Why the Lack of Support & Exodus from the Church

[Erikaspirit16]

Georgetown did a poll also, http://cara.georgetown.edu/frequentl...ch-statistics/ on Sunday Mass attendance. 78% of Catholics are at best C & E Catholics (Christmas & Easter Catholics) if even that. Meaning only 22 % of Catholics attend Mass faithfully. What then do the 78% do for their faith? They are objectively in Mortal sin. If they receive the Eucharist without reconciliation, then they heap sacrilege on top of their mortal sin.

Your link doesn’t work–can you give an updated one? But yes, the statistics sound about right. Now we had a case last weekend where Catholics were supposed to go to Mass on Sunday, and then again on Monday (Christmas). But of course the waters were muddied a bit because of Masses Sunday night for Christmas Eve. So you could end up going to two Masses in a day. At my church I went to 11 am Mass Sunday and 10 am (the only Mass available on Christmas day itself) Monday. Both Masses–usually full–were probably about 1/3 empty. Clearly a LOT of people didn’t see the necessity of going to Mass both days.

Now I spoke earlier of bad PR on the part of the Church. Was the schedule of Masses in the bulletin? Yes. Was there any mention in the bulletin that it was necessary to attend Mass both days? No. Any explanation of what happens when a feast day falls on Sat. or Mon.? No. Any explanation of why some feasts falling on a Sat. or Mon. are transferred to Sunday, but other feasts (Christmas, for example) aren’t? No. Anything at all about the obligation to attend Mass two days in a row? No. Did the priest mention anything about that obligation when he gave the announcements? No.

So was I surprised that both Masses were about 1/3 empty? No. Should the priest have been surprised? No. Should the priest have done more to encourage people to attend both Masses? Yes. I see a problem.

 

[StPancake]

I am attempting to put Pope Francis’ quotes in bold script. Maybe it will work. I just don’t want to confuse anyone of what I’ve said with what he said.

The actual quote from Pope Francis was, 'If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?'

Someone that is gay and searching for the Lord is probably one that is trying not to sin.

He later had this to say about the quote, “On that occasion I said this: If a person is gay and seeks out the Lord and is willing, who am I to judge that person?” the pope says. "I was paraphrasing by heart the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it says that these people should be treated with delicacy and not be marginalized."

"I am glad that we are talking about ‘homosexual people’ because before all else comes the individual person, in his wholeness and dignity," he continues. "And people should not be defined only by their sexual tendencies: let us not forget that God loves all his creatures and we are destined to receive his infinite love."

"I prefer that homosexuals come to confession, that they stay close to the Lord, and that we pray all together," says Francis. "You can advise them to pray, show goodwill, show them the way, and accompany them along it."

Here is a quote then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, facing the redefinition of civil marriage in Argentina: "Let us not be naive: it is not a simple political struggle; it is an intention (which is) destructive of the plan of God. It is not a mere legislative project … but rather a ‘move’ of the father of lies who wishes to confuse and deceive the children of God."

 

[StPancake]

Someone touched on this earlier but as far as “inflicting my morals on others” it just isn’t that simple in regards to abortion. Abortion is murder. I feel as strongly about abortion being wrong as I would if someone killed a child or an adult. There is nothing in this country more wrong than a practice that legally kills more than 3000 per day.

There are a huge amount of Catholics in this country. If those Catholics stopped voting for those that are pro choice, this country would be fundamentally changed. Politicians want to be reelected and keep the power they have. If the pro choice among them couldn’t be elected, they would stop being pro choice. Either that or pro life democrat candidates would start winning. We are getting what we deserve because we are condoning it at the ballot box.

As far as supporting and respecting Catholic politicians like Kaine, Pelosi and Biden, They give the faith and the Church a black eye. They say that they can’t impose their morals on others, they claim they are Catholic but still support the legal murder that abortion is. I would rather they were not Catholic at all because of their cowardice in support of pro choice policies makes it look as if this legal murder is acceptable.

No, I will not vote for a candidate that cannot stand against abortion. Neither would I ever vote for a candidate that supported other murder, or stealing. These are natural laws that if upheld, are not imposing my faith on others. If I overlooked it, I would be condoning their position. Jesus said, “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” Likewise, if I don’t oppose this great evil, I am with them.

 

[NiceIsAsNiceDoes]

Wow. If I understand correctly, you believe you know what all women believe. Some super powers you have, there.

 

[Lara]

The whole reason a positive result on a pregnancy test fills a woman with either joy or dread, is because she knows what is at stake. She knows the word, “pregnant” means “with child”, not “with clump of cells.”

 

[Erikaspirit16]

marriage becomes a right the state should make sure is available for all Lost in the popular mind is what marriage means to the state.Lost is the fact that it is a priviledge the state has an interest in . A friendship the state has no real interest in.is treated as if it does even thoughit provides no future citizens , no maternal environment, just a couple friends who get together to behave sexually,

I just quoted a bit of your post for the sake of space. I think I understand what you’re saying, and I personally feel much the same way. I don’t see the necessity to call a partnership between two people of the same gender “marriage.” It always seemed to me you could give them all the rights of marriage (inheritance, medical decision making, etc.) without calling it marriage. Call it “partnership” or “union” or something else to show it’s a different category, even though the rights are the same. But that ship has sailed.

However, I do think it’s good to remind yourself of historical changes. Almost all of us would be horrified at the attitudes of grandparents, great grandparents, etc. even 50 years ago, let alone 100 or 200 years ago. Attitudes that were taken for granted (or even labelled as “scientific”) are now almost universally seen as unjust or intolerant. 200 years ago Catholics couldn’t even hold office in the UK. Women couldn’t vote and universities and jobs were closed to them. Blacks were enslaved. Jews were held in contempt. Homosexuals were imprisoned. I could go on. All this has changed because our values and beliefs have changed, and I think it’s a good thing. I’m sure there were a lot of people at the time who objected to all these changes for what they thought were good reasons.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Abortion is murder.

I don’t want to return to this and repeat myself. Read my earlier comments. I’m sure you and others (including myself, by the way) feel that “abortion is murder.” But in the US opinion is split more or less 50-50 on the question, and the percentage one way or the other depends on the wording of the question. It’s not a consensus. And people of good will are simply following their own religions and/or consciences when they take the opposite side.

If you think your morality should be imposed on others, take a hard look at the 17th c. Puritans in New England (or the UK for that matter). Salem witch trials, anyone? Outlawing Christmas for 20 years? And if you can skip over that, have a look at the treatment of Catholics in England even as late as the early 19th c. It’s not a pretty picture. And as I’ve said before, if Muslims outlawed church bells, pork, alcohol, and brought back polygamous marriage, I can’t imagine all those who are so happy to impose their own beliefs on others would stand around and think how wonderful it was to have Shari’a law imposed on them.

If you truly believe “abortion is murder” you should be out there in the general public trying to convince everyone – by logic and reason, not by simply saying over and over “abortion is murder.” That’s not an argument. Other groups have convinced the general population of the wisdom of their views–abolitionists, women’s suffrage, gay rights and civil rights advocates, etc. etc.

If you’ve been following this thread–and many others like it–you see it goes like this: “Abortion is murder.” “Not everyone thinks that.” “Abortion is murder.” “Not everyone thinks that.” and so on. “Abortion is murder” is not an argument. It may be your firmly held belief, but repeating it over and over is not a magic spell that’s going to convince anyone that you’re right.

 

[guanophore]

but repeating it over and over is not a magic spell that’s going to convince anyone that you’re right.

For the record, I think you are right. This is a battle of persuasion and education, not proclamation. We need to start with our own flock. There are most Catholics using abortifacient birth control and bieng “pro choice”. Once we have cleaned up our own house, we can move out into the marketplace.

 

[Elf01]

I don’t want to return to this and repeat myself. Read my earlier comments. I’m sure you and others (including myself, by the way) feel that “abortion is murder.” But in the US opinion is split more or less 50-50 on the question, and the percentage one way or the other depends on the wording of the question. It’s not a consensus. And people of good will are simply following their own religions and/or consciences when they take the opposite side.

Let me turn back time to the 1930s, move to Germany, edit this a little and see if you still agree

I don’t want to return to this and repeat myself. Read my earlier comments. I’m sure you and others (including myself, by the way) feel that “killing jews is murder.” But in Germany opinion is split more or less 50-50 on the question, and the percentage one way or the other depends on the wording of the question. It’s not a consensus. And people of good will are simply following their own religions and/or consciences when they take the opposite side.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Georgetown did a poll also, http://cara.georgetown.edu/frequentl...ch-statistics/ on Sunday Mass attendance. 78% of Catholics are at best C & E Catholics (Christmas & Easter Catholics) if even that. Meaning only 22 % of Catholics attend Mass faithfully. What then do the 78% do for their faith? They are objectively in Mortal sin. If they receive the Eucharist without reconciliation, then they heap sacrilege on top of their mortal sin.

Your link doesn’t work–can you give an updated one?

oops! sorry about that http://cara.georgetown.edu/frequently-requested-church-statistics/

Erikaspirit16:

But yes, the statistics sound about right. Now we had a case last weekend where Catholics were supposed to go to Mass on Sunday, and then again on Monday (Christmas). But of course the waters were muddied a bit because of Masses Sunday night for Christmas Eve. So you could end up going to two Masses in a day. At my church I went to 11 am Mass Sunday and 10 am (the only Mass available on Christmas day itself) Monday. Both Masses–usually full–were probably about 1/3 empty. Clearly a LOT of people didn’t see the necessity of going to Mass both days.

[snip for space]

So was I surprised that both Masses were about 1/3 empty? No. Should the priest have been surprised? No. Should the priest have done more to encourage people to attend both Masses? Yes. I see a problem.

Agreed.

It’s our job to give people the truth. What they do with it is their business, but we need to give them the truth or there are negative consequences for both, the one who needs to change, and the one who needs to give the unvarnished truth to the offender.

The verse that describes this perfectly is from Ez.

Ez 3:
17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. 18 If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you will have saved your life. 20 Again, if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. 21 Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning; and you will have saved your life.”

That advice is as good in Ezekiel’s day, as it is for us today and forever. That advice has no expiration date.

 

[NoelFitz]

Reuben_J
Catholics should respect politicians and all people, and participate in public life.
Support for Justice, peace and the poor are essential for Catholics.

Catholic social teaching is the Catholic doctrines on matters of human dignity and common good in society. The ideas address oppression, the role of the state, subsidiarity, social organization, concern for social justice, and issues of wealth distribution.(WWW)

 

[steve-b]

StPancake:

Abortion is murder.

I’m sure you and others (including myself, by the way) feel that “abortion is murder.” But in the US opinion is split more or less 50-50 on the question, and the percentage one way or the other depends on the wording of the question.

Really?

Erikaspirit16:

people of good will are simply following their own religions and/or consciences when they take the opposite side.

So there is no objective right or wrong? Just personal opinion?

Erikaspirit16:

If you think your morality should be imposed on others, take a hard look at the 17th c. Puritans in New England (or the UK for that matter). Salem witch trials, anyone? Outlawing Christmas for 20 years? And if you can skip over that, have a look at the treatment of Catholics in England even as late as the early 19th c. It’s not a pretty picture. And as I’ve said before, if Muslims outlawed church bells, pork, alcohol, and brought back polygamous marriage, I can’t imagine all those who are so happy to impose their own beliefs on others would stand around and think how wonderful it was to have Shari’a law imposed on them.

So it’s better to have a free for all? No breaks on murdering the most innocent among us?

Erikaspirit16:

If you truly believe “abortion is murder” you should be out there in the general public trying to convince everyone – by logic and reason, not by simply saying over and over “abortion is murder.” That’s not an argument. Other groups have convinced the general population of the wisdom of their views–abolitionists, women’s suffrage, gay rights and civil rights advocates, etc. etc.

You are agreeing a wise society has the right to disqualify and the need to discredit certain “groups” positions.

Erikaspirit16:

If you’ve been following this thread–and many others like it–you see it goes like this: “Abortion is murder.” “Not everyone thinks that.” “Abortion is murder.” “Not everyone thinks that.” and so on. “Abortion is murder” is not an argument. It may be your firmly held belief, but repeating it over and over is not a magic spell that’s going to convince anyone that you’re right.

Would you say Jesus was a perfect teacher? In the bread of life discourse He said over and over again , He repeated Himself many times, in Jn 6, Jn6: 50-66 RSVCE - This is the bread which comes down from - Bible Gateway that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood. What was the result? Most of His “disciples” (not the 12 but the others who were following Him as well) left Him because they didn’t agree with Jesus. The One who spoke in the beginning, and everything that is, came into existence, and His own disciples who saw His miracles said to Him, who could even listen to this stuff you’re teaching.

They said that to God’s face.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Let me turn back time to the 1930s, move to Germany, edit this a little and see if you still agree

Sorry, your analogy is not a good one. The Germans knew perfectly well that Jews were human beings. Maybe inferior ones to them, but still human. The fact that the Nazis didn’t publicize what they were doing shows that they knew they wouldn’t have wide support. And–of course–there were no world religions that advocated murdering Jews. There are world religions (as I keep repeating…) that think abortion is allowed at various stages.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

You are agreeing a wise society has the right to disqualify and the need to discredit certain “groups” positions.

I don’t know if you’ve been following the discussion. Forget a “wise society.” I’m simply saying that if a group feels it has right on its side, and is able to convince the vast majority of people that the group is right, they can–because they now have a consensus–change whatever they’re trying to change. Abolitionists, women’s suffrage, civil rights, etc. And sometimes they realize it wasn’t such a great idea–prohibition. You certainly have the right to publicly explain your position, whatever it is.

 

[Reuben_J]

I agree with all that. We cannot be indifferent to the world around us. In reality, which politicians that we should support, as there are many of them?

Being Catholic does not mean that they are really Catholic in their policy.

Are they espousing the Catholic value and teaching; and fight for the cause?

The choice is not often as straight forward as we would like it to be and it often posed a dilemma.

 

[guanophore]

I’m simply saying that if a group feels it has right on its side, and is able to convince the vast majority of people that the group is right, they can–because they now have a consensus–change whatever they’re trying to change.

And what you seem to want to ignore is that a very narrow majority in leadership can force changes on the majority without any consensus at all. There is not a “large majority” of americans that agree with “gay marriage”, but it has become the law of the land.

You seem to be equating “consensus” with court rulings and a very slim majority in congress. There is no comparison between these.

The vast majority of Americans do not want to lose their health care, most especially the poor. When this happens because there is a congressional control by those who do not want to fund health care for the poor, it will not reflect a “consensus”.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You are agreeing a wise society has the right to disqualify and the need to discredit certain “groups” positions.

I don’t know if you’ve been following the discussion. Forget a “wise society.” I’m simply saying that if a group feels it has right on its side, and is able to convince the vast majority of people that the group is right, they can–because they now have a consensus–change whatever they’re trying to change. Abolitionists, women’s suffrage, civil rights, etc. And sometimes they realize it wasn’t such a great idea–prohibition. You certainly have the right to publicly explain your position, whatever it is.

Explaining a position is one thing. OTOH, The validation of abortion was galactic error by those who thought they could do it and did it. So also is the Mexico city policy, and the Johnson amendment, and supporting planned parenthood etc etc etc… all flying under the banner of “civil rights” or “women’s rights”, or some imagined right of some sort that “groups of voters” think they have.

 

[StPancake]

Please then, don’t repeat yourself again. I was addressing the original post and that is my reason for not voting pro choice.

 

[NiceIsAsNiceDoes]

Not true at all. May women see a positive pregnancy test as “potential baby if I choose to allow it to be.”

 

[guanophore]

Not true at all. May women see a positive pregnancy test as “potential baby if I choose to allow it to be.”

Yes, women who want to be pregnant refer the the life in their womb as a 'baby" rather than the “by products of conception”.