The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: ChuckJ on October 12, 2012, 03:16:25 PM
-
As many here know, I am a Baptist. Even though we share a common bond in salvation due to our acceptance of Jesus Christ I do have some doctrinal differences with the Catholic faith. Despite these differences there are things that I've come to respect over the years regarding the Catholic faith. Especially the Church's official stance on marriage and the life of the unborn. These two issues are what brought to mind my questions.
Considering the official stance of the Church, how can there be so many Democrat politicians who claim to be practicing Catholics? Why are politicians who promote abortion and homosexual marriage allowed to remain in union with the Church?
Is this something that is decided by the individual priests? How much leeway do the priests have in these situations?
Due to research through the years I have some basic (very basic) knowledge of the structure of the Catholic Church, but I don't know the particulars of the flow of power in regard to these decisions.
-
Money and politics keep the Kennedys and the Kerrys from being excommunicated.
That is fact.
-
The priests have no leeway; if someone wishes Communion, it's given, no matter what the priest thinks, or knows, of the person.
We all pretty much know Bela Pelosi and Joe Biden aren't really good Catholics, but if they wish to advertise themselves so, nothing's stopping them.
The Catholic Church is not a civil authority (excepting of course in Vatican City itself), and so has no power to stop anyone from doing one thing or another, or to punish them.
So it makes for a very murky, ambiguous situation that leaves many wondering; however, as in all things, God, and God Alone, determines who was a "real" Catholic and who was a poseur.
-
So it makes for a very murky, ambiguous situation that leaves many wondering; however, as in all things, God, and God Alone, determines who was a "real" Catholic and who was a poseur.
Well said Frank.
The same can be said about the various Protestant religions as well.
-
The priests have no leeway; if someone wishes Communion, it's given, no matter what the priest thinks, or knows, of the person.
We all pretty much know Bela Pelosi and Joe Biden aren't really good Catholics, but if they wish to advertise themselves so, nothing's stopping them.
The Catholic Church is not a civil authority (excepting of course in Vatican City itself), and so has no power to stop anyone from doing one thing or another, or to punish them.
So it makes for a very murky, ambiguous situation that leaves many wondering; however, as in all things, God, and God Alone, determines who was a "real" Catholic and who was a poseur.
frank,
I'm not so much talking about calling themselves Catholic. I'm talking about allowing them to participate as a member of the church.
With my branch of Baptists each church is essentially an individual entity. The church may or not be a member of a larger organization, but the organization doesn't control the individual church. The individual church could, if they so desired, expel a member who refuses to respect the doctrine or rules of the church. The expelled individual could still call themselves a Baptist. The individual could even find another Baptist church that is part of the organization to attend, but until such time as the expelled individual met whatever requirements set forth by the church he (or she) would no longer be in fellowship with the church and would not be allowed to participate with the church.
With that said, I don't know of any Independent Baptist, Southern Baptist, or Primitive Baptist church in my area who has done something like this in my lifetime.
My paternal grandparents were a member of a group called that split many years ago from the Primitive Baptist church. They were called Hardshells. They had electricity in their homes, but not in their churches. They didn't have televisions or radios. They WOULD indeed expel you from the church if you broke their rules. When you were expelled you could no longer participate with the church until you repented of whatever you had done wrong. They actually expelled my granddad once, and he was the pastor.
My grandparents' group would kick most of the democrat politicians out so fast it would make their heads spin.
-
First of all I am agnostic, years ago I was a baptist.
This is only my opinion, and would be happy to be schooled if I am wrong.
I think the problem begins with a deeply flawed understanding of what I think is Mathew 7:1.
Without looking it up my understanding is that it goes "Judge not lest ye be judged".
I think that some folkes take this to heart in a literal sense and therefore resist forming an opinion or making a judgment.
Like I said, I believe this is a flawed understanding and it allows moral reletavism to be used as an excuse.
-
First of all I am agnostic, years ago I was a baptist.
This is only my opinion, and would be happy to be schooled if I am wrong.
I think the problem begins with a deeply flawed understanding of what I think is Mathew 7:1.
Without looking it up my understanding is that it goes "Judge not lest ye be judged".
I think that some folkes take this to heart in a literal sense and therefore resist forming an opinion or making a judgment.
Like I said, I believe this is a flawed understanding and it allows moral reletavism to be used as an excuse.
I agree with you. Over the years people have taken something that tells you to use caution in your judgement and twisted it to mean do NOT judge at all.
-
I believe that Biden revealed last night in the debate that he understood that the Catholic church reveals that life is formed at conception and then went on to explain that he would not "force" his and the Catholic churches understanding on others.
Again , I think that is flawed thinking, did God admonish us to not form an opinion and not follow the given word or to just not take life into our own hands?
-
What a tough question, Chuck!
As a lifelong Catholic, I find this a tricky area. Of course, I'm not a bishop, so it's way, way above my pay grade.
First, it's important to realize that Catholics believe the bread and wine we consume are actually the Body and Blood of Christ. It's not supposed to be symbolic. It's the real incarnation. If Catholics truly understood what was happening at Mass, they would, I think be much, much more reverent.
We invite Christ himself into us in the Eucharist; we are supposed to be clean of sin when it happens. Here's the problem. Promoting abortion, for example, is a grave sin. How can Bishops allow these "catholics" to receive?
I did some research.
Cannon Law 915:
Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
The trick, as I understand it, is how to decide if a sin is "manifest," and are the offenders "obstinate." Those definitions are broad.
Some bishops say it is the reponsibility of the Communicant to make sure he or she is properly disposed.
Many traditional Catholics feel this rule has not been applied clearly enough, and because of that, priests and bishops are now afraid to follow it.
Does this help at all?
-
I just read this earlier. It's a comment on an article having to do with last nights debate.
mbecker908 • an hour ago • parent −
Well,
To those wanting the immediate excommunication of pro-abortion politicians, I have to say that canon law simply does not read that way. To make a long story short, an excommunication for abortion has to be linked to a specific abortion and, given the structure of American government and medical institutions, one simply can't link a given legislator's vote with a specific abortion within the limits of causality recognized by canon law.
[...]
In the meantime, though, as I have also pointed out many times, there are most certainly immediate actions that the Church can take against pro-abortion politicians, and I'm happy to say that some bishops are doing that. I have in mind here, for example, the withholding of the Eucharist...
I don't pretend to be an expert, or even knowledgeable on cannon law, but I find the first paragraph to be rather incredulous. He's reading the law to give a pass to the very people who make the murder of the innocent possible after noting above:
...a given Catholic committed an action for which automatic excommunication is the penalty (for example, heresy, schism, abortion)...
Abortion equals automatic excommunication but facilitating the abortion draws a pass. BIG disconnect.
That said, how about withholding the Eucharist and public condemnation of the offending politician? If, as the author notes in the linked piece that the whole point of excommunication is to reform the sinner, and if we assume the offending politician is indeed a sinner by denying Church doctrine, how can the Church remain silent and how can they justify withholding all punishment?
Redstate. (http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/12/fact-checking-the-catholic-bishops-do-a-job-americas-media-just-wont-do/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook)
-
Thanks for the replies guys. I realize that it is a tough question. I guess I'm just frustrated and aggravated by these people who go against God at every opportunity but at election time all of a sudden want to proclaim that they are a practicing Catholic (Baptist or whatever) and use it like a badge of honor. It gets to the point that I want the church to publicly and loudly announce each and every piece of doctrine that the politician is going against or has violated.
I purposely mentioned the Catholic Church because I expect more out of them when it comes to marriage and abortion.
Before any of the Catholics here take issue with the above sentence let me say that it is not in any way intended as a slight. It is actually intended as a compliment. For some reason I'm having a tough time translating what I want to say from my head to the keyboard.
-
I was listening to a sermon by Dr. Jeffress this morning (if you don't recognize the name, he's the preacher that made the media so angry when he said Christians should vote for Christians when Perry was still in the race.) His comment this morning runs along this topic, it was something like, "Many people tell you that you can't legislate morality. Yet all legislation is based on some moral value. The question is WHAT moral value do you want to base it on, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist..."
It's a complete cop-out to make a statement like Biden's, that he believes with his church that life begins at conception but "he's not going to push that on anyone." He doesn't have any trouble with pushing Christian employers into providing abortions. He doesn't have any trouble making churches buy insurance that covers abortion and abortifacient drugs. He is just fine with pushing his real moral values on the entire country.
We are told not to judge another person's salvation, that is only between that person and God. We are not ever told to have no discernment about another person's actions. In fact, we are told to intervene with those that are sinning, and to remove them from the fellowship if they don't repent. Many of our churches, Catholic and Protestant, need to do exactly that to politicians that force atheist values on the country.
-
I'm Catholic, but I have issues when it comes to ex-communication, kind of reluctant to decide who should or shouldn't be ex-communicated.
-
This is from Mrs. Smith
We are told not to judge another person's salvation, that is only between that person and God. We are not ever told to have no discernment about another person's actions. In fact, we are told to intervene with those that are sinning, and to remove them from the fellowship if they don't repent. Many of our churches, Catholic and Protestant, need to do exactly that to politicians that force atheist values on the country.
Any thing other then this is moral relativism and degrades the word, and that is the trap.
-
Therein might be the difference; your Church consists of local, pretty much independent, entities.
The Roman Catholic Church is highly centralized; this evolved because after the seat of the declining Roman Empire was moved east to Constantinople, there was no longer any organized formal civil structure left in most of Europe, and the church over the years filled the void, becoming a political and military and governing force as well as a religious force.
Someone had to fill the void.
Things such as excommunication have to, apparently, come from Rome; even lesser things such as annulments of marriages have to come from there too.
The local priest or the diocesean bishop has no judging authority, only enforcement (such as enforcement can be delivered) authority.
There's lots and lots of Catholics uncomfortable with this idea that flatulent politicians who brazenly flaunt rules of the church--Bela Pelosi being a good example--but can still call themselves Catholics and take communion.
But it goes back to what EagleKeeper said about "judge not, lest ye be judged;" God decides all, in the end.
-
I'm Catholic, but I have issues when it comes to ex-communication, kind of reluctant to decide who should or shouldn't be ex-communicated.
Bally,
Just out of curiosity, Biden mentioned something that I took to be a tenant of Catholicism in regards to right to life. Could you or any other Catholic tell us what this tenant is called?
-
I believe that Biden revealed last night in the debate that he understood that the Catholic church reveals that life is formed at conception and then went on to explain that he would not "force" his and the Catholic churches understanding on others.
Again, I think that is flawed thinking, did God admonish us to not form an opinion and not follow the given word or to just not take life into our own hands?
Yes, it is flawed thinking; after all, God gave us the gift of judgement, so ostensibly we're supposed to use it.
There's something in either Judaic or Christian scripture which reminds us, ".....and the rivers ran red with blood because the people refused to exercise judgement....."--pertaining to not adequately punishing wrong-doers and those who are evil.
But we're human, we're flawed.
On one hand, we should exercise judgement, but then on the other hand since our judgement is flawed--only the Judgement of God is perfect--we're hesitant to.
All Christians have this unsure feeling, wanting to do something, but afraid to do it in case they're wrong.
-
Bally,
Just out of curiosity, Biden mentioned something that I took to be a tenant of Catholicism in regards to right to life. Could you or any other Catholic tell us what this tenant is called?
I personally can't point to a particular tenet in particular that states it, our Church is structured so differently than other Religions, as frank stated, everything comes from Rome, and they have been known to make changes on things, but what we're taught in reference to the subject at hand is that the ending of any life is wrong, be it a fetus or euthanasia.
-
We have something called "Canon Law" that is put into effect by Church Leaders.
-
We have something called "Canon Law" that is put into effect by Church Leaders.
Thanks Bally, I think that's relevent.
But I think ( and please understand that I am googeling) This phrase, "Catechism" of the Catholic Church seems to be what I was searching for.
-
Therein might be the difference; your Church consists of local, pretty much independent, entities.
The Roman Catholic Church is highly centralized; this evolved because after the seat of the declining Roman Empire was moved east to Constantinople, there was no longer any organized formal civil structure left in most of Europe, and the church over the years filled the void, becoming a political and military and governing force as well as a religious force.
Someone had to fill the void.
Things such as excommunication have to, apparently, come from Rome; even lesser things such as annulments of marriages have to come from there too.
The local priest or the diocesean bishop has no judging authority, only enforcement (such as enforcement can be delivered) authority.
There's lots and lots of Catholics uncomfortable with this idea that flatulent politicians who brazenly flaunt rules of the church--Bela Pelosi being a good example--but can still call themselves Catholics and take communion.
But it goes back to what EagleKeeper said about "judge not, lest ye be judged;" God decides all, in the end.
Thanks for the input frank, but it's late and my mind is sleepy so let me see if I understand what you're saying.
If a local priest had a problem with parishioner participating in communion the priest would have to voice his concerns to Rome. Rome would make the decision and get that decision to the priest, and the priest would then enforce it. Is this correct? Or close to it?
Some of my fellow Protestants may disagree with me, but from what I've seen Catholic priests are probably better schooled in what Catholics are supposed to believe than Baptists pastors are in what Baptists are supposed to believe. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about knowing the Bible because I'm sure that probably averages out about the same. I'm talking about being schooled in the tenants of their particular faith.
With that in mind I would have thought that the priests would have some wiggle room to act unilaterally if someone did something that was blatantly and obviously contrary to the faith.
-
If a local priest had a problem with parishioner participating in communion the priest would have to voice his concerns to Rome. Rome would make the decision and get that decision to the priest, and the priest would then enforce it. Is this correct? Or close to it?
Pretty much it, although it's more byzantinely bureaucratic than that.
The priest > the bishop > Rome.
With that in mind I would have thought that the priests would have some wiggle room to act unilaterally if someone did something that was blatantly and obviously contrary to the faith.
Since the priest's actions are ultimately judged from Rome, they do have some "wiggle room," but it's cautiously and rarely exercised, in case they might have misjudged.
The most recent examples have been those individual preachments and actions of priests in the Soviet Union, socialist Germany, Red China, socialist eastern Europe, and petty African despotic states, where dire extremity demands they speak out or act out on their own volition.
We fortunately haven't reached that point yet, official governmental hostility to either Catholicism or Christianity in general, but we're slipping that way.
One American cardinal who died recently--I forget who it was--said he'd die in bed, his successor would die in prison, and his successor's successor would die a martyr.
-
Pretty much it, although it's more byzantinely bureaucratic than that.
The priest > the bishop > Rome.
Since the priest's actions are ultimately judged from Rome, they do have some "wiggle room," but it's cautiously and rarely exercised, in case they might have misjudged.
The most recent examples have been those individual preachments and actions of priests in the Soviet Union, socialist Germany, Red China, socialist eastern Europe, and petty African despotic states, where dire extremity demands they speak out or act out on their own volition.
We fortunately haven't reached that point yet, official governmental hostility to either Catholicism or Christianity in general, but we're slipping that way.
One American cardinal who died recently--I forget who it was--said he'd die in bed, his successor would die in prison, and his successor's successor would die a martyr.
If things keep going on the current path he could be correct.
-
Thanks Bally, I think that's relevent.
But I think ( and please understand that I am googeling) This phrase, "Catechism" of the Catholic Church seems to be what I was searching for.
Catechism is what I was taught in Catholic School, and there's something called CCD which is taught on Sundays to Public School Students, it's basically Catholic Doctrine.
-
Catechism is what I was taught in Catholic School, and there's something called CCD which is taught on Sundays to Public School Students, it's basically Catholic Doctrine.
You're probably not old enough to remember the blue Baltimore Catechism (for younger children) and the dark green Baltimore Catechism (for older children); I think they'd been replaced by circa 1980. Easy to read, easy to understand. I dunno what's replaced them, but it surely can't be as good as this pair.
-
You're probably not old enough to remember the blue Baltimore Catechism (for younger children) and the dark green Baltimore Catechism (for older children); I think they'd been replaced by circa 1980. Easy to read, easy to understand. I dunno what's replaced them, but it surely can't be as good as this pair.
I'm about your age and I don't remember that at all, were you taught that? I hate to say it but I mentally slept through Religion Class, we had it everyday and it's 1 of those things that didn't hold my interest.
-
I'm about your age and I don't remember that at all, were you taught that? I hate to say it but I mentally slept through Religion Class, we had it everyday and it's 1 of those things that didn't hold my interest.
Yeah, I found them good, even though they were considered somewhat outdated at the time.
I just mentioned this because yes, they're still good, and for an adult quick and easy to read, questions followed by well-explained answers mostly. They explained Canon Law and an adult could probably read one in half an hour.
I assume you went to a parochial school; I didn't (none were around). All I learned of religion, I learned in church, and classes were usually conducted by the stereotypical sweet nice gentle kind loving pleasant nuns from a nunnery 75 miles distant.
<<never met a nun who wasn't saintly in patience and manner.
-
Yeah, I found them good, even though they were considered somewhat outdated at the time.
I just mentioned this because yes, they're still good, and for an adult quick and easy to read, questions followed by well-explained answers mostly. They explained Canon Law and an adult could probably read one in half an hour.
I assume you went to a parochial school; I didn't (none were around). All I learned of religion, I learned in church, and classes were usually conducted by the stereotypical sweet nice gentle kind loving pleasant nuns from a nunnery 75 miles distant.
<<never met a nun who wasn't saintly in patience and manner.
Yes, 12 years of Catholic School and Religion Class everyday. And OMG about the Nuns, they weren't that great in the 60's and early 70's at least the ones we came in contact with, they wore the old habits, the long black flowing dresses and the habits that were so large that their foreheads were scrunched down, my 1st Grade Teacher was a Nun and she was literally sadistic, and a racist, I heard that she left the Sisterhood. In 4th Grade we had an older Nun who was mean mean mean, she had glasses and beady little eyes and would beat the kids. After 4th Grade it seemed to change and the Nuns got a million times better, and they're awesome in this day and age.
-
<<<<<Has 2 former Nuns and a Priest in the Family Tree.
-
<<<<<Has 2 former Nuns and a Priest in the Family Tree.
You realize what I've been doing here, the last few comments.
Trying to give ChuckJ and others illumination into why we think the ways we do.
<<has a maternal cousin a few years younger than myself a priest in the U.S. military. It was weird, because earlier in life he was a spoiled rich kid. I dunno what changed him, but it's been thirty years now, and he's still at it.
-
You realize what I've been doing here, the last few comments.
Trying to give ChuckJ and others illumination into why we think the ways we do.
<<has a maternal cousin a few years younger than myself a priest in the U.S. military. It was weird, because earlier in life he was a spoiled rich kid. I dunno what changed him, but it's been thirty years now, and he's still at it.
That's fine. I think we might come across as secretive sometimes with Catholicism, but we're not, we just do things different than other Religions. We were surprised the 2 left the Sisterhood, but they left at a time when it was more accepted in the Church.
-
BIDEN MUST HAVE FAILED OUT OF SUNDAY SCHOOL (http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/12/biden-must-have-failed-out-of-sunday-school/)
During Thursday night’s debate, Vice President Joe Biden was asked by moderator Martha Raddatz to address his Roman Catholicism and his position on abortion. He stated in a very somber tone that “My religion defines who I am,†and that he’s a practicing Catholic.
It’s not odd to hear those two statements hand-in-hand with one another, but the true mystery in Biden’s remarks came when he described the Church’s teaching on abortion and his answer to the same:
I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call a de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others… (Emphasis added.)
First of all, to any genuinely principled person who takes the teachings of the Catholic Church seriously, there would not have to be such a drastic divide between one’s personal life of faith and the life of public service. In fact, it seems that upon a cursory observation, the two worlds would inform each other, one enriching the other, with the primary enrichment going from that of faith to that of life in the world. This is, however, not necessarily the platform in which one should address the complete disjunction in the vice president’s life.
Secondly, and to the most important point, how on earth is the Church’s teaching on abortion one that is de fide? To say that a particular tenet of the faith is de fide, is to say several things: Firstly, that it is something explicitly revealed by God to the Church. Secondly, that it has been declared by the Church — either through the teaching of the pope or a dogmatic council — to be true and a necessary part of the faith. And, thirdly, that while there can be reasons from the light of a human person’s intellect used to make belief more palatable — take for instance the Church’s use of Duns Scotus’s philosophical justification for the Immaculate Conception — the doctrine ultimately escapes reasoning through the natural faculties of the human person’s mind alone, and consequently must be acceded to on the basis of faith.
For our purposes, the first and third points made above are of particular importance. When Biden asserts that the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion is something that has been explicitly revealed by God, he is outright false. The history of the Church has been marked with a developed and markedly particular understanding of the human person in the womb. Granted, medieval biology may have led Thomas Aquinas to assert that the fetus was not “ensouled†until after the first few weeks following conception, the point remains unchanged that the Church has always viewed the intentional killing of a child in the womb as murder and, therefore, unlawful.
Simply because the Church has been more vocal about her opposition to abortion does not mean that it was encouraged or tolerated in the past. Rather, as the doctrinal history of the Church demonstrates, teachings are refined and promulgated when there is a grave threat against which the Church must fight. In other words, the development of the deeper definition that is so pronounced in contemporary times is done in response to the attacks of a hostile culture that favors and abets the evil of abortion.
Now, one of the gifts of the Catholic intellectual tradition is that it works to harmonize both the use and conclusions of human reasoning and the sometimes difficult-to-believe aspects of a supernatural faith. In this tradition, the reliance upon and favor given to reason is striking. Catholic theologians and indeed most priests must study philosophy for several years before they can proceed on to study theology. When the vice president asserted that the Church’s position on abortion is de fide, he without a doubt concomitantly claimed that that position is one which does not rely on reason or natural science.
If anything, such a claim is completely unfounded, given that the Church’s teaching on abortion is based both on the inherent dignity of the human person, no matter what its state or position in life, and the reasonableness of a natural law, which dictates to our consciences a certain way of acting that seeks first to do what is good and to avoid that which is deemed evil — or contrary to the good. For the Church, the act of willfully killing another person, particularly a person who is most vulnerable, is a great and terrible evil.
Therefore, when Biden proposed Thursday night that the Church’s view on the intrinsic dignity of life was something he couldn’t both understand through reason or seek to convince others of, he did not only a great disservice to the weak who rely on the protection of those in power, he also misled those in the Catholic Church who look to their elected officials to be an example of what is right and just in a free country.
-
As I wrote elsewhere yesterday, Biden has excommunicated himself with such beliefs about abortion and by accepting the Democrat platform about homosexuality and other modern errors inimical to Catholic morality (and morality in general, I would hope!).
When one rejects so many major tenets of a religion, exactly how does one still call oneself a member of that religion?
I have heard such leftist Catholics actually argue that Dem "concern for the poor" and their "antiwar stance" trump the promotion of the killing of the unborn: "You have to look at the whole picture!"
In logic, when part of a statement is false, it falsifies the entire statement. Such thinking is therefore difficult to change with a rational argument, because the people are not thinking rationally to begin with!
-
As I wrote elsewhere yesterday, Biden has excommunicated himself with such beliefs about abortion and by accepting the Democrat platform about homosexuality and other modern errors inimical to Catholic morality (and morality in general, I would hope!).
When one rejects so many major tenets of a religion, exactly how does one still call oneself a member of that religion?
I have heard such leftist Catholics actually argue that Dem "concern for the poor" and their "antiwar stance" trump the promotion of the killing of the unborn: "You have to look at the whole picture!"
In logic, when part of a statement is false, it falsifies the entire statement. Such thinking is therefore difficult to change with a rational argument, because the people are not thinking rationally to begin with!
'Zackly. Biden is a plastic, hollow, completely false and substanceless politician. He's worse than most.
And the tragedy is, he's too stupid to realize it. He thinks, just like his boss, that all he's got to do is flap his lips and "truth" spills forth. As long as that "truth" is characterized by methane gas and requires special processes to clean it up and remove the stink, he's not going to get very far with rational, clear-thinking adults.
-
.....the Church’s teaching on abortion is based both on the inherent dignity of the human person, no matter what its state or position in life, and the reasonableness of a natural law, which dictates to our consciences a certain way of acting that seeks first to do what is good and to avoid that which is deemed evil — or contrary to the good. For the Church, the act of willfully killing another person, particularly a person who is most vulnerable, is a great and terrible evil.
Yep, that's exactly what we're taught, and it's always made sense to me, even as a child.
-
One of the biggest problems, as I see it, is that in the '60s and '70s, a strain of liberalism infected seminaries like a virus. Because of this, there was a weakening of dogmatic teaching. This leads to moral equivalency--meaning that abortion issues are no more important than, say care for the poor and "social justice" issues. This is contrary to church belief. Abortion, for example, is murder. There can be give and take on how best to care for the less fortunate in our society. This liberalism gave political cover to liberal, pro-abortion catholics like Biden and Pelosi.
If the Catholic Church would have fought harder against Roe v. Wade, it wouldn't be the law of the land today.
-
I want to thank everyone, especially those of you who are Catholics, for taking the time to respond.
And frank, the Catholics aren't the only ones who have been infected by liberalism. The Baptists have had problems with it also. As I understand it there are some Baptist seminaries that are turning out folks that would be best buddies with Obama and his bunch. Jimmy Carter even started his own Baptist group: New Baptist Covenant.
I guess what makes me so made about Biden, Pelosi, and other like them is this:
I, as a Baptist, and you guys, as Catholics, may disagree on a lot of doctrinal points, but there are also a lot of doctrinal points that we agree on. We agree on these points mostly because they are spelled out plainly. It is these things that they seem intent on perverting. My thoughts are if you're going to be a Catholic actually be a Catholic. If you're not going to be a Catholic you need to find yourself one of those funky-feel-good religions that let you do whatever you want.
-
I want to thank everyone, especially those of you who are Catholics, for taking the time to respond.
I guess what makes me so made about Biden, Pelosi, and other like them is this:
I, as a Baptist, and you guys, as Catholics, may disagree on a lot of doctrinal points, but there are also a lot of doctrinal points that we agree on. We agree on these points mostly because they are spelled out plainly. It is these things that they seem intent on perverting. My thoughts are if you're going to be a Catholic actually be a Catholic. If you're not going to be a Catholic you need to find yourself one of those funky-feel-good religions that let you do whatever you want.
Amen! O-) As I wrote earlier, they are not really Catholic any longer, despite their entry into a church to pander for votes. Perhaps the Catholic bishops - now that the antipathy of this atheistic administration is overt and not to be contradicted - will start to deny these pseudo-Catholics the sacraments.
Barring them from even entering a church would be nice also...bot don't expect that! :whistling:
-
Hi-5 to that, ChuckJ.
:cheersmate:
-
Money and politics keep the Kennedys and the Kerrys from being excommunicated.
That is fact.
Can't argue with that. Visit some homes in South Boston and there are bigger shrines to the Kennedys than to Jesus.
-
One of the biggest problems, as I see it, is that in the '60s and '70s, a strain of liberalism infected seminaries like a virus. Because of this, there was a weakening of dogmatic teaching. This leads to moral equivalency--meaning that abortion issues are no more important than, say care for the poor and "social justice" issues. This is contrary to church belief. Abortion, for example, is murder. There can be give and take on how best to care for the less fortunate in our society. This liberalism gave political cover to liberal, pro-abortion catholics like Biden and Pelosi.
If the Catholic Church would have fought harder against Roe v. Wade, it wouldn't be the law of the land today.
It also gives the rich church members of any religion "cover" for their spin on caring for the poor. Jesus places that responsibility clearly on individuals, but those that should be giving much to the poor can use the flawed theology to claim that "We the People" are those called to care for the poor, so taxes are to be used that way. That is one flawed theology that is killing both our economy and our freedom. Biden and Obama are both clear examples of this flaw, along with many many many liberals and leftists.
-
It also gives the rich church members of any religion "cover" for their spin on caring for the poor. Jesus places that responsibility clearly on individuals, but those that should be giving much to the poor can use the flawed theology to claim that "We the People" are those called to care for the poor, so taxes are to be used that way. That is one flawed theology that is killing both our economy and our freedom. Biden and Obama are both clear examples of this flaw, along with many many many liberals and leftists.
Well said MrsSmith. I've always thought that was one of the reasons (along with the perversion factor) that so many celebs were liberals.
-
Voting for liberal taxation to "care for the poor" divorces us from specifically helping the poor directly, or at least semi-directly, either by voluntarism or by donating to a legitimate charity.
How much of our taxes goes to pay $50,000 + per year bureaucrats in Health and Human Services vs. the amount actually targeted for "the poor" ?
Before the bureaucratization of poverty relief, churches, synagogues, private charities, and friends and family handled problems with poverty/unemployment/etc. Much of this activity has now been swallowed by government!
-
Voting for liberal taxation to "care for the poor" divorces us from specifically helping the poor directly, or at least semi-directly, either by voluntarism or by donating to a legitimate charity.
How much of our taxes goes to pay $50,000 + per year bureaucrats in Health and Human Services vs. the amount actually targeted for "the poor" ?
Before the bureaucratization of poverty relief, churches, synagogues, private charities, and friends and family handled problems with poverty/unemployment/etc. Much of this activity has now been swallowed by government!
And they were able to do it better than the government because they knew if the people really needed help or if they were just lazy.
-
And they were able to do it better than the government because they knew if the people really needed help or if they were just lazy.
I dunno, Chuck.
I've worked in enough soup kitchens and similar type charities to note that, first, most of these charities/churches take special pains not to be judgmental. They/we serve all who show up. We'll feed them, clothe them, and house them.
Some of these folks are clearly gaming the system and while they'll stand there with their hand out and expect it to be filled, most of 'em don't hang on for dear life because there are PEOPLE who are ministering to them. These folks game the system and that makes 'em uncomfortable enough to grab it and run.
When these folks are getting handouts from the government, it's just a faceless bureaucrat who's handing out the goodies -- not somebody who has volunteered his time and talents and treasures to serve the same schmuck who's gaming the system.
Even thieves have a little bit of honor, especially those who bilk charities for a meal or a place to sleep overnight. These thieves won't really look you in the eye while they have their hand out -- they are ashamed.
Ain't no such thing when they're feeding at the public trough. Just belch and pass the ketchup. Oh, and fix me a plate to go.
:whatever:
-
I dunno, Chuck.
I've worked in enough soup kitchens and similar type charities to note that, first, most of these charities/churches take special pains not to be judgmental. They/we serve all who show up. We'll feed them, clothe them, and house them.
Some of these folks are clearly gaming the system and while they'll stand there with their hand out and expect it to be filled, most of 'em don't hang on for dear life because there are PEOPLE who are ministering to them. These folks game the system and that makes 'em uncomfortable enough to grab it and run.
When these folks are getting handouts from the government, it's just a faceless bureaucrat who's handing out the goodies -- not somebody who has volunteered his time and talents and treasures to serve the same schmuck who's gaming the system.
Even thieves have a little bit of honor, especially those who bilk charities for a meal or a place to sleep overnight. These thieves won't really look you in the eye while they have their hand out -- they are ashamed.
Ain't no such thing when they're feeding at the public trough. Just belch and pass the ketchup. Oh, and fix me a plate to go.
:whatever:
I agree that there is always going to be people who try to scam the system, but there's still a difference. The first is that the local charities and churches can decide that they've had enough and make informed decisions about who to help. The second difference is that the local charities and churches are doing the helping with money that was freely given by people and/or church members in that community instead of money that was stolen out of someone's paycheck.
I was a member of a small Baptist church way out in the woods. I don't know how much you know about small county churches, but for them their annual homecoming is a big deal. They have preaching, singing (sometimes with groups), and a big dinner.
We used to have one family that would only show up at homecoming. They wouldn't come to church any other day. There was four of them. A man, a woman, a grown son, and a grown daughter. They would show up just about the time the eating started. You could watch as each of them filled a plate, took it to their car, and put it in the trunk. Each of them would do this repeatedly. After doing this for several years the church deacons began doing some investigating.
The family did this to every small church in the area. They never went to any of the churches except to eat. None of them worked. None of them were disabled.
The next homecoming when the family showed up the deacons discretely had a talk with them. It's my understanding that they told the family that they were more than welcome to come to church any time they wanted. That if they were truly in need the church would be more than willing to help them in any way the church could. And that they were more than welcome to to eat at the church until their hunger was satisfied, but they couldn't fill up the trunk of their car like the church was their personal catering service because there were other people that needed to eat also.
The family never showed up again.
-
I agree that there is always going to be people who try to scam the system, but there's still a difference. The first is that the local charities and churches can decide that they've had enough and make informed decisions about who to help. The second difference is that the local charities and churches are doing the helping with money that was freely given by people and/or church members in that community instead of money that was stolen out of someone's paycheck.
I was a member of a small Baptist church way out in the woods. I don't know how much you know about small county churches, but for them their annual homecoming is a big deal. They have preaching, singing (sometimes with groups), and a big dinner.
We used to have one family that would only show up at homecoming. They wouldn't come to church any other day. There was four of them. A man, a woman, a grown son, and a grown daughter. They would show up just about the time the eating started. You could watch as each of them filled a plate, took it to their car, and put it in the trunk. Each of them would do this repeatedly. After doing this for several years the church deacons began doing some investigating.
The family did this to every small church in the area. They never went to any of the churches except to eat. None of them worked. None of them were disabled.
The next homecoming when the family showed up the deacons discretely had a talk with them. It's my understanding that they told the family that they were more than welcome to come to church any time they wanted. That if they were truly in need the church would be more than willing to help them in any way the church could. And that they were more than welcome to to eat at the church until their hunger was satisfied, but they couldn't fill up the trunk of their car like the church was their personal catering service because there were other people that needed to eat also.
The family never showed up again.
Well, the church that we've attended is pretty small - about 100 active members. Maybe 150 on the rolls.
I agree that the preferred approach up and down the line is to relegate charity to those organizations that are best equipped to handle it - churches, local charities being the favored - and that those organizations retain the decision-making to donate how much and to whom the proceeds go.
The government - even local government - is ill-equipped to make those decision and the federal government is so far out of touch it's ridiculous. Look at the Katrina debacle. While GWB took a lot of heat for a lot of crap, there's plenty of evidence that the breakdown occurred at the state level, which is a whole 'nother level of bureaucracy altogether.
Getting back to your illustration of your small country church, it seems to me that the church membership expected the church leaders to step up and, in an appropriate way, address or even confront these freeloaders. It sounds like they did it the right way and while extending an invitation to be a part of the church on a more or less regular basis, but close the door on providing food on a sustained basis.
Contrast this with my pastor. This is the type of guy who will NOT confront these freeloaders in any way, shape or form. He doesn't make a lot of money to begin with, but will dig in his pocket for whatever is there and hand it out to the local freeloaders whenever he can. And I knew another pastor from another church who did the same thing.
As long as they're passing out their OWN money, no problem. But if it's the church's money/assets/proceeds, a little bit of accountability is not out of line.
-
Well, the church that we've attended is pretty small - about 100 active members. Maybe 150 on the rolls.
I agree that the preferred approach up and down the line is to relegate charity to those organizations that are best equipped to handle it - churches, local charities being the favored - and that those organizations retain the decision-making to donate how much and to whom the proceeds go.
The government - even local government - is ill-equipped to make those decision and the federal government is so far out of touch it's ridiculous. Look at the Katrina debacle. While GWB took a lot of heat for a lot of crap, there's plenty of evidence that the breakdown occurred at the state level, which is a whole 'nother level of bureaucracy altogether.
Getting back to your illustration of your small country church, it seems to me that the church membership expected the church leaders to step up and, in an appropriate way, address or even confront these freeloaders. It sounds like they did it the right way and while extending an invitation to be a part of the church on a more or less regular basis, but close the door on providing food on a sustained basis.
Contrast this with my pastor. This is the type of guy who will NOT confront these freeloaders in any way, shape or form. He doesn't make a lot of money to begin with, but will dig in his pocket for whatever is there and hand it out to the local freeloaders whenever he can. And I knew another pastor from another church who did the same thing.
As long as they're passing out their OWN money, no problem. But if it's the church's money/assets/proceeds, a little bit of accountability is not out of line.
A hundred active? That's huge compared to the church I'm talking about. It had about 25 active.
I'm like you when it comes to their own money, but I have had pastors that would volunteer the church's money.
That's one of the reasons that I wouldn't want to be a pastor. One that is doing his job properly has to do some tough things that sometimes goes against his nature.
-
A priest once explained to us that we should not worry (too much) about being defrauded, when we donate to charity cases. One's generosity is still appreciated.
The assumption was that an occasional fraud should not prevent one from showing charity, that fraud should not be an excuse to stop or limit one's charitable impulses. By having government pre-empt its citizens' charitable impulses, the government has a deleterious effect on the psychology of its citizens, i.e. they will become less charitable.
We see this already among Dems: polls and surveys continually show that Dems rarely come close to Republicans in donations to charity. I have also seen this in Germany: people practically never give anything to the churches, charities, or e.g. organize fund-raising events for someone in need of an operation, or in need after a fire, hurricane, etc.
The latter example sticks in my mind: a teacher from Germany was visiting me and wondered what a "fund-raiser" meant, and after I explained what it was, he shook his head and said: "That would never happen in Germany."
And the reason why? People expected such a problem to be handled by government social-welfare bureaucrats!
The coming together of friends, relatives, neighbors, and strangers for a common purpose would not happen.
And that is why our huge welfare state is a disaster.
-
I agree that there is always going to be people who try to scam the system, but there's still a difference. The first is that the local charities and churches can decide that they've had enough and make informed decisions about who to help. The second difference is that the local charities and churches are doing the helping with money that was freely given by people and/or church members in that community instead of money that was stolen out of someone's paycheck.
The third difference is that 100% (or really close to 100%) of the donated money goes directly to the needs of the people. With government overhead, they can't compete with the worst rip-off "charity" out there.
-
While I agree with the other Catholics who have already responded....
I think there's also a lot of "don't ask, don't tell" in the Catholic Church, just as there is in any other denomination.
If the priest doesn't know you had an abortion....how can he deny giving you Communion?
If the priest doesn't know you cheat on your spouse...which is a sin....how can he deny giving you Communion?
He can't.
However, if you walk in to the confessional....and say, "Father, I have sinned..." and YOU proceed to TELL the priest of your sin...then he has knowledge of your sin and must act appropriately within the bounds of the confessional, and mete out appropriate "punishment". What one tells the priest in confession - is PRIVATE. He cannot go telling others what you have told him, nor can he tell others how or why you are being "punished".
It takes a big thing, to prevent the priest from giving one Communion, and even more to become excommunicated.
I grew up in the Episcopal Church and back in the day when the Church was so very similar to Catholic...divorce was "allowed", however remarriage was not. Though my father was a widower, my step-mother(she was Lutheran) was divorced 14 yrs before they were married. Because his remarriage was not "hidden" from the Church and it was against the laws of the Episcopal Church, my dad was excommunicated in 1966 when they got married. He could enter the Church and even attend Mass, but he could not take Communion, nor could he become a "legal" member of the Church.
I think it was sometime in the late 70's, after the Episcopal Church ceased excommunication for remarriage after divorce, that my dad and stepmom had a "ceremony" in the church. They stopped at the church my dad was excommunicated in Iowa on a trip from Illinois to Nebraska, and the priest "married" them in "the Eyes of The Church".
Like anything else, churches evolve to "keep up with the times" and even more importantly to maintain or increase membership, because those members - and their money - is what keeps the particular church in existence.
I attended a Catholic Church all through college and after until I married another Episcopalian and my kids were raised Episcopal. My youngest still is, though my daughter and her family belong to a mega-church called Faith Promise. It's one of those non-denominational churches, that has a service lasting an hour or so. First half is like a gospel rock concert and the second half is the preacher in jeans and a t-shirt holding a bible in one hand and sprinting back and forth across the stage in a frenzy of emotion. Her husband was raised Southern Baptist and they opted for FP because it was "neutral". A lot of their friends go there, for the same reason. It has evolved from Baptist "roots" into something more enticing to those who want religion, but without the "rules" of more traditional established religions. (we attended one time with SIL's parents and his mom was appalled at the circus-like atmosphere...)
When the other half and I got together, almost 19 yrs ago, he a lifelong Catholic, tried to adjust to attending Episcopal, but I opted to switch to Catholic. Even so, I would have left the Episcopal Church when an openly gay priest became a bishop. I'm pretty tolerant of many of the "evolving" changes the Church has made, but not that one!
-
While I agree with the other Catholics who have already responded....
I think there's also a lot of "don't ask, don't tell" in the Catholic Church, just as there is in any other denomination.
If the priest doesn't know you had an abortion....how can he deny giving you Communion?
If the priest doesn't know you cheat on your spouse...which is a sin....how can he deny giving you Communion?
He can't. ...
When the other half and I got together, almost 19 yrs ago, he a lifelong Catholic, tried to adjust to attending Episcopal, but I opted to switch to Catholic. Even so, I would have left the Episcopal Church when an openly gay priest became a bishop. I'm pretty tolerant of many of the "evolving" changes the Church has made, but not that one!
Many thanks for your story!
Rock-n-roll churches have grown immensely at the expense of the traditional ones: I suppose the best thing one can say is that the people are still spending some time with religious thoughts, although how one can pray and meditate with the "circus atmosphere" I have no idea.
Quite true about priests not being able to deny Holy Communion in most cases: my problem is that politicians openly voting for things inimical to basic morality (Biden, Pelosi, the Kennedys)are still allowed to act like they are Catholic. The bishops in most cases look the other way.
-
Many thanks for your story!
Rock-n-roll churches have grown immensely at the expense of the traditional ones: I suppose the best thing one can say is that the people are still spending some time with religious thoughts, although how one can pray and meditate with the "circus atmosphere" I have no idea.
Quite true about priests not being able to deny Holy Communion in most cases: my problem is that politicians openly voting for things inimical to basic morality (Biden, Pelosi, the Kennedys)are still allowed to act like they are Catholic. The bishops in most cases look the other way.
That was one of the reasons that I sought out a more traditional church, drums and electric guitars don't generally inspire a worshipful mindset for me. Everybody is different, but for me the Orthodox Church, with incense and traditional music works well to inspire me to be more worshipful.
On the question of communion, I'm not Catholic, but I believe that the Orthodox church and the Catholic church has very similar views on most of the sacraments. I was taught that we risk harming our own soul if we take communion unprepared, including having unconfessed and unreported sins on our souls. I know that my priest will frequently say before communion that the sacrament is only for those who have prepared appropriately, and then he trusts us to examine our conscience.
-
That was one of the reasons that I sought out a more traditional church, drums and electric guitars don't generally inspire a worshipful mindset for me. Everybody is different, but for me the Orthodox Church, with incense and traditional music works well to inspire me to be more worshipful.
On the question of communion, I'm not Catholic, but I believe that the Orthodox church and the Catholic church has very similar views on most of the sacraments. I was taught that we risk harming our own soul if we take communion unprepared, including having unconfessed and unreported sins on our souls. I know that my priest will frequently say before communion that the sacrament is only for those who have prepared appropriately, and then he trusts us to examine our conscience.
That was a big reason that Mrs E and I recently left our church of 5 years -- the pastor insists on bringing that kind of music into worship, this despite the fact he is ill-prepared to handle that task and nobody else is either. :whatever:
People can worship however they choose, but to try to make one size fit all generally doesn't work - at least for me.
Leave the damned drum sets, guitars, amplifiers and microphones for the concert hall if that's what you intend to have.
-
Composer Igor Stravinsky was asked why he bothered to create music for a Latin Mass, right when the Catholic Church was allowing the vernacular.
His response was that when one addresses God, one should use a special language untouched by the commonalities of daily life.
The same rule can - should - apply to the musical style as well.
-
What I've found is that decisions concerning music and styles of music really have no basis in the liturgy -- it's all about popularity and bringing the stuff that people want to hear.
Some people just aren't comfortable unless they're hearing pipe organs and instrumentals that are NOT sound reinforced (I'm one of those) vice all the gear and crap they can schlep into the "sanctuary."
Yeah. "Sanctuary."
Right.
-
I want the solemnity and the reverence of a more traditional Mass. My early years through junior high was in a High Espiscopal Church which is so similar to the Catholic Mass today. I guess it's my comfort level for how I want Church to be. The prayers are the same ones I had to memorize as a kid, and though many of the hymns have become more "modern" so to speak, I can deal with it as for the most part, the respectfulness of what I want during Mass, is still there.
We went to my daughter's church because she was being baptized. I had an issue with it, as she was christened in the Episcopal Church as an infant, but bit my tongue (almost all the way through!!) and attended.
She told us where we needed to sit (we were with her husband's parents), and about halfway through the rock concert part (the main part of the church is like a big wedge shaped auditorium with a stage across the front, tiered up type seating with a balcony around 2/3's)..... this wall of drapery beside us opens up and behind glass in this small room, my daughter comes out in a white robe ( she had a swim suit top and shorts on underneath), her husband and another guy are with her, she gets in what looks like a water trough and the two guys dunk her under the water. Gets out and is now in a very wet see through white robe, go out the door in the back of the room as another person comes into the room to get baptized.
She and hubs were back sitting with us about halfway through the minister's preaching. However, during the baptizing, which is being flashed on these big screens up on the front walls, with rock gospel blaring out from the electric guitars, keyboards and drums, everyone singing and be-bopping around both on the stage and in the audience - uh, congregation - with strobe lighting and other colored spotlights whipping around. M and I were just kind of stunned and SIL's mother leaned over to me and said ...."this is NOT the Baptist Church I know!" and she's 3-4 years younger than I am!
The music was fun - I guess that's the best way to describe it - but when I left I didn't feel like I'd been to church, for all the sense that makes.
M and I kind of looked at it as at least they are getting some form of religion and so are the grandchildren. I have since had a couple of people tell me they think the place is a "cult", which I have to admit, creeps me out as the minister kind of reminds me of that guy Jones who got all his members to drink the kool-aid. I do know that in the 2-3 years since they became members, she has changed a great deal. (My Runnin' Buddy who has known her since she was in her teens, refers to her as The Stepford Wife, which is considerably kinder than how my son refers to his sister!)
The "campus" we went to was quite large when we were there a bit over a year ago, and since they have been building a new section half again bigger than the existing church. It's supposedly the fastest growing church in the area, and has 4 locations and an "internet campus" too. Thousands of members and even more weekly attendees. They even have a wiki page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Promise_Church
To me, it just isn't church, but maybe I'm just turning into a fussy old lady. :bawl:
-
I did not read through the entire thread so forgive me if this has been brought up; Catholic teachers (nuns and some priests) and other leaders ignore the subject of abortion and in a few instances had abortion promoters as guest speakers.
As a Catholic, this makes me very angry.
A politician claims to be Catholic but ignores it's teachings. That is just a politician lying and is bad enough, but Catholic leaders ???? Unacceptable.
To prove my point;
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/575826614.html
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/05/07/catholic_georgetown_university_invites_proabortion_kathleen_sebelius_to_speak
.