense I started where you are now, no I don’t think that at all. I think you believe there might be something there and per your understanding have concluded and believe after reading and so forth, “that it is more likely than not”. And after doing all those things you mentioned doing, you chose to place your faith in those interpretations you considered and read and studied about. That’s your faith. And I think it’s great you have found the consistency you love and perhaps need and crave and were seeking. God bless you along your journey. Peace.

 

[LisaA]

Lisa, while our faith walks have been different in the sense I started where you are now, no I don’t think that at all. I think you believe there might be something there and per your understanding have concluded and believe after reading and so forth, “that it is more likely than not”. And I think it’s great you have found the consistency you love and perhaps need and crave and were seeking. God bless you along your journey. Peace.

CMatt I would love for you to address the reasons for your skepticism regarding the wisdom of the Church? What do you find lacking in the intellectual tradition, the method for determining Church doctrine?

IOW it seems as if you think we need to recreate the wheel, each generation, with each “new” issue, dismissing the great thinkers of the past, the Prophets and even Christ’s own words. There is much guidance and from many different sources. But all roads lead to Rome!

I remember the script above the door at my parents’ university office building “If I’ve seen more than others, it’s because I stood on the shoulders of giants.” We can all build upon those who have already walked this road. You don’t seem to give much credence to the Church’s wisdom but want to instead create your own faith based upon what seems to be your opinion. Again, what is lacking?

Lisa

 

[CMatt25]

CMatt I would love for you to address the reasons for your skepticism regarding the wisdom of the Church? What do you find lacking in the intellectual tradition, the method for determining Church doctrine?

IOW it seems as if you think we need to recreate the wheel, each generation, with each “new” issue, dismissing the great thinkers of the past, the Prophets and even Christ’s own words. There is much guidance and from many different sources. But all roads lead to Rome!

I remember the script above the door at my parents’ university office building “If I’ve seen more than others, it’s because I stood on the shoulders of giants.” We can all build upon those who have already walked this road. You don’t seem to give much credence to the Church’s wisdom but want to instead create your own faith based upon what seems to be your opinion. Again, what is lacking?

Lisa

Hi Lisa, I’ve seen too much hurt caused to people and heavy loads placed onto people, questionable emphasis of certain matters over others, and questionable fruits by which we are to know them by, not to wonder if Christ sometimes needs to reform His Church to keep His message on track and the gates from prevailing. And for me anyway it’s not a difficult step to then question any such human teaching authority. You earlier brought up the consistency you love and so craved. So I think too perhaps a fundamental difference between us might also simply be that I don’t have a need to have everything spelled out for me in a consistent pattern.

There’s nothing necesarily wrong with either personality trait. Some like every “i” dotted and “t” crossed for them. I understand that. And now don’t get me wrong as people often do on this forum. I believe in ultimate truth. Everyone can’t be right on everything. But others have a need to reason and ponder and think for themselves about such matters of faith and about an infinite God far beyond any human’s finite mind and they don’t mind not having to believe and think they know with absolute certainty things which are matters of faith. I’ll give you a case in point of something that occured earlier in this thread to illustrate what I am trying to say. Not sure if it was yesterday or today without looking back but it doesn’t matter. Another Catholic poster felt the need to correct and point out to someone that there was no “e” after the person had spelled “judgmental” as “judgemental”. See now there’s a case where my personality is such that such a minor thing was no big deal to me and I would never have even thought it necessary to make even a mention it. That poster however did. Different personalties is all. I think it was Alan who expressed the differences between Peter and Paul and John. But anyway what this was leading to is it’s the same with matters of faith for me. I’m perfectly fine not having every “i” dotted and “t” crossed.

What’s ironic is if you knew me outside of this forum, besides my liberal politics and my “live and let live” view on faith and cargo shorts and sneakers I’ve worn to Mass, I personally live as rather a conservative fellow. :yup: Hope that helps as we strive to respectfully and charitably understand each other. God bless!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’m perfectly fine not having every “i” dotted and “t” crossed.

Exactly. Besides, the purpose of the written law of sin and death, is to put us to death. That way we die to sin and it no longer causes us problems. We are raised to life by the law of spirit and life. (see Rom 7)

Rom 7:6
But now we are released from the law, dead to what held us captive, so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not under the obsolete letter.

Gal 3:
10 For all who depend on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law.”
11 And that no one is justified before God by the law is clear, for “the one who is righteous by faith will live.”
12 But the law does not depend on faith; rather, “the one who does these things will live by them.”
13 Christ ransomed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree,”

Alan

 

[edwest2]

OK, then, I withdraw those parts of my earlier comments that assumed as much.

I used to be one such person, so trust me, I understand where they’re coming from. What saved me was being clobbered over the head repeatedly by unsolicited grace until every last bone of resistance in my body was utterly broken. No apologist did anything for me, nor could they have. I not only didn’t want the Church, I wanted to burn it to the ground.

Again, reflect on my statement: “Most people are put off by Catholicism for bad reasons.” Actually, this is extremely generous. Catholicism represents the fullness of truth, so there is no good reason for anyone to be put off by it. Like Plato said, men do evil out of ignorance. So when I say “bad reasons” I mean reasons that are *obviously *bad, that are facially completely without merit. My own mother, for instance, apostasized from Catholicism on the basis of a passage in Scripture that simply isn’t there! And, of course, because this imagined (non-existent) passage in Scripture offended her sensibilities as a feminist. Among my many apostate friends the usual answers are: I don’t like its teachings about abortion or homosexuality. Get it? It doesn’t matter if the teachings are true or not – they don’t like them. The question of whether or not feminism, abortion, or homosexuality are good, right, or true never arises. Catholicism is treated in their minds as one equally valid and irrational preference out of an infinite number of them.

How does one engage with someone who thinks they know better than 2,000 years of thinkers and saints and holy people? Who is ignorant even of their own ignorance?

I know the reasons people don’t want to convert to Catholicism. I know them because I went through each and every one of them myself in a desperate bid to avoid having to convert. Show me one reason that isn’t lousy and I will eat my own head. I can guarantee, virtually without fail, that anyone who considers joining the Church and decides against it because CAF is not sufficiently anti-death penalty (or whatever complaint re: its supposed conservatism they have) was not seriously considering the joining the Church at all. They were looking for excuses not to join.

Thank you, very much, for your testimony. I too can point at myself for trying to justify a few things in my life but by God’s grace, I am finding obedience to be the road to travel.

The Bible tell us the road to destruction is wide. However, at the core of our looking for excuses or loopholes in Church teaching, is the slavery of some, and guilt about, some type of sexual sin. Abortion, masturbation, pornography and turning the baby in the womb into a non-person. Who controls our bodies if not ourselves? Who decides to commit sexual sin except ourselves? It’s difficult, and in some cases, very difficult, because, like a drug addict or alcoholic, the mind and will are compromised.

I heard a commentator on Catholic radio today talking about pornography and the toll it’s taking, but he immediately offered a solution. In spite of a feeling of shame and/or a feeling of “I just can’t confess this.” that we should confess it, and bring God’s grace into our lives through the sacrament of Confession.

And pray daily and let God know you need His help. He and the Church are there for you.

Peace,
Ed

 

[LisaA]

Hi Lisa, I’ve seen too much hurt caused to people and heavy loads placed onto people, questionable emphasis of certain matters over others,!

Now this is interesting because it does point to your apparent objection to the Catholic emphasis of life issues above all. Do you? If so why? IOW if there is no consistent life ethic to be supported, it’s only a matter of opinion when life begins or when it should end.

From my understanding of Catholic teaching, women who undergo an abortion can be forgiven. OTOH don’t you think someone who supports abortion, perhaps is complicit or a participant SHOULD have a heavy load placed upon them? Shouldn’t this kind of sin be called what it is and confronted? I don’t mean with screaming and gory signs and threats but by support for a decision of life (including financial, medical, counselling), education, and pushed through legislation and public perception? Do you think we just look the other way and say well who am I to suggest that the Church is correct with respect to life?

Beyond the non-negotiables there are many other issues and certainly priorities will be different depending often on who’s ox is being gored. But do you really believe all issues are equal? All sins are equal? I’m really trying to get an understanding of your priorities and whether they comport with Church teaching.

and questionable fruits by which we are to know them by, not to wonder if Christ sometimes needs to reform His Church to keep His message on track and the gates from prevailing. And for me anyway it’s not a difficult step to then question any such human teaching authority. You earlier brought up the consistency you love and so craved. So I think too perhaps a fundamental difference between us might also simply be that I don’t have a need to have everything spelled out for me in a consistent pattern. !

Aha now I see where you have totally mis-interpreted my comment. I think you believe I’m one of those people who might be best profiled by that bumper sticker “God said it! I believe it! That settles it!” Not true. When I speak of the consistency of Catholic teaching one of the best examples is the consistent life ethic…from conception to natural death. I can respect and abide by that teaching because it IS consistent, internally and externally. To contrast I left the Methodist church because it is adamantly against the death penalty but very supportive of abortion as “a woman’s right.”

I cannot accept a teaching that virtually contradicts itself. And I see this so often in Leftist causes and the liberal approach to social issues.

As I learn more and more about the Church’s teachings I see the beauty of that internal consistency and THAT is what gives me confidence that this is the fullness of truth. That does not mean I need to be led by the nose or told what to do. I am naturally a very rebellious and questioning person. But how can I fight something that is so well supported, so well founded and so successful over the long term.

You say maybe Christ needs to reform His church. In what way? Again please be specific because I truly don’t know what you mean. I think a majority of objections to “the Church” are really objections to the acts of sinful human beings. I can’t tell you how many people questioned my conversion literally at the height of the priest pedastry scandal. I was able to separate the two issues and while I abhored the abuse and those who covered it up (although I believe there were some mitigating circumstances), the Church did not support such vile acts within its teachings. Don’t confuse the sin with the sinner IOW.

What’s ironic is if you knew me outside of this forum, besides my liberal politics and my “live and let live” view on faith and cargo shorts and sneakers I’ve worn to Mass, I personally live as rather a conservative fellow. :yup: Hope that helps as we strive to respectfully and charitably understand each other. God bless!

I think this forum can be one dimensional so we have to guard against that tendency to jump to conclusions about a whole person through their posts. I think that this has been a charitable and respectful discussion.

Lisa