Lesbian Catholic school teacher fired after mother's death because obit listed her partner
Too many teachers have been fired for being gay or for supporting GLBT rights. But this one is even worse because it happened right after the death of her mother:
When Bishop Watterson High School teacher Carla Hale returned to work last month after her mother’s death, administrators at the Catholic school in Clintonville confronted her with a letter.
An anonymous parent had written to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus, appalled that Hale had listed her female partner’s name in an obituary.
Within weeks, Hale said, she was fired because she is in a gay relationship.
Students and other supporters recently caught wind of the firing, and on Monday, a petition was initiated on change.org to seek Hale’s reinstatement. It had gained about 4,000 signatures by yesterday afternoon.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)I keep saying that if the Catholic Church had spent half the time and energy on the sin of avarice rather than the sin of lust, we would all be much better off.
georges641
(123 posts)It's a given that we're all going to sin in some way.
But to proclaim a sin, such as the sin of avarice, as if it were not a sin, and to live it as if it were a virtue, would be more than a personal sin. It would be to lead others astray and encourage them to be greedy, especially if the person were in a teaching position.
So in effect, a greedy Catholic school teacher who lived greed and promoted greed would then be contradicting the principles he is teaching and would be undermining the school's mission.
So it's more than reasonable that someone who preaches greed should not be hired or retained as a teacher in a school that teaches that greed is wrong. Isn't that obvious?
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)I didn't notice where anyone charged the teacher with greed. (But I still appreciate your point. You will often find me far less ready to argue hotly with other Catholics than with my brothers and sisters of other faiths or none at all.)
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)With your insistence that lesbianism is sinful.
The woman was not "undermining the school's mission". She was quietly going about her private life when her lesbianism came out due to something wholly unconnected to the school. All agree that she was an excellent teacher. But because certain homophobes took their fear and hatred of gays to an extreme, she got fired. Not because of anything she had done at school, but because certain un-Christian people refused to accept what she was.
My point, which you obviously missed, is that the Catholic Church makes too big a deal out of sex. If they had spent as much time and effort combatting greed as nattering about sex, we would be far better off.
georges641
(123 posts)What Church was guiding the principles of the school?
What does the Catechism say?
What was she teaching by her example and was it consistent with Church teaching?
What is your proof of "fear and hatred." There is neither in the Church for any group.
Do you think there is any such thing as a sexual sin?
Why would the Church make a "big deal" about sexual sins? The reason is because sin can lead someone to hell and the job of the Church is to lead people to Heaven.
Are you a practicing Catholic?
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)What Church was guiding the principles of the school?
The principles of a group of narrow-minded homophobes. Catholics who have rejected Christ's call to love their neighbors as themselves. A group which may call itself Catholic, but that is open to question
What does the Catechism say?
Who cares? The Catechism is not infallible. Indeed, in many places, it's not even very good.
What was she teaching by her example and was it consistent with Church teaching?
Apparently, she was a good example for her students. What she does in private is her concern, not anyone else's.
What is your proof of "fear and hatred." There is neither in the Church for any group.
If you truly believe that, then you should be in the forefront of those clamoring for her to get her job back. The ONLY reason those bigots insisted that she be fired was fear and hatred of lesbians.
Do you think there is any such thing as a sexual sin?
Yes, but being a lesbian in a committed, loving relationship is not one of them. Nor is having sex only with one's second spouse. Pederasty is a sin, so is covering up pederasty.
Why would the Church make a "big deal" about sexual sins?
That is a question best left to psychologists.
The reason is because sin can lead someone to hell and the job of the Church is to lead people to Heaven.
How is that lesbian going to lead ANYONE to hell?
Are you a practicing Catholic?
Yes, and I would like to think that I am a better Catholic than the narrow-minded bigots who got that woman fired.
georges641
(123 posts)It's clear what the Church teaches regarding sexual morality and also is clear that the Church is not a cafeteria where one can select those beliefs that are most agreeable and comfy and reject those that are challenging and require discipline and self-denial.
Why should I presume you have more clarity and authority than the Pope and bishops in this matter?
I'll try again with a question and hope that you can answer this one in good faith.
Is there such a thing as a sexual sin? If so, what is it or what are they? List them please.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 2, 2015, 06:02 AM - Edit history (1)
I gave you honest answers. That they do not please you is too damn bad.
It's clear what the Church teaches regarding sexual morality and also is clear that the Church is not a cafeteria where one can select those beliefs that are most agreeable and comfy and reject those that are challenging and require discipline and self-denial.
In other words, I called it correctly: You are happy to have the Vatican do your thinking for you. And allow me to let you into one of the parts of Catholicism that seems to have escaped you: ALL Catholics are "cafeteria Catholics".
* Do you believe that charging interest on a loan is sinful? That is the official Church teaching. Admittedly, it has not been mentioned since 1745, but it has never actually been rescinded.
* Do you believe that capital punishment is moral? Pope John Paul II, in section 56 of his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae -- "The Gospel of Life", says that the death penalty is not intrinsically immoral, but there cases in which it is morally acceptable "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."
* Do you agree with Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors, which condemns such propositions as "15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." or "17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ." or "23. Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes" or "45. The entire government of public schools ... may and ought to appertain to the civil power" or "55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church." or "77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship." or "78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship."
Disagree with any of these, and you are clearly a Cafeteria Catholic.
georges641
(123 posts)There are dogmas and doctrine binding on all the faithful, and not all of what you cited is dogma or doctrine. But you are eager to find any excuse or loophole, it seems, to excuse making your own rules or rejecting rules that require discipline and self-denial. You could excuse adultery or any sin on that basis.
The Church has already spoken about capital punishment. It's in the hands of the state.
I can believe as I like about it, though I take seriously what JPII has to say. But what he said is not binding on the faithful.
Regarding interest, if you're interested in an explanation, I can provide a link that explains it, or you may see the link in another thread.
The "Vatican" does not do my thinking for me. Christ is the head of the Church and the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church cannot teach error.
If the Church can teach error then the Church is lying about itself, because the Church claims that it cannot teach error. I don't believe I belong to a Church that lies and would not join a Church that lies.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)I do not know why. Perhaps it is because you do not want to admit that you are aligning yourself with narrow-minded, un-Christian homophobes. Oh, and I am not condoning adultery.
The Church has already spoken about capital punishment. It's in the hands of the state.
The Church, in the person of Pope John Paul II, has spoken. JPII said that it was essentially immoral. BTW, saying that the state can make moral decisions is dubious at best. Remember, Adolf Eichmann tried to defend himself by saying that he let the state make his moral decisions for him.
Regarding interest, if you're interested in an explanation, I can provide a link that explains it, or you may see the link in another thread.
OK, let's see that link.
The "Vatican" does not do my thinking for me. Christ is the head of the Church and the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church cannot teach error.
In other words, the Vatican does your thinking for you. Except, of course, when you disagree with it, as you do in the case of capital punishment. It is clear that you accept capital punishment as moral, and you disagree with John Paul II when he says that it really isn't. Cafeteria Catholicism at its finest.
If the Church can teach error then the Church is lying about itself, because the Church claims that it cannot teach error. I don't believe I belong to a Church that lies and would not join a Church that lies.
In my last post, I pointed out that until 1888, the official teaching was that slavery was moral; after 1888, the teaching was that slavery was immoral. How do you reconcile this with your "the Church does not teach error".
georges641
(123 posts)Please read my words more carefully. I said I was free to believe as I choose about it. The Church says it's in the hands of the state. I didn't say I let the state make my "moral decisions."
You are incorrect about the slavery issue and have grossly oversimplified it to use as an excuse to make your own doctrine. Here's something that would shed some light on it:
http://www.kingscollege.net/gbrodie/A%20RESPONSE%20TO%20JOHN%20T%20Noonan%20.pdf
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm
Regarding usury:
http://frcoulter.com/presentations/usury/
But your reasoning seems to be that if you can find an error somewhere that that justifies you rejecting whatever doctrine you like. Am I right about that? The Church (in your mind) was wrong about slavery, so therefore it could be wrong about everything else, so why not disregard any doctrine you don't like, especially those that require self-discipline?
What is the Church RIGHT about?
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Before 1888, it was seen by the Vatican as moral; after 1888, it was seen as immoral. That, sir or madam, is a demonstrable fact. What you are giving me is a demonstration of dishonesty in Catholic apologetics -- in this case, pretending that the Church has always opposed slavery. Actually, I should say lying about the Church's attitude towards slavery.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)And the bottom line is THE DOCTRINE CHANGED. At one time, slavery was seen as morally licit, now it is seen as morally illicit. Pretending that the two ideas are compatible with each other is simply to lie -- and the moral teaching on lying has not changed.
Quite simply, georges, you can only maintain your belief in the immutability of Catholic doctrine by denying reality. Denying reality is just silly, and does not help your argument in the slightest. Incidentally, you might find Jaroslav Pelikan's five volume The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine interesting.
georges641
(123 posts)Is this issue the foundation of Cafeteria Catholicism, BTW? At least for those who seek to justify it? Granted that there are those who offer no justification other than their whims and desires.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)First, EWTN is largely interested in defending Catholic triumphalism. I have described "triumpalism" as the attitude "my Church right or wrong, except that she is never wrong". Father Panzer wants, oh, so desperately, to pretend that Church teaching on slavery never changed.
In his article, Father Panzer gives examples of limited denunciations of slavery under specific circumstances. For example, he cites Eugene IV saying "the natives of the Canary Islands should not be enslaved". But that is very far from "slavery is per se immoral." Similarly, he cites Paul III saying that Native Americans should not be enslaved, which, again, is not "slavery is per se immoral." Gregory XVI condemned the slave trade in 1839, not slavery itself. Panzer claims otherwise, but his claim cannot be supported by the facts.
In fact, the first time that any Pope decried slavery as immoral in and of itself was Leo XIII in his encyclical of 1888, In Plurimus.
No, THE MORAL TEACHING changed, and to claim otherwise is simply dishonest.
Similarly, the moral teaching of the Church is STILL that taking interest on loans is usury, and thus immoral. It has been quietly swept under the rug, but it cannot be contradicted, because to do so would be to admit that the Church teaching was wrong.
Tell me, georges, would your faith be shaken if the Vatican were to admit it had been wrong in the past? Because the only way you can continue to hold that attitude is by denying facts.
georges641
(123 posts)Which means you can reject anything you don't like?
Usury would be a different situation in a country which prints and inflates the money supply.
Moral teachings must be given religious assent. You misunderstand what that means.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)You know, it seems that whenever I argue with conservatives of any stripe, they appear to rely on logical fallacies. Your "So you think you've got doctrinal changes regarding usury and slavery...Which means you can reject anything you don't like?" is an excellent example of the fallacy of the Non-Sequitur. Rejecting NON-INFALLIBLE teachings has nothing to do with changes in Church teachings.
Usury would be a different situation in a country which prints and inflates the money supply.
Clearly, you do not know what usury is. Usury is charging excessive interest on a loan. It has nothing to do with Fiat Money or Gresham's Law or the money supply or economics.
Moral teachings must be given religious assent. You misunderstand what that means.
I know exactly what it means, and I have defined it correctly. I'll bet you had not heard the term before I used it.
Let's see: In your last post, you display ignorance twice and use illogic once. (And blow off several questions.) You aren't doing very well in this argument, georges.
georges641
(123 posts)I'm not too proud to learn new things either. Yes, "religious assent" is a new concept for me, but after learning about it, I see that it means something much different than what you say it is.
And I don't think I'm being illogical or misinterpreting your logic. You seem to be saying the church was wrong a out x, therefore it could be wrong about y, therefore I can ignore y or reject y.
I have to do more research about the usury issue, but I misunderstood and thought that any interest was considered usury. If instead it means "excess" then that's an entirely different ball of wax as it would not be excessive to take inflation into account or the risks involved or that those who work in lending institutions are entitled to compensation.
I happen to be on the road so I am typing with one finger on my ipad. I can address other concerns more thoroughly when back at a keyboard.
georges641
(123 posts)"Liberal" and "conservative" are political classifications. What I am is "orthodox." What you appear to be is "heterodox."
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Clearly, "orthodox" means "I let the Vatican do my thinking for me". Except, of course, on capital punishment, where you let the state do your thinking for you.
I am not "heterodox", except to those who believe that if some bureaucrat at the Vatican speaks, then this should be accepted without question. I question Vatican teachings -- and I say "Vatican", not "Church" because the Vatican is NOT the Church.
I keep noticing that I advance arguments against certain Vatican teachings, and you ignore them. At best, you blow them off. I say that Humanae Vitae only makes sense if the only purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation, and you respond with an irrelevancy. I say that Pope John Paul II's argument against the ordination of women in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is "because I say so" -- an argument which has never worked with anyone over the age of five -- and you ignore it. Similarly, I point out that Pope Paul VI's encyclical on priestly celebacy completely ignores a relevant statement in 1 Corinthians 9:5 (St. Paul saying he has a right to be married), and you say nothing in response.
How about responding to what I say, instead of just repeating that I do not know what "religious assent" means. Incidentally, you have not stated just what YOU mean by that term, nor have you given me the slightest reason for my being wrong about it.
If the Vatican gives me good arguments, then I am more than willing to accept them. But cherry-picked quotations, dubious (at best) history, ignored evidence, and shutting down discussion by fiat do not make for good arguments.
georges641
(123 posts)Didn't you see my links and quotes about religious assent? Everything I have found says it's the opposite of what you say it is. Please provide an authoritative source that supports your position.
Shame on me, but I haven't read humanae vitea, though I intend to.
You say it only makes sense if the only purpose of sex is procreation.
If you're right about that then does it forbid infertile couples to have sexual relations? Does it forbid fertile couples from having sexual relations during infertile times?
I'm going to take a wild guess that it forbids neither, and if that's the case, you have grossly mischaracterized it.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)"Religious assent" means "letting the Vatican and the hierarchy do your thinking for you". Sorry, but that is not what adults do. "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways."
I accept infallible teachings. For other teachings, I listen, study, pray and make up my own mind. After all, prior to 1888, the Church taught that slavery was morally licit, something clearly wrong. Pope Paul VI is simply full of crap in his "teaching" on contraception -- and the vast majority of American Catholics have quite properly rejected it. It is interesting that you defend Humanae Vitae while never having read it. That is definitely letting others do your thinking for you, and is something real people hopefully gave up at about the age of seven.
If you're right about that then does it forbid infertile couples to have sexual relations? Does it forbid fertile couples from having sexual relations during infertile times? I'm going to take a wild guess that it forbids neither, and if that's the case, you have grossly mischaracterized it.
It does forbid neither (unlike you, I have read it). However the ARGUMENT AGAINST CONTRACEPTION, which has nothing to do with infertile couples. To repeat, it is based on "natural law", about which Ireneaus of Lyon wrote, "From the beginning, God had implanted in the heart of man the precepts of the natural law", Against Heresies 4, 15. has a long discussion in his Summa Theologica I-II questions 90-106. Aversion to things such as murder, rape and incest can be said to be written on one's heart, but contraception does not even come close. Aversion to contraception can only be said to be written on the hearts of those who believe that the primary purpose of sexual activity is procreation. Tell me, georges, when you have sex with your spouse (assuming you are married), do you do it with the specific intention of causing a pregnancy? If you answer "no", then you agree with me and my CORRECT characterization of Humanae Vitae .
Here is an expansion, taken from something I posted some months ago.
First, Humanae Vitae does not actually define "contraception". I suspect that this is because any actual definition would shoot holes in Pope Paul's argument. Here's a definition: Contraception is a means of having intercourse without procreation.
The second objection I have is that Humanae Vitae concentrates on the method, and completely ignores intent. I suspect this is because the so-called "NFP" ("Natural Family Planning"
that the Vatican touts is merely another way of having sexual intercourse and avoiding pregnancy. In other words, the end is exactly the same, the only difference is the method employed. (Incidentally, ignoring intent is bad moral theology, but that is a different discussion -- I just mention this as another example of why Humanae Vitae is a very poor document.)
What is wrong with the teaching in Humanae Vitae is that it starts with the view of the Roman stoics and pagan Gnostics that the body is evil, and pleasure is to be mistrusted.
Paul VI implies, although he nowhere says explicitly, that among the "lower animals", sex is only used for procreation. The closest he comes in Humanae Vitae 10: "In relation to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means the knowledge and respect of their functions; human intellect discovers in the power of giving life biological laws which are part of the human person". (The Roman stoic Ulpian said that if you wanted to know what natural behavior was, look in the barnyard.) I suspect that this is what Paul VI was thinking of. However, this is not necessarily the best place to look. Primates, our closest relatives in nature, use sexual activity in pair bonding, not just procreation; see Alison Jolly's The Evolution of Primate Behavior, Chapter 13. If Pope Paul is going to use a biological argument, he should use good biology.
The view that sexual intercourse is only morally licit if it is being used for procreation was promulgated by people such as Augustine of Hippo, whose own experience of sex was through having illicit love affairs. Augustine thought that he knew what sex was about, but his views were undoubtedly colored by his own experience -- and he actually had not a clue as to the proper function of sex in a marriage. This view led him to say in his De Bono Conjugali that sexual relations, except for the express purpose of procreation, were at least venially sinful.
Pope Gregory I supported this stand, saying in a letter to Augustine of Canterbury that "even lawful intercourse cannot take place without desire of the flesh ... which can by no means be without sin."
Pope Paul also says some remarkably silly things in Humanae Vitae . For example, he says
Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based, if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificial birth control. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men -- especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point -- have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer his respected and beloved companion.
In case the Pope had not noticed, there was a great deal of adultery and fornication going on before Humanae Vitae came out. His second point in that paragraph is that men may lose respect for their wives, seeing them as mere sexual objects. I do not believe that this has happened. For example, it is generally accepted that the great increase in reported incidences of domestic violence is due first, to better reporting techniques, and second, to a social awareness that this is not acceptable behavior. Incidentally, he offers no support for his assertions.
georges641
(123 posts)I accept what the church teaches about capital punishment:
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
For whatever it is worth, I oppose the death penalty in our culture, but there are times and places when it might be necessary, as our church says, and would leave to the state.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)In the hierarchy of Church teachings. After all, the Catechism is a product of the Vatican bureaucracy, while an encyclical is part of the ordinary papal magisterium (do you understand that phrase?) No, what the Vatican bureaucracy says is way below what the Pope says.
For whatever it is worth, I oppose the death penalty in our culture, but there are times and places when it might be necessary, as our church says, and would leave to the state.
Your interpretation of the Catechism is deeply flawed. First, you neglected to quote the second part of paragraph 2267, which says "If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person." In other words, the Catechism agrees with me and JPII, in saying that while capital punishment is not immoral per se, there are essentially no situations in which it is moral. Clearly, the Catechism does not say "just leave it up to the state".
Anyway, the Catechism is not that good. When it came out, the American bishops complained that it does not distinguish between "matters of faith and theological opinion.
How about paragraph 489:
Throughout the Old Covenant the mission of many holy women prepared for that of Mary. At the very beginning there was Eve; despite her disobedience, she receives the promise of a posterity that will be victorious over the evil one, as well as the promise that she will be the mother of all the living. By virtue of this promise, Sarah conceives a son in spite of her old age. Against all human expectation God chooses those who were considered powerless and weak to show forth his faithfulness to his promises: Hannah, the mother of Samuel; Deborah; Ruth; Judith and Esther; and many other women. Mary "stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from him. After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion, and the new plan of salvation is established."
Deborah, the prophet and judge of Israel, a woman holding genuine power in a patriarchal society, "powerless and weak?" Ruth, a woman celebrated as an exemplar, "powerless and weak?" Judith, who slew Holophernes with his own sword, "powerless and weak?" Esther, who blocked Haman and saved Israel, "powerless and weak?" No, none of these women were powerless and weak. The author of that paragraph, on the other hand, is certainly arrogant and sexist.
georges641
(123 posts)Now that we're in agreement about something, do you also agree the catechism and jp2 take even a harder line against abortion, and do you agree that those lives ought not be terminated as well?
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)You said that the state should be the sole decider on the morality of capital punishment, something that NEITHER JPII nor the Catechism say.
I suggest that you read your sources.
georges641
(123 posts)I think you're being very nitpicky about this.
I don't know how much more I can clarify this.
I personally do not believe in the death penalty in our modern culture here in the US. However, I don't think it is "intrinsically evil," and neither does the Church. There might be situations where the death penalty would be appropriate and within the moral teachings of Catholicism, such as in a primitive society that lack the resources to house dangerous people. In a situation such as this, the Church would say the state has the right to allow for a death penalty.
I never said or meant to imply that the state determines whether or not it is "moral."
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Which is sloppy (at best) ethics, and puts you in the same dock as Adolf Eichmann at worst. And it is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches.
When you say that you are willing to let the state decide on capital punishment, you are saying that you are allowing the state to make moral decisions. Or are you saying that allowing the death penalty is not a moral question?
sigmasix
(794 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Pigs.
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)I personally think it's a terrible sin to punish real love anyway. How egotistical and hypocritical for some to think that only hetero relationships are valid!
Wish I could sic Dorothy Day on 'em.
georges641
(123 posts)Isn't it fair to expect some consistency?
If she was fired there must have been a basis for it and she probably knew going in what was expected of her.
Are you a Catholic, IrishAyes?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)And I'm straight, btw, lest anyone think I'm merely sticking up for 'my' side. But I was raised to respect people, and mostly I do. If anyone wants to pray for my soul's improvement, I confess to ... to ... extremely dispeptic reaction to all things GOP. There, I've said it. That might be my Achilles heel.
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)But not blind lockstep obedience.
As for Catholic, yes. Cradle at that. I will never leave the church even if it leaves me. I even follow St. Francis' way of sharing the Word with all God's creation, often singing my Hail Mary's and Our Father's to my own little furkids at home. If I ever feel horribly in the dumps, the cloud lifts when I start to sing the Hail Mary repeatedly in every musical variation I can create.
And I've been fortunate to love every nun I've ever known. Though I must admit that when, like many pre-teen Catholic girls, I announced my desire to become a nun, Mother Superior gasped in mock horror. "Heaven help us if you do, child!" She knew better than I did at that age that I wasn't exactly destined for the habit. By gentle questioning she gave me an inkling before I left her office, though. And of course she was right. I was already entranced with Dorothy Day and it didn't bode well for a future of obedience. That's not my calling.
If you care to enquire further, see my other replies on this post and/or visit my journal, where I tend to enter all but the most mundane conversations.
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)georges641
(123 posts)Why teach what you don't believe in?
That seems to me to be the real crux of the issue.
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)Faithful members of the church must force change from the bottom UP. The heirarchy certainly has no room to hold themselves above the crowd. They're in positions of stewardship to lead the flock in the way of love as Christ taught. When they're off kilter, it's up to the rest of us to haul them back in.
georges641
(123 posts)I'm a convert to Catholicism. I knew when I joined the Church I would have to make some changes.
For example, I used contraception in my marriage but quit when I became a Catholic. I didn't at first like the idea of going to Church every Sunday, but I accepted it, and soon came to love it and often went to daily Mass as well.
If I were to join a club that required wearing a blue blazer and black slacks at every meeting, and I got thrown out for wearing a red jacket and yellow pants, I should not scratch my head and wonder why or complain about unfairness. The rules were clearly stated. Who am I to deserve special treatment?
This board is the same way. There are rules and if they are broken, the poster gets tossed. Is that unfair?
At any rate, the members don't force any changes regarding doctrine or dogma. That comes from the top down and always will. The Church is not a democracy.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)People can not be expected to follow every rule of the church. It is just not going to happen.
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)I can hardly imagine that God wants us to check our brains at the door. If declaring the
Bible completely inerrant is bibliolatry - and it is - then what is declaring church heirarchy completely inerrant?
This is not to say I don't appreciate your feelings. I do. But you might also find cradle Catholics a bit readier to challenge than later converts (welcome, btw!) It is absolutely impossible and even unwise to try to force around 2 billion souls into complete lockstep. Many of us suffer no qualms at all in open disagreement when we feel the moral imperative upon us. It is, after all, God we worship, not Rome. Dorothy Day would have a heart attack in paradise if we did.
That said, I'm as delighted as anyone to have Pope Francis as our new pope. He seems a true man of the people. The only noticeable thing I've disagreed with him about so far is his scolding of the Nuns on the Bus. There will be more later on, w/o doubt. But it's highly unlikely to dilute the affection I feel for him. And I promise you I'll consider his wishes carefully and not depart from them w/o due cause.
Here's the funny thing. Even though he has the power to excommunicate a parishioner from the church on earth, neither he nor any other mortal has the power to separate me or anyone else from God. With or without Rome's approval, I am Catholic to the end of my days. That much is far more between myself and my God than between myself and any mere human being living or dead.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)I suppose that those having personally chosen to practice Catholicism as adults can make conscience choice. Does it perhaps having something to do with it being imposed on young people that makes them less able to accept the teachings of the Church. I would caution some converts that they may not be as well informed as many Catholics who have been exposed to a Catholic education I read often where those such a Augustine are quoted as a source, but often with so very little knowledge that many of his teachings were condemned by his contemporaries such as infant damnation, predestination, clerical celibacy, etc.
Remember that he was a member of a radical sect, Manichean's, who believed in some of the most bizarre concepts ever concocted including the condemnation of sexual intercourse. Augustine wasn't even able to accept that restriction and took a mistress who bore him a son. He abandoned her after after his "magical conversation." His condemnation of sexual relations alone cast him as a heretic along with Jerome and Ambrose.
You might what to consider that perhaps live long Catholics who question some of the church's teaching are not just unable to accept discipline as you state, but may have very honest, informed consciences. I would suggest that you avail yourself to reading the writing of the early fathers and see if you actually agree with some of their convections that have become the foundation of what many deem as being wrought from these early writers. I would also suggest that you also bone up on a number of the Greek and Roman philosophers upon who writings many for the early church fathers relied on heavily. I would only suggest that at least that you read Plato's dialog "Phaedo" in which he outlined the basic teaching of the church on heaven, hell, redemption, condemnation and the immortality of the soul, fasting, renouncement of riches and life long celibacy some 300 years before the birth of Jesus. In fact Augustine, was amassed how closely the shared common beliefs. The fact of the matter was that Christianity borrowed these beliefs from the pagans not the Jews.
georges641
(123 posts)And his conversion wasn't "magical." Yes he lived a life of debauchery and chased after heresies prior to that time, but his conversion was very real, and he turned his back on the wayward ways of his youth. He was inspired by the great examples of St. Ambrose, and his Mother, St. Monica.
It is the Church which "informs the conscience." There is no way that we can outsmart or outbetter the Church. If I go outside of the Church to inform my conscience, I'm only going to be led astray.
Within the Catholic Church subsists all the Truth (regarding faith and morals) that God has chosen to reveal to Man. That parts of this Truth have been known to others now or before Catholicism does not mean that the Catholic Church "borrowed" those Truths.
Socrates and the philosophers reached upwards toward God and used their reasoning to understand the nature of God and the soul, etc., and they discovered some Truth, but they couldn't see perfectly clearly, and their reasoning was mixed with errors. In Judaism and Catholicism, God reached downward toward Man, revealing himself and his Truths, and gave us the vehicle by which those truths could be heard and proclaimed, and without error.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)His saintly mother demanded that he abandon the mother of his child and seek a more suitable mate. He was a better Manichean after his "conversion" than when he was an active member of this nitwit sect.
In his work "On Marriage and Sexual Desire, he expressed his view of sex an a filthy evil defilement fully exposing his Manichean interpretation of the first sexual relation between Adam and Eve. He wrote, "The first human pair on experiencing in the flesh that motion which is indecent and disobedient, on feeling shame of their nakedness, covered these offending members with fig leaves. (On Marriage and Concupiscence, 1,7) Compare that to the Genesis: "God created man in his image. In the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them. Then God blesses them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. (Gen 2, 27-28)
Contrast this to the teachings of the earliest Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria who had no problem in tracing the origin of of the doctrines expounded by the Encritites of the second century and the endorsement of celibacy. He stated "But those who from hatred of the flesh ungratefully long to have nothing to do with the marriage union and the eating of reasonable foods are both blockheads and atheists and exercise an irrational chasity like other heathen" (Miscellanies, 3, 7,60)
Augustine's view of marriage was in sharp contrast to the Jewish admiration of marriage and sexual relations. Augustine wrote, "Paint her virtue as you will and heap up good qualities, nevertheless I have decided that there is nothing I must more carefully avoid then the marriage bed...Accoridingly in the interest of righteousness and liberty of the my soul, I have made it my rule ot to desire or seek to marry a wife. I am completely free from desires of this kind and recall them with horror an disdain." (Solioquies 10,70)
He was extreme in his views. For example in his work "The Good of Marriage" in which he couldn't find any redeeming qualities he wrote that the sooner sexual intercourse ceased the sooner God,s reign would begin, "In these days, indeed, no one perfect in piety seeks to have children except spiritually." (The Good of Marriage, 313, 17; 19) Contrast that to the teachings of the Jews. The noted Jewish scholar, Abba Hillel Silver in his work "Where Judaism Differed" stated, "Judaism's aim was not to make men morosely penitent but joyfully active in moral enterprise. It did not seek to curb the impulses and desires of the human heart but to direct them toward the 'wholeness' and harmony of living. (Where Judaism Differed p. 166)
I could go on citing hundreds of examples of what went wrong when the "blockheads and atheists' gained control of the church. However, I feel that it may prove to fruitless.
georges641
(123 posts)It is false to say Augustine could find no redeeming values in marriage. Statements to that effect are in the chapter you cited. I have only skimmed through City of God, but have read Confessions and a large collection of his sermons, so I'm not unfamiliar with him.
Please cite passages in context. You're cherry picking and distorting.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)In the City of God he employed the superstitious interpretation of numbers just as the Pythagoreans did writing: "Thus it is that the descendants of Adam. the transgressor, end on the number eleven, the symbol of transgression. And, as the last in that number is a woman, so was it by a woman that the first sin was committed...But the first consequence that followed the committing of that sin was the concupiscence of he flesh, the pleasure which resists our spirit. (City of God, 15,20)
You must realize that the entirety Augustine's decrepit moral teachings were based on the totally debilitationing effect of Original Sin. Contrast this to the beliefs of the Jews. Ben Zion Bosker in his work, "Judaism and the Christian Predicament" wrote, "The Christian doctrine of original sin introduced guilt feeling toward sex. It fostered a quietism and resignation concerning evil in man and society. It blunted the passion of the Hebrew prophets, who continually challenged their people toward moral activism, to abandon the lowly aspirations and pursuits, to strive to be better and do better. p.335
The fact is that the Jews have never accorded the story of the Fall with any doctinal significance. "The doctrine of original sin became the "critical" doctrine in Christianity...it contaminated his seed forever after with the guilt of his disobedience...The story of Adam's disobedienceis, of course, part of the Hebrew Bible, but Judaism never invested it with doctrinal significance...Adam's mortality was not a consequence of his disobedience; it was included in the original design of his birth (Genesis Rabbah 30:8) As a finite creature, he could not have been other than mortal. p.321 I would refer you to the writings of Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" in which he expressed a similar intretation that contridicts Augustine' unsupported ranting.
I will not go into Augustines attack on Julian, a married bishop, who challenged Augustine's novel interpretations of the Hebrew bible and Pelagus who challenged his doctrine of original sin. I will leave that for you to aquint yourself with the truth.
I will leave you with a quotation from the Hebrew Bible. "The work of the Lord came to me again: What do you mean by repeating this proverb cancerning the land of Israel. "The Father have eaten sour grapes and children't teeth are set on edge?" As I live, says the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. Behold all souls are mine...The son shall not bear the iniquityf of the father, and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son. The justice of the just shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Ez 18, 1-4; 18,20)
georges641
(123 posts)But this is a catholic group.
Augustine did not teach infallibly, but his preaching about most things is sound if taken in context, and are in no way "decrepit" to a catholic. He is a doctor of the church, a brilliant theologian and philosopher, and most important of all, a saint. You are attacking a catholic hero.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)A "brilliant theologian and philosopher" he was not. I would really encourage you to become better acquainted with the actual writings rather than just parroting the nonsense that you accept as doctrinal. I find it actually hilarious that you reject the teachings of the Jewish theologians when Jesus was a faithful Jew to the very end. In fact I find your inability to accept that you have been sold a bag of nonsense rather sad.
georges641
(123 posts)And what Jewish teachings did I reject?
All I said is you have the right to hold your Jewish beliefs, and I'm not going to go out of my way to discredit your religion as you are mine.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)You are making a poor attempt at backtracking after being challenged as not being able to support your lack of knowledge. You don't seem able to appreciate the fact that Augustine was not the ultimate Christian that you had been convinced he was. That is the problem of not actually having availed yourself of his and a host of other Christian writers of the period from the 1st through the 4th centuries. If you read only the works of Clement of Alexandria you would appreciate the transformation that had taken place by the 4th century.
Clement condemned those advancing the Platonic doctrines. He the to be considered heretics. He charged, "Above all, this ought to be known, that by nature we are adapted for virtue; not so as to be possessed of it from our birth, but so as to be adapted to for acquiring it. By which consideration is solved the question propounded to us by the heretics, whether Adam was created perfect or imperfect? For they shall hear from us that he was not perfect in his creation, but adapted to the reception of virtur...(Miscellanies, 6, 11-21)
Clement was well versed in pagan philosophy and traced ever heretical teaching to the dualistic doctrines of the pagan philosophers. This also was the teaching of the Irenaeus in his work "Proof of the Apostolic Preachings." He instructed, "Above all, this ought to be known, that by nature we are adapted for virtue; not so as to be possessed of it from our birth, but so as to be adapted for acquiring it. By which consideration is solved the question propounded to us by heretics, whether Adam was created perfect or imperfect? For they shall hear from us that he was not perfect in his creation, but adapted to the reception of virtue..(12, 16)
Augustine was totally dependent on Platonic teachings, most especially, the recently translated works of the Neoplatonic writing of Plotinus work "Ennead'. In fact he didn't have one original thought. For example in treatise "Against Julian" in which he defamed marriage and conjugal relations, he endorsed Plato's teaching that absolutely contradicted the teaching of the Apostolic Fathers. Mimicking Plato, he wrote, "Should one seek the pleasures of the body, which, as Plato said truly and earnestly, are the enticements and baits of evil.? (Against Julian, 4, 14, 72)
I would encourage you to pursue a knowledge of the actual writings of the early church fathers, rather than relying on the parroting of indoctrinated unsuspecting souls. It is not an easy task, but I found it most rewarding in making some amount of sense out of the obvious contradictions in which God is cast in the role of absolute despot burdening mankind with sexual desire that must be crushed as counseled by the pagan philosophers in their dualistic doctrine to obtain perfection or the eternal damnation of innocent babies for example.
georges641
(123 posts)First, I don't know why we're discussing augustine, but I have read enough of him to know he is not a heretic, and further, the church declares he is a saint. Do you deny he is a saint? Somewhere I thought you said that Ambrose condemned some of his writings, but I could not find the post, and if I'm in error about that, my apologies. But if you did say that, could you provide something specific?
As your posts relate to the topic of this thread--how do the early church fathers support the concept that marriage is not exclusively between one man and one woman?
olegramps
(8,200 posts)Just what is that you are unable to comprehend that Augustine was a devoted disciple of Plato, not Jesus.
So, the church believes that a man who has a child by a woman and then abandons her is saintly material. No, I don't believe that he was a exemplar example of a Christian.
His major contributions consisted of Predestination based on his novel concept of original sin and conclued that only a handful would be saved. Of course, those who have espoused that particular piece of heresy always seem to include themselves as those chosen for salvation while the masses of mankind are condemned to eternal damnation. By the way that was a bit much and was condemned as heretical. Secondly, he condemned children who had not been baptized to eternal damnation. Julian a contemporary bishop, wrote, "Tiny babies , you say, are not weighed down by their own sin, but are burdened with the sin of another. Tell me then, who is this person who inflicts punishment on an innocent creature...You answer God. God!...He it is, you say, who judges in this way; he is the persecutor of newborn children; he it is who sends tiny unbaptized babies to eternal flames. (Unfinished Work Against Julian 3, 67; 1,48)
Enough. I am not going waste any more effort on someone who argues from a position of total lack of even a passing acquaintance with the authentic writings of the Apostolic Fathers. I suppose that in some cases ignorance is indeed blessed.
georges641
(123 posts)You offer no support regarding your attacks against augustine. Just your own words and opinions.
I read Confessions. I know all about his life of debauchery before he converted.
That's the beauty of Christianity. It can wash a sinner clean and transform him into a saint.
The Catholic Church says he is a saint. You disagree with the church?
I've read some of the early church fathers too. I don't reject their writings. Have you read Augustine's sermons, btw?
Augustine is a doctor of the church. That doesn't mean he's 100% free of error. Neither was aquinas.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)I really don't give a hoot who the Catholic Church believes is a saint or what title they wish to bestow on someone. You have demonstrated very clearly that you aren't even minimally informed.
As to you asinine statement that I did not provide any proof. I provided you with the quotations and references of the Apostolic Fathers and Early Church Fathers that absolutely contradict the teachings of Augustine. In contrast you have not provided anything but ridiculous responses. You are not advancing the Catholic Church's image, but in fact seriously damaging it by displaying a total lack of knowledge.
This will conclude any correspondence with you. It has been an utter waste of effort.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)is that he is remarkably ignorant of his own religion. He did not know what "religious assent" was until I introduced him to the term. He claims to support Humanae Vitae while admitting that he has never read it. He spouts on Augustine while never having read Augustine.
Incidentally, olegramps, I have some major disagreements with you on Augustine, but perhaps we should make a separate thread on that.
georges641
(123 posts)That's true. And I appreciate that I have learned a new concept from you, though you misrepresent it's meaning.
I admit to having a certain level of ignorance, but I'm working on that. I do have good instincts, however, and can spot a BS artist a mile away and am not intimidated at all by how smart he claims to be.
It's sad to have such a discussion with someone who claims to be a catholic. I'm used to attitudes like yours on the Internet, but they are usually those of people who hate the church.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)I do have good instincts, however, and can spot a BS artist a mile away and am not intimidated at all by how smart he claims to be.
Then why do you support Tobin's homophobia?
It's sad to have such a discussion with someone who claims to be a catholic.
Yeah, someone who (1) actually knows Catholic doctrine and history, (2) knows that what the Vatican says is actually open to debate and (3) dares to think for himself is threatening. But go on, letting other people do your thinking for you. That's safe. Of course, your religion will only be superficial, but you probably feel comfortable that way. I suggest that you read Revelation 3 and meditate on it.
Incidentally, are you going to respond to what I wrote about Humanae Vitae? Or are you just happy to accept crap moral teaching -- a silly question, since you support Tobin's homophobia, and are content to allow the state to make moral decisions about capital punishment. If you actually opposed it, then you would say that the state does not have the competency to make such decisions.
It's sad to have such a discussion with someone who claims to be a Catholic. I'm used to attitudes like yours on the Internet, but they are usually those of people who just coast.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)And yes, the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is BAAAAAD. But the Catholic Church has a terrible record when it comes to teaching about sex. Did you know that Augustine of Hippo taught that sexual relations between a husband and wife were sinful, if not done with the specific intent of procreation? (My wife and I are in our sixties. We made love this morning. According to Augustine, we were sinning.)
Did you know that Pope Gregory I taught that "even lawful intercourse cannot take place without desire of the flesh ... which can by no means be without sin." (And Gregory would agree with Augustine that my wife and I sinned.)
Did you know that the Council of Trent's Roman Catechism said that there are three lawful uses of intercourse in marriage: (1) to procreate, (2) to "render the debt", and (3) to avoid fornication. Note that nothing is said here of the mutual love of husband and wife. Also note that procreation is first in importance. ("Render the debt" meant that the wife owed her husband sex as her part of the marriage.)
Now the Church is trying to beat up homosexuals, as its latest effort at misunderstanding sexual relationships.
georges641
(123 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 21, 2013, 09:40 PM - Edit history (1)
The church teaches that all sexual behavior outside of marriage is seriously sinful.
Do you reject all of that or just part of it, and specifically which parts?
What about the married man or woman who loves someone else besides the spouse? Is it wrong for the church to "beat up" on adulterers?
Augustine did not teach infallibly, btw, but he did claim it was a venial sin.
Do you think the Catholic should reject all church teachings that are uncomfortable or require sacrifice or discipline?
And your report on what you did this morning...congratulations....but, please...TMI...
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)BTW being gay is not the same thing as adultery.
georges641
(123 posts)We are in the Catholic group are we not?
Are you a Catholic?
If so, what answer does your Church give you? (It's right there in the catechism regarding what is a sin and what is not).
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)georges641
(123 posts)Please answer.
I believe what the Catechism teaches. I don't have a "personal" morality. I believe what the Church teaches whether it's uncomfortable or not or whether it challenges me or not.
If you are a Catholic, what is your basis for picking and choosing what to believe about Catholicism and rejecting others?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I understand as a convert to the faith you want to dot every I and cross every t, but life does not work that way. Many Roman Catholics will tell you they don't follow everything the church says. Now please answer my question.
georges641
(123 posts)Yet you're in a safe place where supposedly Catholic doctrine may be discussed and proclaimed, and you're here criticizing the Catholic Church.
Why?
And why can't life work that way? Why not believe it all? That's what the Church teaches about herself--that She, guided by the Holy Spirit, teaches infallibly regarding faith and morals. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be a Catholic, and if you believed it, you probably would be one yourself.
But you're not a Catholic, and you don't understand my perspective.
EDIT: I just noted you claimed to be a Catholic, but I'm referring to the Universal Church known also as Roman Catholicism, to which the criticism is being directed in this thread.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)By the way proclaiming homosexuality is a sin on this site is not going to win you many friends. many Catholics on this site will tell you that. By the way not all catholics are roman catholics.
georges641
(123 posts)You are putting words in my mouth.
I defer to the Catechism. Do you use the same Catechism since you too are a Catholic?
I have never heard that Episcopalians are Catholic. Is Pope Francis your Pope too?
I can guarantee that the Catholic Church does not recognize Episcopalians as Catholics.
You are outside of the Church but are here to criticize the Church and to criticize me personally for believing in Catholicism.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)As I said not all Catholics are in communion with the pope. We have apostolic succession and the three fold ministry.
I just want to you to know when a few weeks ago when the pope resigned and the new guy came in people did give roman catholics a hard time here. I was one of the first to defend them. I was also the first to say that the RCC has got some things very wrong.
Do you not have criticism for your church?
I am not harping on you for being a RC I just wanted to know if you think my being gay is a sin. I don't think it is.
georges641
(123 posts)If you totally agreed with the Catholic Church, I expect that you'd be a Catholic.
But I have ZERO criticism of Church doctrine and dogma. I accept it all. If I rejected any of it, I might as well leave the Church.
I criticize individuals within the Church for doing dumb or sinful things and criticize myself for doing dumb or sinful things. We are a Church full of broken people. But the Doctrine comes to us by way of the Holy Spirit and is perfect and without error.
But again, you don't believe that, so there is no reason for you to be a Catholic.
Likewise...if individuals want to practice a lifestyle that the Catholic Church forbids the faithful, then they can choose to change their ways or choose to leave the Church. Why would the woman in question want to belong to the Catholic Church if she has no intention of living up to what the Church teaches? Why should I join the Catholic Church without giving up contraception? That would make no sense either. I accept it and strive to live up to it, or I reject it and don't join. Nobody deserves special treatment, and the Church is not here to be changed by us, but is there to change us and help us get to Heaven.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am not a Roman Catholic and never claimed to be but I am a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
If you want to follow church doctrine to the letter that is your business but that will be very hard. But Homosexuality is NOT a sin. No matter what any denomination says it is not a sin. That is my 2 cents. Believe what you wish but if you post on DU please expect responses.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Or, to put that another way, "I let the Vatican do my thinking for me". Here is a quote from someone you should recognize, "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways." -- 1 Corinthians 13:11. Thinking for oneself is one of the things adults do.
I have never heard that Episcopalians are Catholic.
They consider, and with reason, that they are.
I can guarantee that the Catholic Church does not recognize Episcopalians as Catholics.
Let me rephrase that more accurately: I can guarantee that the Vatican does not recognize Episcopalians as Catholics. There is a lot more to the Catholic Church than just the Vatican. Here is another quote, from the late Cardinal Henri de Lubac, "We should not confuse the papacy with the Kingdom of God."
You are outside of the Church but are here to criticize the Church and to criticize me personally for believing in Catholicism.
I am inside the Church, and I reject the sort of Catholicism that you believe in. I believe in inclusivity, not exclusivity. I accept Episcopalians as my brothers in Christ, and I see no reason to reject their priesthood nor their sacraments.
georges641
(123 posts)Catholicism is not "exclusive." It is most certainly INclusive of all.
The Church is here to save sinners and to lead them to Heaven.
Those who can't accept the concept of sin or what the church defines to be sin are not held in the Church against their will. They are fee to leave. But they are not free to change what the church teaches and have no power or authority to do so.
I thought for myself when I became a Catholic. I believe that the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and teaches without error. I am not better or smarter than the Holy Spirit and am more than happy to let the Holy Spirit do my thinking for me in areas that are above my pay grade or in areas where my own sinfulness and brokenness might lead me to make up my own rules that satisfy my concupiscence but that would eventually lead me away from God and possibly to Hell.
I've got nothing against Episcopalians, but they are not Catholics and would not claim to be so. The idea is ridiculous since if they were, they would regard the Pope as their head and would be in alignment with the Church in moral teachings, but they clearly are not. They have beliefs that contradict those of Catholicism.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You don't have to be in communion with the pope to be catholic, but to be Roman Catholic you have to be. Your forgetting to add Roman when you say Catholic.
Read the Book of Common Prayer and you will see we claim to be Catholic.
okasha
(11,573 posts)so I've been around both of those blocks multiple times. The Anglican Communion (which includes the Episcopal Church in the US) and the various Orthodox Churches, are Catholic through the apostolic succession, the threefold ministry, the traditions of the church fathers and the preservation of the sacraments. Perhaps you aren't aware that there have been times when not all Roman Catholics accepted the same Pope as their head, or that teachings on faith and morals have changed over time. For instance, the RCC no longer agrees with the 4th Lateran Council that it's a mortal sin for women to wear men's clothes, which was the specific charge on which Joan of Arc was burnt. It's no longer considered sinful to eat a hamburger on Friday. Unbaptized babies are no longer consigned to Limbo.
The Roman Catholic Church moves glacially at times, but move it does. From that perspective, it may seem that changes in the Episcopal Church look pretty much like an avalanche. I think the time will come, maybe not during Pope Francis' tenure, but not too long after, when when the church will catch up with itself and LGBT Catholics will no longer be barred from any of the sacraments, including Holy Matrimony and Ordination. After all, being LGBT has not been a barrier to sainthood.
georges641
(123 posts)I haven't been able to find anything about the 4th Lateran Council regarding women wearing men's clothes. Could you please cite an excerpt including some context so I can address this?
I don't know enough about the Joan of Arc case to comment, but that she was burned because of wearing men's clothes is a new one for me. Regardless, an abuse by a Church official is in no way an excuse for someone to make up his own doctrine or ignore established Church doctrine.
There will never be a time when the Catholic Church will proclaim that sexual contact outside of a sacramental marriage is not a sin, and it will never proclaim that there can be any other sacramental marriage than between a man and a woman. Besides, none of us are smarter and better than the popes and the teachings of the Church. Even if reversals were possible, which they are not, it is not up to us to rebel and do those things which we desire because they feel good to us.
What we eat on Fridays is not Church doctrine. That is DISCIPLINE which can come and go, and it still is a sin, btw, to eat mean on Fridays during Lent. That men must be unmarried to be a priest in the Latin rite of the Church is a discipline which could be changed. If it were changed, it would not be a doctrinal change.
Are you implying that there is a canonized saint who defied Church teaching about sexual morality and was in what the Church would consider a sinful relationship?
Check out this thread regarding apostolic succession of Anglican Church:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=712769
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)georges641
(123 posts)Are all Anglican doctrines infallible, or do you get to pick and choose those as well?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)God is not as strict with our bishops as he is with yours.
You see when God is going around making sure the RCC has dotted every I and crossed every T, he comes to our Church for a cocktail.
We have had apostolic successions since the beginning of the church. Our Bishops were originally Roman Catholics in England and decided they were no longer in communion with Rome. Just like the Eastern Churches.
georges641
(123 posts)He's teaching contradictory doctrine.
But Apostolic succession or no, the Anglican Church is schismatic, is in rebellion, and is not in union with the Universal Church.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We don't accept certain Roman Catholic doctrines. But that is ok God takes us all as we are.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Then you are going to have to fire everyone. Your attitude seems remarkably, well, priggish.
georges641
(123 posts)That was not the point at all.
I know I have my own weaknesses and sins, and so does my priest. Priests and bishops and even the Pope go to Confession.
The point is that what the Church defines to be a sin cannot be presented as virtue or acceptable behavior.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)That is all i am trying to say.
georges641
(123 posts)And the Church is guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit.
How could God be wrong regarding this issue or anything?
Of course you could say that God is not in charge and that it's a religion based on man, and if that's the case, then the Catholic Church is a sham.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It has many sins but not a sham. But the Holy Spirit did not say Homosexuality is a sin.
georges641
(123 posts)I wouldn't have converted to Catholicism if I thought it were.
And whatever the Church teaches regarding faith and morals, She claims to do so by the authority and guidance of the Holy Spirit.
But I think we're getting to the point of beating a dead horse.
If I could revert to my "club analogy." When joining a club or even a message board such as this one, there are rules and guidelines. Don't like the rules? Don't join the club, or don't remain in the club. It's so simple. But don't expect to stay in the club and have them rewrite the rules to suit your special situation.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic. To be clear: This includes any post which states opposition to full equal rights for gays and lesbians;
Now your posts have made it clear you think homosexuality is a sin. Deferring to the catechism is saying it is a sin. I suspect you like it here. I am not alerting on your posts even though I think several of your posts have a 50/50 chance of being hidden. But according to your logic that we have to buy the whole thing at 100% I should be alerting. I am not going to because I prefer to discuss but understand that most people on this site do not come to this room and if they saw the stuff you are posting they would not hesitate to alert on you.
You can not live by a rule book your whole life. Life does not work that way.
georges641
(123 posts)that a Catholic who believes in Catholicism either may not post here or must shut up about his faith.
I have deferred to the Catechism.
Are you telling me that the Catholic Catechism is hateful and bigoted?
BTW, I have not made any statement about civil rights. Everything I have posted in this thread refers to the rights of the Church and Catholic organizations to enforce their own rules.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)clear.
I am not calling you or the catechism hateful or bigoted. I am just saying you are wrong.
As i have said before in this thread I have defended Roman Catholics here because a few posters have picked on them here last month. All of my family is Roman Catholic and I love them.
My message to you is you have said that this woman should have known the rules when she took the job. Well by the same measure you should have read the terms of service when you joined here. Being gay is not a sin and it is not a sin on this site.
Yes you never came out and said it is a sin but your posts have made it clear what you think.
I AM NOT A SIN!!!
georges641
(123 posts)This is a group for discussing religion, specifically the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.
In every religion there are guidelines regarding morality.
Are you telling me that a Catholic who posts here must not believe all that the Catholic Church teaches, and must reject those beliefs that might offend others, or that those beliefs must be suppressed?
Anyway, I don't see that I have broken any rule of the forum and have certainly not criticized you personally.
Am I not entitled to my religious beliefs? Am I not entitled to my own private thoughts?
Once again, to get back on topic, this woman was in a teaching position in a Catholic institution, and by her actions and example, with knowledge of what the Church teaches, was teaching against the principles she should have been proclaiming.
If you disagree with Catholic teaching, that's your right and privilege, as it is the right of the woman in question. But she was trying to have it both ways.
BTW, please see the Catechism for some clarity on this issue. A person cannot be a sin.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You have the right to your beliefs. I was just making a point that if you are going to nag about the rules than can bite you in the end.
georges641
(123 posts)There are no "progressive" Catholics. No "liberal" Catholics. No "conservative" Catholics.
There are "orthodox" Catholics and there are "heterodox" Catholics.
But I do understand and agree that this forum has a right to establish rules, and to the best of my knowledge and ability, I am well within the letter and spirit of the rules of the forum, especially as they pertain to this group.
In fact, I could make a case that many of those who post here criticizing the Church are actually breaking the rules of this group.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I know what the RCC believes but what do you think?
georges641
(123 posts)But based on this definition of homosexuality, "of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex," it is not a sin.
A tendency is not a sin, whether homosexual or heterosexual, but that doesn't mean there are no such things as sexual sins.
Do you believe it is possible to sin sexually as a heterosexual or as a homosexual? If so, can you cite examples of what would be sins?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Do you thinks gay should be allowed by the states. Not the church but the state?
People can use their sexuallity in the wrong way i agree. But what is a sin is not my place to judge..
But be clear do you Georges641 think that Homosexual act are a sin and do you believe in marriage equality?
georges641
(123 posts)That's God's job, and he speaks through his Church. At least that's what Catholics believe. To us it's not all that vague at all. We don't believe Jesus would have abandoned us without giving us any guidance or instructions through the scriptures, the apostles, and their successors.
But I asked first, though I will happily admit there are things a heterosexual can do that would be sins, such as masturbation, fornication, or adultery.
Can you name a homosexual sin or do you think it is impossible for a homosexual to commit a sexual sin?
BTW, please remember that I am a Catholic and you are not. I understand you oppose Catholic teaching about morality, but why are you here criticizing Catholicism in a group that is supposed to be a safe place for Catholics to express their faith?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)homosexual behavior is a sin. If I am wrong Tell me. I admit I can be wrong?
Say it out right what you believe.
georges641
(123 posts)I do hope I'm wrong, but I think you've been goading me and hoping to get me to say something that can be perceived to be "anti-gay" and then you or someone else will go to the management with a complaint, and they will see the out-of-context comment, not understanding that it was a relevant part of a discussion, and will pull the plug on me.
Unfortunately, in this group, even though it is supposed to be a safe place for Catholics to discuss their beliefs, not all Catholic beliefs may be expressed without persecution or complaint, so I cannot answer your question directly.
But YOU can express whatever you like without fear of reprisal, and can even disparage certain Catholic teachings without fear of being banned, so you have nothing to lose, and I would appreciate if you would respond to my previous questions.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Yes we all sin.
Yes we can have sexual sins.
Homosexual behavior is not a sin.
Gays and Straights make bad choices because we are all sinners.
The Roman Catholic Church can have any view it wants but if I think it is wrong I will say it.
I have defended Roman Catholics here from people saying nasty things about them.
I am a Catholic, Just not Roman Catholic. I REALLY WISH YOU COULD GET THAT.
Yes posting anti-gay things can get you banned. Not my rule but I agree with it.
This is a site for progressives. Many Progressive or liberal Catholics belong to it. The Roman Catholics I have encountered here do not post anti-gay stuff.
YOU said if you you can't obey the rules don't join the club or organization. Well some of your posts seem anti-gay to me. By saying you defer to the church on the issue you are saying their stance on homosexuality is right. Saying Homosexuality is wrong WILL BE CH ALLEGED on this site no matter what room your are in. Just because you are in this room does not mean you can just post anything. If you thought that you were mistaken. The rules of this site are clear.
But for your info I am just giving you a hard time. I am not reporting anything.
If I am wrong about you THAN SAY SO!!!
georges641
(123 posts)But no...I do not get it that you too are "catholic." If you are then you are using a different definition of the word, and I think you are also at odds with how the board defines it.
But at any rate, the beliefs of Roman Catholicism are part of what this forum group is about.
I understand what the overall board rules are regarding politics, but religion is not politics, and the rules and laws we've been discussing here pertain to the Church and those within the Church. The Church has a right and a duty to say "X is a sin," whatever X may be.
To say that the Church says "X is a sin" should not be a cause for banishment from a forum, no matter how politically popular X is here. Even if I said living in Florida is a sin, it should not be a reason for Floridians to get upset and demand that the board ban me, as I have not made any political statement or expressed that Floridians should be arrested or that Floridians should be treated differently than anyone else.
According the the Catholic Church, abortion is a sin. A very serious sin. Since most here seem to support abortion rights politically, does that mean it may not be stated that the Catholic Church believes abortion is a sin?
What you are telling me is that those who believe all that the Catholic Church teaches really shouldn't be posting here, in a Catholic group, of all places.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Saying Homosexuality is wrong is not a liberal or progressive thought.
This is a private site governed by the terms of service. This room does NOT protect you from the rules of not posting anti gay stuff.
Are you a liberal or a conservative? That should give you an answer as to why you joined this site.
georges641
(123 posts)So there is not much more to add and I'm repeating myself, but if what you say is true, then practicing Catholics may not post their beliefs in this group.
And we could have a disagreement as to what "anti-gay" means. I certainly do not consider myself to be anti-gay.
Regarding why I joined this site--I found an interesting thread about the Knights of Columbus and that drew me to this group. I have no interest in the political part of the board. I just want to discuss religion.
But if Catholic beliefs will be suppressed in a Catholic group, that's odd and sad, but that's what you say. Is there a moderator here who will discuss this with me via PM?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But you will be challenged if it is from a conservative point of view. If you can withstand the challenge than fine. You are going to be challenged by Roman Catholics. If you think I was too hard on you I am sorry but you said the church was right to fire her because she was gay. I think that is the wrong point of view and so would most here. Remember this is a discussion board. We discuss. I was not the only one to challenge you on this. This is not a high traffic room.
If you feel the need to discuss the rules here you can talk to RUG who you were talking to in your other thread you made in this room. But he will tell you that you will be challenged here. I may have been hard on you but you were being cute with your posts.
Please re-read the terms of service and welcome to DU!
georges641
(123 posts)I have been enjoying this discussion.
What I don't want to happen is that I answer a question and am banned because of the answer.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You take your chances with the jury. Anything you say here can be alerted on so just remember that almost 100% of the Roman Catholics in this room that you will encounter will come at it from a left point of view.
Do yourself a favor and try to stay away from gay and abortion issues and then nobody else will bother you. As I said not many come into this room but most who do come at it as a liberal.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)You are afraid that her students may discover she is a lesbian, and say "Hey, she is really a good person. This is someone whom we should accept, not hate and fear like georges641 does." It would seem that tolerance is not one of your attributes. You seem too eager to condemn, and not open to love.
You remind me of a man I used to know who inveighed on homosexuals. When I asked what he thought about Christ's command to love your neighbor, he replied, "That was just Jesus being touchy-feely." I must admit that I had an urge to strike him, but in the interests of tolerance, I refrained.
Perhaps I should mention that my younger brother is gay, and two of my wife's and my closest friends are a gay couple who have been together for over 30 years. I refuse to condemn any of them as sinners. I believe that what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is their business and no one else's. Likewise, I believe that much of what the official Church teachings on sex -- teachings devised in their entirety solely by unmarried men -- are crap. The rules on divorce and remarriage, for example, are based on a literal interpretation of Matthew 5:31. However, look at the context of Matthew 5:21-48: there are a series of scenarios presented by Christ, but only one is taken literally in Church teaching, the one on divorce. (Do you really believe that if you say "you fool" to someone, you are condemning yourself to hell?) No, only a group of the unmarried would have those overly restrictive rules.
Does Christ condemn homosexuals? No. The only biblical condemnation is from Leviticus -- which also condemns mixing two different fabrics in a piece of clothing. Do you believe that those who wear a cotton-polyester blend are sinners? How about those who eat shellfish?
georges641
(123 posts)If I believed She could teach errors.
The "unmarried men" you disdain are guided by the Holy Spirit. It is not up to you or me to pick and choose as if Catholicism is a cafeteria. It's not easy to be a Catholic. We are fallen and broken people and what we want is not always what is good or right
I don't condemn the sinner. How can I since I am one myself? But the Church is here to lead people away from sin and toward Heaven. She would do no favors by validating sin.
Your personal attacks against me are unfair and off the mark. I'm simply remaining faithful to the Catholic Church. That should not be unusual in a Catholic group. But if you're smarter and better than the Pope, the bishops, my pastor, 2000 years of Church teaching, then why be a Catholic?
The institution in question did the right thing for all, including the woman, who now can see clearly that she has a choice to be faithful or to find a different religion. The Catholic Church is what it is. Our ranting and raving against challenging doctrine will not change it because the purpose is to change US.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Do you deny that Catholic doctrine has changed? If so, then I am prepared to prove you wrong. If you agree that Catholic doctrine has changed, then you must say that at times Catholic doctrine has been wrong.
I gave a partial list of errors taught as doctrine in post #69. Here is another: Until 1888, the Catholic Church taught that slavery was morally licit; in 1888, Pope Leo XIII's encyclical In Plurimus condemned slavery as immoral. Now, was the Church wrong before 1888 or wrong after 1888? At one or the other time, she was wrong.
Did you ever come across Cardinal Newman's "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine"? It is on how doctrine has changed over the years. Newman not only acknowledged the fact of change in Christian doctrine, he embraced it. It is characteristic of all great ideas, Newman said, that they were not laid down once and for all in their final forms; they grew from simple beginnings to develop. For Newman, Christian doctrine has to change "in order to stay the same. In a higher world it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change, and to be prefect is to have changed often."
Of course, not all growth is good -- Newman pointed out that cancer is a growth. We must distinguish between good doctrine and corrupt doctrine. That is an on-going problem in theology, one which will never really be resolved.
georges641
(123 posts)Development is possible, but that's not the same as change. The moral teachings of the church will never develop to the point of allowing for contraception or abortion or adultery. The 10 commandments will never develop into the 10 suggestions.
Please cite Newman referring to a substantial change in doctrine.
And who are YOU to be on the cutting edge of change, anyway? Who are you to say this is the direction the Church is going to go? You can excuse ANYTHING by your reasoning. "Doctrine changes so therefore I can have my girlfriend on the side." Why couldn't the adulterer appeal to your logic?
Here's a question for you. What doctrine IS binding on us all according to your understanding of the Church?
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Then you deny reality.
georges641
(123 posts)You don't trust the Church. You don't believe that our doctrine is brought to us infallibly through men but from God.
You reject much of Catholicism. Why are you a Catholic?
hunter
(38,309 posts)georges641
(123 posts)You need to read your own article, because apparently you don't understand what it means.
hunter
(38,309 posts)... with people who argue as you do.
And I know Priests who don't.
georges641
(123 posts)I sure can't.
All I and they are arguing for is the totality of Catholicism, as it's not really Catholicism except in its totality.
Regarding priests...yes there are some that are "way out there" and undermine Church doctrine. Sad but true. Fortunately, I don't know any like that.
But "scrupulosity" has nothing to do with what I'm doing, which is simply being a "Catholic apologist," though an inadequate one, to be sure. But how frustrating it is that fellow Catholics here put up a bigger fight against Catholicism than Protestants and detractors.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You are not going to find many that will say the church 100%. People here have their issues with some church doctrine. Just letting you know so you don't get frustrated.
hunter
(38,309 posts)I'm not sure where that comes from. It sounds like something my crazy grandma would say. In my head it's her voice, but I don't remember the circumstances. Was it me being unusually pedantic? There's few things more annoying than a pedantic teenager.
But it illustrates a choice: Would we rather have one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church with a large unruly flock, or a very much smaller church with a very well disciplined flock?
In my family genetic traits like depression, OCD, and bipolar disorders are common. Hyper-religiosity is often attributed to those. As a kid my bipolar mom took us on a wild religious ride. She'd wanted to be a nun but an unfortunate encounter with a creepy priest (who wasn't very bright) sent her down a much different path. She married an artist and had lots of kids.
My own kids had a stable family life and ordinary Roman Catholic upbringing. But they did miss out on certain adventures I enjoyed, things like fleeing Franco's Spain for France in the middle of the night, or being removed and banned from various churches.
We rarely had any trouble involving our kids in church, attending Mass... no teenage temper tantrums, none of that. My youngest often read at the youth Mass. Now as young adults they consider themselves Roman Catholic. Our expectations of them were always firm, but never authoritarian. As parents you learn to choose your battles, otherwise everything is a battle and the good is lost along with the bad in the wreckage.
As a source of spiritual strength and guidance our Church is in much the same position as any parent. If a kid runs away from home or self destructs, sometimes it's something inherent in the kid, but more often it is a failure of parenting.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)No, I belong to a Church in which some doctrine changes from time to time. For example, the Council of Trent said that biblical translations should be based on the Latin Vulgate, while Vatican II said that biblical translations should be based on the original languages.
You don't trust the Church.
Of course I trust the Church. I do not believe that every belch which issues from a papal throat is to be received as if it were the Word of God. Nor should you. I suggest that you read section 25 of Lumen Gentium on the what exactly
You don't believe that our doctrine is brought to us infallibly through men but from God.
I do believe that INFALLIBLE doctrine comes from God. However, far from all doctrine is infallible. The bishops of Vatican II explained their understanding of how the Spirit reveals itself to the Church in Lumen Gentium 12:
The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn. 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith of the whole people (sensus fidei), when, “from the bishops to the last of the faithful” they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the people of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium) and obeying it, receives not a merely human word but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th. 2:13), the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3). The people unfailingly adhere to this faith, penetrate it deeply with right judgment and apply it more fully in daily life.
There is a relationship between the faith of the people of God and the teaching authority within this people. This relationship becomes clearer from the description Lumen Gentium 25 gave of the process by which the Pope and the bishops preserve and expound the teaching of revelation:
[T]hrough the light of the Spirit of truth, [revelation] is scrupulously preserved in the Church and unerringly explained. The Roman pontiff and the bishops, by reason of their office and the seriousness of the matter apply themselves with zeal to the work of enquiring by every suitable means into this revelation and of giving apt expression to its contents; they do not, however, admit any new public revelation as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.
What this means is that the Pope and the bishops do not originate teachings. Rather, they bear authentic witness to the faith of the whole Church, as they guide the Church toward the fullness of truth. They do not appeal to some special revelation unavailable to the rest of the faithful. Rather, they are charged to take serious pains to search out the faith of the Church and to express it in a fitting way. It is in this process that the Holy Spirit guides and sustains and preserves from error. A simple act of papal or episcopal authority, apart from this process, would produce, not certainty, but further misgiving and doubt.
The point is that although the Pope and the bishops do not have sources that no one else has, they do have the right to speak for the whole Church and to the whole Church. Scholars and others can investigate the faith of the Church accurately and faithfully. They can report their results to anyone who is willing to listen to them; but no one is obliged to listen. Their reports do not constitute an authentic expression of the faith of the Church, and they cannot speak for the Church. This is the responsibility of the Pope and the bishops, and the rest of the Church must listen to them.
This responsibility requires that the Pope and the bishops use "every suitable means" to discover the revelation affirmed in the faith of the believing community. This faith is embodied in the Scriptures, in the writings of the Church fathers, in the prayers of the liturgy, the teachings of councils, and the living convictions of the baptized. It is not enough for Church leaders to pray, to reason, to reflect, and to remember. It is necessary to inquire. Pope Pius IX, before proclaiming the Immaculate Conception, Pius XII, before proclaiming the Assumption, and John Paul II, before condemning abortion, consulted with the bishops of the world to find out, not their personal opinions, but their faith and the faith of their Churches. It was not a matter of how they felt about a disputed question, but what they believed to be the truth communicated to the Church by God.
You reject much of Catholicism.
I reject SOME Vatican teachings. I quoted Cardinal de Lubac as saying that we should not confuse the papacy with the Kingdom of God. Apparently, you do.
Why are you a Catholic?
An answer to that would be long, involved and much of it is simply none of your business.
georges641
(123 posts)And how do you discern which doctrine is infallible and which you should reject?
If I'm a boss having an affair with my secretary, I'm likely to find some reasons why that crap about adultery is bs invented by frustrated celibates.
And it's interesting that you appeal to Lumen Gentium as an authority. May I presume you believe and accept all that is in that document, or do you pick and choose there as well?
Tell me where I can find that core of doctrine that truly is infallible (according to you).
georges641
(123 posts)It's clear to me what all the bishops teach about morality, as well as the three popes I have had since becoming a Catholic.
Please tell me why I should trust your teaching about faith and morals over that of the bishops and these brilliant and holy men who have been our recent popes.
Why are you infallible in this matter and they are not?
Would you say those who believe and proclaim what the Church teaches regarding the issue in question are sinning?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)God and that would be a sin.
georges641
(123 posts)That's not the point.
The point is that my friend says he is right and the Church is wrong.
Why should I presume a stranger on the internet who is a layman speaks with greater authority than the bishops and the popes when it concerns this moral issue? Why should I presume he is infallible in this matter and the Church is not?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)like you and me.
georges641
(123 posts)I'm not a naive and idealistic new convert. I understand that men can personally fail and have seen much of that recently.
But regarding faith and morals, backed up by Lumen Gentium, they speak infallibly, and we the faithful are to give their teachings our religious assent.
But I ask you why I should trust a man on the internet over the bishops and popes. What makes him infallible regarding the moral principle in question?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Remember when people give you their opinions they are not saying they are infallible but giving their opinions.
I am sorry I thought you said you just converted.
georges641
(123 posts)If it's "just an opinion," then of what merit is it compared to an infallible proclamation?
What I'm stating is not "my" opinion. I'm sharing what the Church teaches with other Catholics.
Don't the words of a boatload of popes and bishops trump those of an anonymous message board poster who at best is stating an "opinion"?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)It's certainly open to debate. The bit about the fetus being "ensouled" at conception is questionable.
And how do you discern which doctrine is infallible and which you should reject?
I told you, the qualifications for an infallible teaching is found in section 25 of Lumen Gentium.
If I'm a boss having an affair with my secretary, I'm likely to find some reasons why that crap about adultery is bs invented by frustrated celibates.
Stand on your head until the answer comes to you. In other words, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
And it's interesting that you appeal to Lumen Gentium as an authority. May I presume you believe and accept all that is in that document, or do you pick and choose there as well?
I am very careful about what I "pick and choose" -- undoubtedly more than you are. After all, you have made it quite clear that you have the Vatican do your thinking for you. Except for capital punishment, where you reject the papal teaching, and let the state do your thinking for you. (I notice that you did not respond to my comment on that. Is it because you are afraid to think for yourself? Or is it because you do not like being told that your thinking on such matters is the same as Adolf Eichmann's? Certainly, the bases of your morals is open to question.)
In finding what is true doctrine and what is not, you are to read what the teachings are, pray for understanding, consider them carefully, and go with what your conscience tells you. That, after all is the advice Thomas Aquinas gives.
You seem more interested in bashing me than finding out what I really believe and why I believe it.
georges641
(123 posts)Until "debated" the Church should give her blessing to all abortions? And then what do we say if the debate ends up that abortion is an injustice that kills a person? Why not give the benefit of the doubt to the creature with a beating heart?
BTW, your post about Lumen Gentium mentioned abortion and JPII consulting with Bishops before condemning it (as if he did the proper thing), though the Church has always condemned it.
Regarding capital punishment--the Church herself says it's up to the state. I am in compliance with the Church in that regard. Personally, I agree with JPII that capital punishment is no longer necessary, though the Church will never proclaim that it is an intrinsic evil and may never be practiced.
Regarding my hypothetical that you blew off--it's not silly at all. You claim to have the power to "line item veto" Church teachings that you don't like. Why can't I do likewise?
You have yet to answer important questions:
1) What Church doctrine, according to you, IS infallible? What are the core beliefs that we must all accept and why?
2) Do you speak infallibly regarding your beliefs about sexual morality and those teachings you reject? Why are you a greater authority than the Church, which has already spoken through the Popes and Bishops?
3) Does the Catholic who believes all that the Church teaches, according to you, commit a sin?
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)And yes, the Church has historically accepted capital punishment. Indeed, Church authorities have executed people. Now, the Church is saying that this is morally dubious. Gosh, THE DOCTRINE HAS CHANGED! Obviously, according to you, the Church was lying. You still have not addressed your eagerness to let the state make a moral decision in this case -- probably because it would have you saying that Adolf Eichmann's defense is acceptable.
Catholic doctrines can and do change. As I said, before 1888, slavery was morally acceptable; after 1888, it was not. Obviously, according to you, the Church was lying. Taking any interest on a loan is, strictly speaking, still the official teaching of the Church.
The real problem is that the Church advertises itself as the dispenser of absolute and eternal truth? Thus, it cannot say "sorry, we were wrong when we taught <X>, we now teach <Y>". So what they do is "interpret" the prior teachings, cherry-picked quotations from the previous documents is a favorite. Of course, this is not really honest.
I can see examples where abortion could be morally justified. For example, another thread speaks about a woman in El Salvador whose fetus is acephalic, and this will die immediately after birth (a fetus does not need a brain when in the womb). Her pregnancy is adversely affecting her health, and she may well die unless the non-viable fetus is aborted. The sages of the Talmud considered that an abortion to save the life of the mother would be morally acceptable under the rules governing self-defense. (Incidentally, JPII, in Evangelium Vitae, says that any moral justification for capital punishment comes under self defense.)
What Church doctrine, according to you, IS infallible?
For the fourth or fifth time, see Lumen Gentium 25.
What are the core beliefs that we must all accept and why?
One cannot deny the reality of God—of the sacred, the holy, the supernatural. One cannot deny the Trinity. One cannot deny that God created all that exists. One cannot deny the divinity or the humanity of Christ. One cannot deny the saving effect of his life, death, resurrection, and ascension. One cannot deny that human nature is fallen, but redeemed, and that grace is more powerful than sin. One cannot deny that salvation is a gift from God and that human freedom is required to accept or reject that gift. One cannot deny that the Church is more than just a purely human organization or community, that it is a mystery, imbued with the hidden presence of God. One cannot deny our hope for the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and eternal life. Those are the core beliefs of Christianity.
There are more: The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, for example. Hatred and fear of homosexuals is most assuredly not one of them.
Do you speak infallibly regarding your beliefs about sexual morality and those teachings you reject?
Of course not, nor have I said anything at any time or in any place that any reasonable person might even remotely interpret that way.
Why are you a greater authority than the Church, which has already spoken through the Popes and Bishops?
I have claimed no such authority.
It is obvious to anyone who looks at it, that the Catholic Church is subject to the mischievousness, sinfulness, and frailty of its members and leaders. To belong to an institution is to belong to an existing network of relationships, a social structure, an organism in which roles, offices, and a conceptual system have already been formalized. Moreover, the Roman Catholic institution tends to sacralize these relationships, structures, and formal expressions. The Vatican tends to endow their historical form with a finality, absoluteness, and authority that stands against the flow of history. I find that this sacralizing and immobilizing tendency among the Catholic people is destructive on human grounds and inadequate on Catholic grounds. It is a perversion of that great Catholic principle: In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omniis, caritas -- "In necessary things, unity; in debatable things, liberty; in all things, charity." This perversion is all the more deleterious when it is championed by Popes, curial officials, bishops, and official documents.
Does the Catholic who believes all that the Church teaches, according to you, commit a sin?
To repeat an answer to a previous question: Of course not, nor have I said anything at any time or in any place that any reasonable person might even remotely interpret that way. If someone honestly believes something, then it cannot be a sin. Aquinas teaches that one should follow one's on conscience, even if it is in error.
I'm going to be away from my computer for a few days. I shall post on why I sometimes disagree with the magisterium when I return.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)My wife and I got away for the weekend to celebrate our 40th wedding anniversary.
Anyway, my problems with the magisterium really started with Pope Paul Vi's 1968 encyclical on contraception, Humanae Vitae. In http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1221&pid=604 I posted on some of my problems with it, but there is one basic problem I should go into a bit more.
Pope Paul bases his argument on "natural law", which is "the law written in the hearts of men". I will agree with such things as murder, rape, incest, genocide being abhorrent to rational people. The thing is, you can only say that abhorrence to contraception is written in people's hearts if you believe (1) that the only proper use of sexual intercourse is procreation and (2) everyone else believes that as well. Well, if you do believe both of these things, you are sadly out of touch with the real world. In the real world, the overwhelming majority of sexual activity is not intended for procreation. Thus, an aversion to contraception is most assuredly NOT written in the hearts of men (or women). Since Pope Paul's argument is flawed at its heart, he is speaking twaddle.
So I look at a lot of the documents that the Vatican puts out, and they are severely flawed. I touched on the Vatican teaching against the ordination of women in http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1221&pid=1155 and a following post -- Inter Insigniores should not have seen the light of day, it is so bad.
The document on the Holocaust, We Remember, divides German Catholics into two groups: Those who opposed the Holocaust completely, and those who did not oppose it enough. Nowhere is mentioned a third group: Those who acquiesced. It attempts to whitewash Pope Pius XII, who claimed to have spoken out against the Holocaust during the war, even though the only thing he could point to was a single rather ambiguous paragraph in his Christmas address in 1943. We Remember does not even acknowledge that there is a controversy about what Pius did or did not do.
As I have mentioned before, in graduate school, I wrote a paper on how the Church went from the Council of Trent's "Bible translations must be based on the Latin Vulgate" to Vatican II's "Bible translations must be based on the original Greek and Hebrew", while never contradicting the previous papers. The only way they could have done this is by being dishonest.
As I have also mentioned before, there is Pope Paul VI's encyclical defending priestly celibacy, Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, which wholly ignores 1 Corinthians 9:5, in which Paul is saying that he has a right to be married. That he chose not to exercise that right is immaterial. Here is a significant biblical passage, touching directly on the subject, which the Pope ignores -- basically, because it shot his argument in the foot.
Do you understand why I look dubiously on Vatican position papers?
These are just three
georges641
(123 posts)Contraceotion, for example. You're arguing according to desire. But there is nothing "natural" about using plugs and drugs to frustrate a natural process. Besides that, you owe this teaching your "religious assent." That does not mean you can reject it if you feel like it. See the document I linked to. Eventually I'll post some excerpts.
The church has the right to impose disciplines such as priestly celibacy, and there are exceptions, and this could conceivably change. It's discipline and not dogma.
Do you accept all that Paul says, btw?
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)For one thing, you do not bother to actually address anything that I wrote.
If you want to debate, then how about not blowing off what I say.
There is nothing "natural" about wearing eyeglasses. Obviously, you oppose that. There is nothing "natural" about false teeth, which you clearly oppose as well. If you were to lose a leg, then you should refuse to wear a prosthetic.
If you want to address Pope Paul's natural law argument, then please do so. So far, you have given me assertions, and no actual arguments. "You're wrong" is not an argument. "You're wrong because ..." is an argument.
Oh, and for about the sixth time, "religious assent" does not mean you snap to attention, click your heels and cry Jawohl, Ihre Heiligkeit!. No, it means you read the teaching, study it, consider it carefully, pray for understanding. If, after doing that, you cannot accept it, then you can reject it.
Do you accept all that Paul says, btw?
Which Paul? Paul VI, Paul the Apostle, who?
georges641
(123 posts)You are actually comparing the cure of a natural defect so that by aid of a crutch the organ, limb, etc. can function more normally, to sabotaging a natural bodily function.
Those "unnatural" things you cited help the defective body to function more naturally. Using plugs and drugs to prevent conception thwart natural functions. Your comparison is ridiculous and fails miserably.
You cited Paul. Paul the apostle.
Religious assent means obedience. Those things to which religious assent is due are not suggestions or options. I have cited numerous sources to back up this assertion. You have cited you.
No Vested Interest
(5,165 posts)unmarried heterosexuals cohabiting?
What steps do they take when such a relationship is known?
Or is it only homosexuals that are treated in this manner?
rug
(82,333 posts)Well put.
georges641
(123 posts)If it were learned that a single teacher at our Catholic school was living with and cohabiting with someone of the opposite sex, it would be reason for dismissal, though I don't know anything about this diocese. A teacher at our local Catholic school was fired for that reason.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)georges641
(123 posts)but I suspect that if Jesus were running the school, that employees would have been more inclined to watch their p's and q's.
She violated the terms of her contract.
Would Jesus say that contracts are bad and that it's good to break them?
