Why do some stay in the Catholic Church while seeming to hate the Church with all their being?

[Prodigal_Son1]

I would personally invite them to read the catechism of their faith and pray for them. That’s all I think one can do.

That’s the best recommendation I’ve seen yet, in my opinion.

 

[90Domer]

I hear nothing but complaints about the Church from some Catholics. But most of these complaints are blaming the Church for doctrines that she got directly from Christ. Some of the complaints border on being paranoid and delusional such as the claim that the Church is spying on them in the bedroom just because the Church won’t approve of sexual sins. All of a sudden the Church is being accused of being bigoted because of our sacrament of marriage. It’s as if they think the Church just came up with this doctrine about marriage yesterday. It seems that most if not all of them are “cradle Catholics”. And it seems that they have a belief that is like the fundamentalist doctrine of “once saved, always saved” except there’s is “once baptized Catholic, always saved and always Catholic”. I’m not saying that every “cradle Catholic” is like this. There are many “cradle Catholics” who are models of the Catholic faith such as my wife.

I am not sure if this answers your question, but I will have a go at it. Recently my SIL and BIL asked me to explain how our parents/in-laws (in-laws to me, so my husband’s parents) can openly support SSM and present themselves as “good Catholics.” I simply replied, “They can’t.” Now my in-laws didn’t openly bad-mouth the Church but did make it known through their involvement with dissident organizations that they felt the Church was wrong and out-of-touch with regards to SSM.

I asked my husband why he felt they chose to stay in the Church. He said that the best way to defeat the Church is to undermine it from within. The evil one is cunning indeed.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I hear nothing but complaints about the Church from some Catholics. But most of these complaints are blaming the Church for doctrines that she got directly from Christ. Some of the complaints border on being paranoid and delusional such as the claim that the Church is spying on them in the bedroom just because the Church won’t approve of sexual sins. All of a sudden the Church is being accused of being bigoted because of our sacrament of marriage. It’s as if they think the Church just came up with this doctrine about marriage yesterday. It seems that most if not all of them are “cradle Catholics”. And it seems that they have a belief that is like the fundamentalist doctrine of “once saved, always saved” except there’s is “once baptized Catholic, always saved and always Catholic”. I’m not saying that every “cradle Catholic” is like this. There are many “cradle Catholics” who are models of the Catholic faith such as my wife.

It seems that many have totally misunderstood livingwordunity’s original post. It’s not about those who lead sinful lives apart from the Church, nor is it about those who live sinful lives within the Church, but are trying to overcome.

It’s about those who actually have a hatred for the faith, don’t believe in some of the doctrines, and make a big deal out of it by actively campaigning against the Church and maligning it.

I’ve encountered such people many times.

How I interpreted what he wrote in post #1, keying in on the words I highlighted in blue, is that he is in part addressing opposition some American Catholics expressed in another thread about outlawing sodomy.

I didn’t participate in that thread, but even if I did, I wouldn’t have gotten myself worked up over the lack of will to criminalize sodomy in the United States today. Because it would be like me getting worked up over a lack of will expressed in ridding the United States of all automobiles.

I really think what is at root here is envy of homosexuals. And I state that not because of one post but several posts being focused on homosexuals. I tell ya, the best revenge homosexuals can have on their angry critics is to be happy. That infuriates a number of their angry critics (not non-angry critics).

I’m not even sure this is about the sex lives of Catholics. For all I know some of Catholic supporters of homosexuals don’t engage in sodomy. Some of them (married) may rarely have sex as well, for all I know. But this seems to me to be more to do with liberal Catholics like my mother who is not all worked up over homosexual sex or gay marriage. Best I can tell she seems indifferent to it. But she has two lesbian sisters, one gay brother now deceased, another brother living romantically with a man, and a grandson in college that is openly homosexual.

Knowing gay people, or crossing their paths, is like knowing people that smoke cigarettes, or people that drive cars. And you come to find many of them are good people–like gun owners. In fact, some of them are gun owners in the U.S.

So, if in fact homosexuality is a sin, you essentially have good people engaged in this kind of sin. But envy is a sin too. Lots of ways to sin.

So, it is no surprise to me you have Catholics that do not get worked up over homosexuality that others may be engaged in. This is different than teaching homosexuality is morally good. Like St. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, both saints, both Doctors of the Church, teaching that prostitution should not be criminalized. But both viewed prostitution as a sin. A sexual sin.

Was Aquinas and Augustine heretics that are now burning in hell?

Prostitution was even legal–restricted to certain quarters–in the Papal States centuries ago.

Your sodomite, and pederast, and pedophile Caravaggio the great painter that was often paid by members of the Catholic hierarchy to paint religious paintings for churches, was himself a Knight of Malta. A Catholic. One that became a murder too.

One Catholic historian (that sees no wrong in Catholic Church history) has stated the Protestant Reformation was a conservative movement. And I think he may be right about that. The Protestants saw all the sinners (especially in the clergy or among Popes) in the Catholic Church said Christianity is religion of saints and not sinners. Therefore, Catholicism is not true Christianity. This is why many Protestants take issue with “saints” in Catholicism as they say every Christian is a saint and therefore the Church is invisible, and they say who is the Pope to say who is a saint, because only God knows that for sure.

 

[TimeEntrance]

There is both validity and danger in this observation. I suspect that it really is true that there are a substantial number of people in the church (especially among those who are employed by the church), who stay because they have appropriated the church for the cloak of respectability it gives them.

Remember the former Fr. Matthew Fox? A moonbeam New Ager who spoke far and wide making a big name for himself in catholic circles before his grotesque teachings finally triggered some disciplinary action. Barred from active ministry as a catholic priest, he tried to take his show private and promptly disappeared from national view. Oh I realize he hasn’t actually starved to death yet, but he’s got nowhere near the audience he once did. Why? Because he can no longer be a parasite on the church.

I suspect that recognizing this reality is the only reason groups like the LCWR haven’t jumped ship and tried to go their own way: it’s more lucrative to keep sucking catholic blood and resources.

And it’s not just at the high profile level. What else is Mrs. Groovylove, the parish DRE going to do with her M. Div. from Rebellion Catholic U? She’s stuck if she wants to eat and pay her student loans. Good thing catholic pastors rarely “judge” those working in active opposition to church teaching, eh? Too often, not even when said rebels are on the payroll and actively confusing the parishioners!

All this said, there is a real danger in setting yourself up to be the determinant of who should and who should not be “in” the church. To a certain extent, you are responsible for discerning who to support and give money to. Do it wisely and with open eyes. As for those you determine not worthy of supporting in their ministry direction and goals: pray for them. Apostate or not, God still loves them and desires them to return. Good thing too because you and I are just as much in need of that Mercy as they are.

Manual always comes up with reasonable posts.

 

[polki]

If proabortion-supporting Catholic politicians are allowed to stay in the Church and receive communion at the Vatican, why would any baptized Catholic feel that they should have to leave the Church just for not accepting all of the Her teachings regarding sexual morality or any other issue?

 

[TimeEntrance]

Wow this thread sure exploded last night. I wanted to thank you for the above which actually addresses the OP’s question. I think you make some great points, in that people may disagree about certain teachings…even some of the most important of them…but still believe most of what the Church teaches and stands for. Also the “Cultural Catholic” while not as common in USA as in other countries thought to be “Catholic” countries is a factor.

I see this like cultural Jews who never attend synagoue, don’t celebrate Shabbos, wouldn’t be seen dead wearing a kippah but claim they are Jews…OK…that’s apparently their cultural or ethnic identity rather than a religion.

You and Mink have a point with this.

Some “instincts” can be engrained too. Being reared a cradle Catholic my instincts towards, and relationship with art when it comes to the spiritual, is different than the Protestants.

For all the critics of Catholicism it does have a well worked out and coherent intellectual and moral tradition. And it has intellectuals within that tradition that are well educated on many different subjects from physics to bioethics to law.

I presume this is true of Muslims from Muslim families and nations too. I’m sure a secular Muslim prays to Allah and not to Catholic saints.

 

[livingwordunity]

How I interpreted what he wrote in post #1, keying in on the words I highlighted in blue, is that he is in part addressing opposition some American Catholics expressed in another thread about outlawing sodomy.

Coincidence, and also a red herring. I didn’t have any other thread specifically in mind when I created this one. In fact, my main thought was about how the belief of some Catholics that if they were born a Catholic it’s like their get out of Hell free card is a lot like how some Protestant fundamentalists believing in “Once saved, always saved”. That was the main thought running through my mind when I created this thread, and I was trying to find a way to articulate that thought.

I really think what is at root here is envy of homosexuals.

Another red herring, and a straw man all in one. “Gay” activists are angry with traditional marriage because*** they want what we have always had***. So you have it in the reverse order of facts. Also, the Catholic Church didn’t just come out with the doctrine about marriage yesterday, and we didn’t start this fight. We were minding our own business, never raiding any “gay” bars, and suddenly we are being verbally attacked and called bigots out of thin air by emotional extremists.

This is why many Protestants take issue with “saints” in Catholicism as they say every Christian is a saint and therefore the Church is invisible, and they say who is the Pope to say who is a saint, because only God knows that for sure.

But the difference is Protestants leave for another denomination when they have a serious problem with the one they are in. I’m not saying that Catholics who don’t believe in the basic doctrines of the Catholic Church should leave. I’m only pointing out the difference between them and Protestants. By the way, liberals don’t hold anything back when it comes to judging the leaders of the Catholic Church for their sins. So judging isn’t something exclusive to conservatives.

And sorry but it makes no sense when people who claim to be Catholic don’t even believe that Jesus divinely instituted the Church. Do they see the Church as some kind of exclusive country club or a glorified welfare department? When Jesus told people about the Eucharist, there was at least an honesty in those who walked away at the time. But Judas Iscariot, the betrayer, pretended to believe while he was busy plotting against the visible leader of the Church which at the time was Jesus but is now the Pope. I see a striking similarity to what’s happening today. And if my post isn’t as charitable as you would have liked, neither was your post charitable.

 

[St_Francis]

How I interpreted what he wrote in post #1, keying in on the words I highlighted in blue, is that he is in part addressing opposition some American Catholics expressed in another thread about outlawing sodomy.

I didn’t participate in the thread you mention beyond reading a few of the initial postts, nor did I realize this thread came from that thread, bit the words you highlighted did not strike me as odd. I have been hearing that from various people literally for decades, since the 1960s. That is simply a talking point of those who do not agree with the Church’s postions on the marital/sexual issues.

I didn’t participate in that thread, but even if I did, I wouldn’t have gotten myself worked up over the lack of will to criminalize sodomy in the United States today. Because it would be like me getting worked up over a lack of will expressed in ridding the United States of all automobiles.

I really think what is at root here is envy of homosexuals. And I state that not because of one post but several posts being focused on homosexuals. I tell ya, the best revenge homosexuals can have on their angry critics is to be happy. That infuriates a number of their angry critics (not non-angry critics).

I’m not even sure this is about the sex lives of Catholics. For all I know some of Catholic supporters of homosexuals don’t engage in sodomy. Some of them (married) may rarely have sex as well, for all I know. But this seems to me to be more to do with liberal Catholics like my mother who is not all worked up over homosexual sex or gay marriage. Best I can tell she seems indifferent to it. But she has two lesbian sisters, one gay brother now deceased, another brother living romantically with a man, and a grandson in college that is openly homosexual.

Knowing gay people, or crossing their paths, is like knowing people that smoke cigarettes, or people that drive cars. And you come to find many of them are good people–like gun owners. In fact, some of them are gun owners in the U.S.

So, if in fact homosexuality is a sin, you essentially have good people engaged in this kind of sin. But envy is a sin too. Lots of ways to sin.

So, it is no surprise to me you have Catholics that do not get worked up over homosexuality that others may be engaged in. This is different than teaching homosexuality is morally good. Like St. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, both saints, both Doctors of the Church, teaching that prostitution should not be criminalized. But both viewed prostitution as a sin. A sexual sin.

Was Aquinas and Augustine heretics that are now burning in hell?

Prostitution was even legal–restricted to certain quarters–in the Papal States centuries ago.

Your sodomite, and pederast, and pedophile Caravaggio the great painter that was often paid by members of the Catholic hierarchy to paint religious paintings for churches, was himself a Knight of Malta. A Catholic. One that became a murder too.

One Catholic historian (that sees no wrong in Catholic Church history) has stated the Protestant Reformation was a conservative movement. And I think he may be right about that. The Protestants saw all the sinners (especially in the clergy or among Popes) in the Catholic Church said Christianity is religion of saints and not sinners. Therefore, Catholicism is not true Christianity. This is why many Protestants take issue with “saints” in Catholicism as they say every Christian is a saint and therefore the Church is invisible, and they say who is the Pope to say who is a saint, because only God knows that for sure.

 

[Elizabeth502]

What tone would you recommend to explain the Church’s teachings to those misinformed people? And until they come around what would you suggest the Church do with these people?

While everyone else is weighing in, I think I’ll feel free to weigh in myself.

I think that the Church is bleeding so severely from the inside, in terms of sheer information (and you did use the word “misinformed”), that I think radical measures are the only way to correct ignorance.

Keep in mind that before the 1970’s, homilies were catechetical opportunities, not unlike some of the very fine homilies on the EWTN daily Masses. Some priests on EWTN take careful pains – pains which I respect enormously – to educate the congregation, and incidentally the viewers. That catechesis can take the form of 'Why we’re celebrating Saint __ today; What did Saint __ do, anyway, and why should it matter to us?" Other EWTN priests use their homilies to teach both Church history and spirituality. Others teach systematics and/or moral theology, as outgrowths of the daily readings and/or the feast day.

Parish priests can and should do similarly. While it’s not necessarily helpful to have a Fire and Brimstone approach within a homily, it is an opportune moment to clarify Church positions on settled doctrine and personal morality. A teaching moment, not a scolding moment, but one that is not filled with ambiguity or apology.

One of the reasons adult Catholics once knew their faith well – easily 90+% of adult Catholics, is that, in addition to better catechesis that didn’t talk “around” doctrine, but taught it directly, that previous catechesis was reinforced for adults during Mass. When issues came up in the general public (say, the news, like now), and/or when a priest encountered a steady stream of concerns in the parish, he made it a topic for his homily. Public issues were an opportunity to discuss Catholic witness in citizenship.

I’m not suggesting that modern homilies become only theology lessons. I’m suggesting two possibilities: one is lengthening the homily, to include both spirituality & doctrine (as many priests celebrating EWTN Masses do now, as well as those celebrating benediction). Another is a split homily: one featuring the spirituality within the readings, a second featuring an important doctrinal point on which more than half of Catholics are ill-informed. Both would have to be delivered before Eucharist.

It is not enough, but it’s a start. To supplement that, more inviting presentations in the parish which are also “events.” Thus, many parishes presented the Catholicism series by Fr. Robert Barron, and some of those parishes accompanied that with discussion both before and after each viewed episode. That brought out some people who had a weak foundation in some of the areas discussed by Fr. Barron. It was definitely catechetical and corrective for them.

Other parishes have had and still have The Great Bible Adventure Series by Jeff Kavins – also a community event. That is not an either/or with the above, because most Catholics are hopeless when it comes to scriptural knowledge, so this is a different but also urgent need in catechesis.

And if priests in their homilies make allusiions to these presentations, so that the congregation feels they’re missing out, and missing something from the homily by not attending, it helps in framing the importance of these community learning events.

And anyone who thinks that the Church does not have the manpower/womanpower for this is mistaken. There are highly educated Catholics whose education is not being put to use in parishes, many with graduate degrees and who are willing to participate on a volunteer basis (obviously part-time). All that is required is coordination/oversight by the pastor, a commitment of that pastor to catechize his flock, and the support of the local bishop.

 

[JimG]

One of the reasons adult Catholics once knew their faith well – easily 90+% of adult Catholics, is that, in addition to better catechesis that didn’t talk “around” doctrine, but taught it directly, that previous catechesis was reinforced for adults during Mass. When issues came up in the general public (say, the news, like now), and/or when a priest encountered a steady stream of concerns in the parish, he made it a topic for his homily. Public issues were an opportunity to discuss Catholic witness in citizenship.

Yes. In the parish where I attended grade school (pre-Vatican II) I recall nearly every Sunday homily being doctrinal to some extent, and the doctrinal homilies pretty much got repeated year to year on the same solemnities. Even as 12 year old, I can remember thinking, “yeah, I remember that from last year. Also from school.”

Following the Council, homilies were supposed to concentrate on drawing out the meaning of the readings. But doctrine got almost entirely neglected, not only in homilies, but everywhere. There were Catholics separated by only a few years in age who were vastly different in knowledge of what the Church taught. Doctrinal teaching simply disappeared for a period of time, and a pretty lengthy period of time at that.

I’m not blaming anyone in particular. Perhaps everybody meant well. But it led to a woefully undereducated several generations of Catholics.

 

[Fairwinds]

…
By the way, the one on CAFs that I think has a very impressively gentle tone yet doesn’t compromise the truth is Portrait. But we can’t all be like him…

no, we can’t. I’m opposed to the police raiding homes and breaking down bedroom doors to enforce sodomy law, he supports the tactic.

F/

 

[livingwordunity]

no, we can’t. I’m opposed to the police raiding homes and breaking down bedroom doors to enforce sodomy law, he supports the tactic.

Straw man.

1. When has it ever happened that police were “raiding homes and breaking down bedroom doors” because of a sodomy law?
2. You ignore the fact that I said that the law can apply equally to everyone. In other words, I didn’t single anyone out. Punishment equality.
3. I never said that a law such as this should involve “raiding homes and breaking down bedroom doors”.

 

[Thomas_Peter]

That’s the best recommendation I’ve seen yet, in my opinion.

Thank you. FWIW though. I do understand LWUs frustration with those who expect the Church to conform to their worldview.I’m assuming LWU loves his faith as much as you and I do, and feels a need to defend it from those who attack it constantly. What tends to bother me is the folks who identify as Catholics who misconstrue what we actually believe to the secular world thus putting us in a position to constanly be on defense.I realize Christ actually told us this would happen but it still frustrates me nonetheless. God Bless.

 

[livingwordunity]

Thank you. FWIW though. I do understand LWUs frustration with those who expect the Church to conform to their worldview.I’m assuming LWU loves his faith as much as you and I do, and feels a need to defend it from those who attack it constantly. What tends to bother me is the folks who identify as Catholics who misconstrue what we actually believe to the secular world thus putting us in a position to constanly be on defense.I realize Christ actually told us this would happen but it still frustrates me nonetheless. God Bless.

It’s especially frustrating to see a politician who holds a high position in government claim to be for “gay marriage” and abortion while having the nerve to say that they are a Catholic in good standing. I don’t support these evils, and I wouldn’t describe myself as “a Catholic in good standing”. A lot of poorly catechized Catholics will think that because this high ranking government official said they can do it that it’s OK. And that’s very scandalous.

 

[Thomas_Peter]

It’s especially frustrating to see a politician who holds a high position in government claim to be for “gay marriage” and abortion while having the nerve to say that they are a Catholic in good standing. I don’t support these evils, and I wouldn’t describe myself as “a Catholic in good standing”. A lot of poorly catechized Catholics will think that because this high ranking government official said they can do it that it’s OK. And that’s very scandalous.

Yes! Which is why I believe when we run across those individuals(I realize we probably won’t) all we need say to them is “Please read the catechism of our faith brother/sister.You have been led astray”

 

[cheezey]

And the Church goes on and on…

…

people now days “ask questions”, “state their disagreement”, some leave, most stay.

He gave us a brain with which to think and ask those questions and wonder…

In all my years, I have never seen or heard of people being browbeat with doctrine, dogma, canon law, scare tactics, until I came to CAF.

**I have actually been admonished, vehemently, that I should never learn of the early church fathers; that to do so was “of the devil.”
That was months ago and I have a bald spot for scratching my head over that one still…
**

 

[TimeEntrance]

Coincidence, and also a red herring. I didn’t have any other thread specifically in mind when I created this one. In fact, my main thought was about how the belief of some Catholics that if they were born a Catholic it’s like their get out of Hell free card is a lot like how some Protestant fundamentalists believing in “Once saved, always saved”. That was the main thought running through my mind when I created this thread, and I was trying to find a way to articulate that thought.

I’m under the impression you don’t know what a red herring is. All literary criticism would be a red herring then. In fact all reading would be a red herring.

Your statement in post #1 I placed in bold was drawn from the thread about whether or not sodomy should be made illegal and enforceable in part through knock-and-raids.

Another red herring, and a straw man all in one. “Gay” activists are angry with traditional marriage because*** they want what we have always had***. So you have it in the reverse order of facts. Also, the Catholic Church didn’t just come out with the doctrine about marriage yesterday, and we didn’t start this fight. We were minding our own business, never raiding any “gay” bars, and suddenly we are being verbally attacked and called bigots out of thin air by emotional extremists.

Again, you don’t seem to know what a red herring is.

Ascertaining envy, racism, sexism, or any other motive in a person’s prejudice (we all have prejudices) is not a red herring. It is contextualizing the feelings springing forth in the writings of an author.

 

[livingwordunity]

Emotional straw man. I asked a question. I did not condemn anyone. I hope everyone of them will repent and be saved. By the way, you just judged me. Do you know what’s in my heart?

I’ve been Catholic all my life and have never heard that phrase spoken by a “Catholic”. My mother is Baptist and I have heard my grandmother say it many times (God rest her soul, I know she is with Him)…I have also heard my Pentacostal cousins say the same. Never a Catholic.

I meant the final act of repentance when a person dies.

 

[TimeEntrance]

But the difference is Protestants leave for another denomination when they have a serious problem with the one they are in. I’m not saying that Catholics who don’t believe in the basic doctrines of the Catholic Church should leave. I’m only pointing out the difference between them and Protestants. By the way, liberals don’t hold anything back when it comes to judging the leaders of the Catholic Church for their sins. So judging isn’t something exclusive to conservatives.

One side of my family is Protestant and I’m aware of Protestants (especially if non-denominational) jumping from one church to the next. That has not traditionally been a Catholic trait. It has been said of Catholics, be they “fallen away” or not, and said with some grain of truth, that “Once a Catholic always a Catholic.”

I might say the same thing about Protestant Southern and Northern Baptists too. Even if they leave the Baptist Church they retain some of its traits.

You also don’t seem to be that read on the history of the Catholic Church. Bearing in mind “critical reading” (which we hope people at least achieve by adulthood) requires engaging the material you are reading while you are reading, and often through a process of asking questions.

So, for example, I’ve asked myself when reading on some of the violent Protestant and Catholic battles and wars (Wallenstien is a person I admire, by the way) from centuries ago, “If Catholics fought Protestants with holy jihad and certainty in their own righteousness back then only for Popes and Catholicism to become ecumenical and embracing of Protestantism today, then was all that bloodshed and anger really worth it back then?”

The answer I’ve arrived at with that question provides guidance for me with other issues. For example, the issue of condoms. Before Pope Benedict XVI ever came out publicly and essentially stated, that at times, to prevent infecting another with a disease you may have, it is less sinful to use a condom than to not use one. I articulate that same thing years before Pope Benedict XVI. So, was I heretical before or after he arrived at this “enlightened” (I put it in quotes because I regard it as a bit of common sense and some of the easiest philosophical logic one can engage in) view?

Vatican City no longer burns heretics at the stake either. In fact, Vatican City, or that is the Holy See I should say, is no longer pro-death penalty.

So, we have an ecumenical Holy See that no longer promotes the death penalty or publicly burns heretics to death at the stake.

Knowing what I do about the Catholic Church–and in part being a cradle Catholic–and having came up after Vatican II with an English Mass, priests facing the laity in the pews, and eating meat on Fridays, if I were a betting man, though I can’t know for certain, I would say once homosexual marriages become normalized and widespread the Popes and Holy See will take “ecumenically” towards gay marriage as they do towards Protestantism.

The Holy See is very political too. Which is fine to an extent. The Holy See does not operate on the street corners like Evangelical Protestants but rather it is high in the sky with the secular mighty of earth, from CEO’s to politicians, so, a lot of statements released by it (in my opinion) tend to be diplomatic, meant to operate in political lobbying, with politics being described as “The art of the possible.”

Ergo, I state if homosexuality is a sin then it is a sin to be attracted to people of your same sex. Because I subscribe to the view sin originates in the heart. Which is actually a very ancient and a very traditional Catholic view point of sin. Why intent rather than action is so important in Catholicism about sin.

The concept of sin beginning through action is a traditionally Muslim view point. The Muslims would say you can think about sodomizing a boy all you want, you only sin once you actually sodomize the boy.

The Holy See has taken the diplomatic, political, approach to engaging the secular world’s dogma of genetic heritability of homosexuality. That is to say, the deterministic view, and has abandoned centuries of Catholic views about morality to adopt the Islamic view point that homosexuality is only sinful if you engage in it.

I suspect centuries from now Popes will be out bless popular gay married couples that have heroically saved little children. They will be making statements similar to the ecumenical ones they do about Protestants.

So, no I don’t think you’re correct in your viewpoints about the non-political, never-changing, Catholic Church.

Perhaps this is what Pope Francis meant when he said, “How I wish we had a poor Catholic Church.” Maybe he meant one less politically focused? I don’t know.

 

[livingwordunity]

Ascertaining envy, racism, sexism, or any other motive in a person’s prejudice (we all have prejudices) is not a red herring. It is contextualizing the feelings springing forth in the writings of an author.

You totally ignored everything that I said.

I didn’t have any other thread specifically in mind when I created this one. In fact, my main thought was about how the belief of some Catholics that if they were born a Catholic it’s like their get out of Hell free card is a lot like how some Protestant fundamentalists believing in “Once saved, always saved”. That was the main thought running through my mind when I created this thread, and I was trying to find a way to articulate that thought.

“Gay” activists are angry with traditional marriage because*** they want what we have always had***. So you have it in the reverse order of facts. Also, the Catholic Church didn’t just come out with the doctrine about marriage yesterday, and we didn’t start this fight. We were minding our own business, never raiding any “gay” bars, and suddenly we are being verbally attacked and called bigots out of thin air by emotional extremists.

But the difference is Protestants leave for another denomination when they have a serious problem with the one they are in. I’m not saying that Catholics who don’t believe in the basic doctrines of the Catholic Church should leave. I’m only pointing out the difference between them and Protestants. By the way, liberals don’t hold anything back when it comes to judging the leaders of the Catholic Church for their sins. So judging isn’t something exclusive to conservatives.

And sorry but it makes no sense when people who claim to be Catholic don’t even believe that Jesus divinely instituted the Church. Do they see the Church as some kind of exclusive country club or a glorified welfare department? When Jesus told people about the Eucharist, there was at least an honesty in those who walked away at the time. But Judas Iscariot, the betrayer, pretended to believe while he was busy plotting against the visible leader of the Church which at the time was Jesus but is now the Pope. I see a striking similarity to what’s happening today.