IMO, true Catholics abide by the doctrines, the teachings, the laws despite what they would personally prefer. Remember, the Faith isn't about what makes it easier for man as a human being. Faith is about saving your soul.

 

What % of practicing Catholics do you believe follow the doctrines 100% of the time?

First, anyone who believes abortion should be OK cannot call themselves a Catholic, IMO. Understanding how one could be in a position and make that choice, and supporting abortion are two different things. Understanding the position of those who choose abortion is the key to finding ways to prevent abortion.

 

Secondly, I can agree a Vatican III might be in order. But I also think that with the current pope in the Vatican, there may be a reversal of the more liberal aspects of Vatican II, versus any changes relative to the Catholic position on birth control, women as priests, or married priests.

 

Thirdly, there is nothing wrong with criticism of the Church. The problem I have is that there seems to be a trend to act as you want, regardless of the fact that you KNOW the Church teaches against it (ie birth control, pre-marital sex, etc), and then sit back and defend yourself by saying that it's OK to criticize the Church.

 

IMO, true Catholics abide by the doctrines, the teachings, the laws despite what they would personally prefer. Remember, the Faith isn't about what makes it easier for man as a human being. Faith is about saving your soul.

 

Okay, fair enough.

 

However, I think that the fact that I live my life as well as I possibly can every day (don't drink, don't take the Lord's name in vein, am kind to others, am polite, etc.) shouldn't make me a "worse" Catholic than you (pl) just because I think Priests should be able to marry, think "the pill" is a real world necessity for MANY in this day and age, and think (in very few cases, where the health of the mother is at risk) there are times when abortion is the right choice. If that means that, as Pep alluded to, it is time for my 37 year relationship with the Catholic Church to come to end, than perhaps you are right. My relationship with Jesus, my desire to be the best person I can be everyday, my want for those around me to think that my inclusion in their life makes them richer, my desire to be someone that can be looked at as a positive influence in others...that outweighs my allegiance to St. Timothy's Parish. Here is the thing, and I can't believe I'm alone on this, I can have my relationship with The Holy Trinity with or without attending Mass, my heart and my soul are with me all of the time and I'd rather take that approach than those that live like heathens Monday - Saturday and think by going to Mass on Sunday they are living the right way.

So you're saying that if a lifelong Catholic has a criticism of the Church that he should consider changing denominations?

 

 

No I am saying that if you have an issue with a priest acting in accordance with the teaching of the church, then yes. Because if you have a problem with the teachings of the church, then the church may not be the best choice for you.

 

In all actuality I find criticism to be no big deal. Questioning practices of the church really doesn't bother me all that much. How else are we to understand them? I am just saying that if there is someone applying the teachings of the church and you have a problem with it, then you may want to re-evaluate your standing within the church.

 

I have no problems with the Bishop doing this although I understand and am somewhat disheartened that it is for political reasons.

First, anyone who believes abortion should be OK cannot call themselves a Catholic, IMO. Understanding how one could be in a position and make that choice, and supporting abortion are two different things. Understanding the position of those who choose abortion is the key to finding ways to prevent abortion.

 

Secondly, I can agree a Vatican III might be in order. But I also think that with the current pope in the Vatican, there may be a reversal of the more liberal aspects of Vatican II, versus any changes relative to the Catholic position on birth control, women as priests, or married priests.

 

Thirdly, there is nothing wrong with criticism of the Church. The problem I have is that there seems to be a trend to act as you want, regardless of the fact that you KNOW the Church teaches against it (ie birth control, pre-marital sex, etc), and then sit back and defend yourself by saying that it's OK to criticize the Church.

 

IMO, true Catholics abide by the doctrines, the teachings, the laws despite what they would personally prefer. Remember, the Faith isn't about what makes it easier for man as a human being. Faith is about saving your soul.

 

What she said. :thumb:

Okay, fair enough.

 

However, I think that the fact that I live my life as well as I possibly can every day (don't drink, don't take the Lord's name in vein, am kind to others, am polite, etc.) shouldn't make me a "worse" Catholic than you (pl) just because I think Priests should be able to marry, think "the pill" is a real world necessity for MANY in this day and age, and think (in very few cases, where the health of the mother is at risk) there are times when abortion is the right choice. If that means that, as Pep alluded to, it is time for my 37 year relationship with the Catholic Church to come to end, than perhaps you are right. My relationship with Jesus, my desire to be the best person I can be everyday, my want for those around me to think that my inclusion in their life makes them richer, my desire to be someone that can be looked at as a positive influence in others...that outweighs my allegiance to St. Timothy's Parish. Here is the thing, and I can't believe I'm alone on this, I can have my relationship with The Holy Trinity with or without attending Mass, my heart and my soul are with me all of the time and I'd rather take that approach than those that live like heathens Monday - Saturday and think by going to Mass on Sunday they are living the right way.

 

You make it seem like it's not possible to be a great person Monday-Saturday, then go to mass on Sunday, and also follow the doctrines of the Church. Can't you do both? And there isn't anything wrong with disagreeing with them; but you can't justify you disagreements with the Church by saying that I am a good person with a relationship with Jesus.

 

Also why is the pill a necessity today but it wasn't hundreds of years ago? Should the Catholic Church change what's wrong and right due to social changes? I'm not saying the Catholic Church should never change, but due to the sexual revolution?

Let me pose a hypothetical. A person says publicly that they believe that the church's stand on birth control is wrong, but that in deference to the disipline of the church they will not violate the church's teachings. They will also vote to keep artificial birth control legal. Should that person be refused Communion?

 

How about another. After much study and prayer a person says that they can find no scientific evidence that convinces them that a very early fetus is a person and for that reason will vote to keep very early term abortion legal. They also announce that they will abide by the church's disipline and refuse abortion as an option within their family. Should that person be refused Communion? I believe that a Bishop's public stance on Communion for a candidate is a political act and not a religious one. As such, it is a bad idea. If the Bishop felt that strongly about it he could have notified the mayor in private that he would not give him communion.

Let me pose a hypothetical. A person says publicly that they believe that the church's stand on birth control is wrong, but that in deference to the disipline of the church they will not violate the church's teachings. They will also vote to keep artificial birth control legal. Should that person be refused Communion?

 

How about another. After much study and prayer a person says that they can find no scientific evidence that convinces them that a very early fetus is a person and for that reason will vote to keep very early term abortion legal. They also announce that they will abide by the church's disipline and refuse abortion as an option within their family. Should that person be refused Communion? I believe that a Bishop's public stance on Communion for a candidate is a political act and not a religious one. As such, it is a bad idea. If the Bishop felt that strongly about it he could have notified the mayor in private that he would not give him communion.

 

Agree completely. :thumb::thumb:

You make it seem like it's not possible to be a great person Monday-Saturday, then go to mass on Sunday, and also follow the doctrines of the Church. Can't you do both? And there isn't anything wrong with disagreeing with them; but you can't justify you disagreements with the Church by saying that I am a good person with a relationship with Jesus.

 

Also why is the pill a necessity today but it wasn't hundreds of years ago? Should the Catholic Church change what's wrong and right due to social changes? I'm not saying the Catholic Church should never change, but due to the sexual revolution?

 

The two aren't mutually exclusive, however, I know many (read: MANY) Catholics that go to Mass more than my wife and I but are lousy people day in and day out. Obviously, there are folks that lead super lives and attend mass weekly, if not more, I just know at least as many that fall in the other category.

 

To your 2nd point, sure I can. I can absolutely disagree with The Church on issues but feel comfortable when I lay my head on the pillow at night knowing that my relationship with Jesus isn't impacted by my stance on the Pill. Churches like The Vineyard and Crossroads are filling up by the day with Catholics that have chosen to go the non-denominational approach for a reason. This "our way, all the way, or the highway" approach that's seeping through this thread is the reason that the 33% number is what it is and the reason that Crossroads this Sunday will be nearly 1/2 filled with "Catholics."

 

Bask in your righteouness (not you, but those that look down their collective noses at their Catholic peers that dare to think for themselves), ban anyone who dare to disagree, and then enjoy all of the extra room in the pews at Mass on Sundays.

 

I feel like I have fallen into a freaking Opus Dei meeting. Jeesh...

Also why is the pill a necessity today but it wasn't hundreds of years ago? Should the Catholic Church change what's wrong and right due to social changes? I'm not saying the Catholic Church should never change, but due to the sexual revolution?

 

Sorry, didn't want to ignore these questions. I wonder why the Catholic Church would be so against their married Catholic members using birth control? Hmm? :sssh:

 

To your 2nd point, yes. If the Church doesn't allow some of there views to be liquid based on the evolution of our society / culture, I'm telling you, there will be even more Parishes closing around the Country than already are.

 

I think we should move to expel all boys out of CovCath that have ever dared to use a condom during their pre-marital sex! Who is with me? :walk:

Sorry, didn't want to ignore these questions. I wonder why the Catholic Church would be so against their married Catholic members using birth control? Hmm? :sssh:

 

To your 2nd point, yes. If the Church doesn't allow some of there views to be liquid based on the evolution of our society / culture, I'm telling you, there will be even more Parishes closing around the Country than already are.

 

I think we should move to expel all boys out of CovCath that have ever dared to use a condom during their pre-marital sex! Who is with me? :walk:

 

I really don't think that the Church should change their beliefs because of cultural and social influences, regardless of the consequences.

 

And the Church isn't against birth control. The Church leaves it up to parents to determine how many children they should have and how they want to space these children. The Church is, however, against artificial contraception, because it goes against natural law.

 

I guess in the argument of birth control, maybe a politician has the right to say that the government has no right to interfere with it (which I completely disagree with) but chooses to believe it is wrong. I get more and more libertarian each day and think maybe the government shouldn't deal with it.

 

But with abortion, to me, that is murder. Legalized murder. I don't care about women's rights- the infant has rights also, and that is an infringement of rights, as well as a grave sin. A politician who supports abortion has the right to his own opinion but I support the Bishop's stance in this.

I think we should move to expel all boys out of CovCath that have ever dared to use a condom during their pre-marital sex! Who is with me? :walk:

 

No, but we sure shouldn't accept it as a cultural norm and make it acceptable.

Let me pose a hypothetical. A person says publicly that they believe that the church's stand on birth control is wrong, but that in deference to the disipline of the church they will not violate the church's teachings. They will also vote to keep artificial birth control legal. Should that person be refused Communion?

 

How about another. After much study and prayer a person says that they can find no scientific evidence that convinces them that a very early fetus is a person and for that reason will vote to keep very early term abortion legal. They also announce that they will abide by the church's disipline and refuse abortion as an option within their family. Should that person be refused Communion? I believe that a Bishop's public stance on Communion for a candidate is a political act and not a religious one. As such, it is a bad idea. If the Bishop felt that strongly about it he could have notified the mayor in private that he would not give him communion.

 

I think separation of Church and state is a good idea but should their be a separation of state and morality? That's a tough question that I don't know the answer to.

 

I am disappointed that, as your post indicates (correct me, please), religion should be behind closed doors and has no business in the real world. I don't believe that religion should be secondary to political gain.

No I am saying that if you have an issue with a priest acting in accordance with the teaching of the church, then yes. Because if you have a problem with the teachings of the church, then the church may not be the best choice for you.

 

In all actuality I find criticism to be no big deal. Questioning practices of the church really doesn't bother me all that much. How else are we to understand them? I am just saying that if there is someone applying the teachings of the church and you have a problem with it, then you may want to re-evaluate your standing within the church.

 

I have no problems with the Bishop doing this although I understand and am somewhat disheartened that it is for political reasons.

 

Brother, I'll ask you to re-read or to not read into anything.

 

RM assumed I was talking about abortion in my original post. Not true.

 

I then clarified it by saying that I believe there are priests who knowingly give communion to people who have not had a previous marriage annulled ie picking and choosing or simply ignoring the rules. Therefore, if priests are not consistent then everything is for naught. You then invited me to find a new denomination, thus, my bewilderment.

I think separation of Church and state is a good idea but should their be a separation of state and morality? That's a tough question that I don't know the answer to.

 

I am disappointed that, as your post indicates (correct me, please), religion should be behind closed doors and has no business in the real world. I don't believe that religion should be secondary to political gain.

 

No, I don't think that religion belongs behind closed doors. I have no problem with the Bishop speaking out on moral issues. He has a duty to do so. It is when he chooses to single out someone because they are running for office that I have a problem. Does he make a public announcement about each person he plans to refuse communion?

No, but we sure shouldn't accept it as a cultural norm and make it acceptable.

 

 

So if Clines caught a boy with a condom he'd be suspended? Is that what you'd define as "not mak(ing) it acceptable?" Let me simply say I doubt that would happen. How can we possibly accept such objectivity when artificial contraception is against the doctrine? Does Clines get them on some list so that they can't accept communion at the next school mass? Why not?