# Roman Catholicism v Protestant liberalism



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

This is an "out of the blue" post not directly responding to anyone, while responding to those involved recently in the RC aspects on the US military thread. It's also something I've been reading about & something I and other observers have observed in Sweden over the last year or so.


FACTS
1. The Roman Catholic church is the largest chruch in the world with over one billion "members" (believers, faithful whatever you want to call them)

2. The Roman Catholic church accounts for about 55% of ALL Christians

3. The Roman Catholic church is the fastest growing church in Sweden, with hundreds of Protestant and Orthodox converts every year.

4.The Roman Catholic church is still the fastest growing church in the world, with thousands of Protestant (*and presumably other converts) every year. (*I'm not up to date on the "other converts" globally)

5. The Church of Sweden is bleeding to death with thousands of members every year removing themselves from the official Church of Sweden register.

6. A huge number of those Lutheran's leaving the Church of Sweden are coming down the road and converting to our "team" :icon_smile: i.e. they are not leaving the Church of Sweden for spiritual reasons, they are leaving for other reasons. Quite often, I know from those I've spoken to, because of the Church of Sweden's liberal and modern views 


7. Anglicans in Britain are still flocking to the Roman Catholic Church for the same reasons Lutheran's are leaving the Church of Sweden.


REASONS

In Sweden and England, (and perhaps even America, just putting that idea out there for you. I don't know for sure as regards America) the liberal left, liberal centre and liberal right politically and the Anglican churches seem to think that the majority of the population are not opposed to homosexuality, are not oposed to women priests, and are not opposed to abortion.
And consequently have modernised and liberalised the Anglican Churches after that belief. And while doing so another liberal modernisation was to update the buildings and services and church language, thus stripping the Anglican Churches of the last shreds of spirituality.

The Churches of Sweden and England have been aware of the members fleeing in their thousands over the last two decades or so; but what they refuse to accept, or worse still haven't even been able to identify, is that the reason this is happening is because of the lack of spirituality, combined with an ever increasing level of liberalism and modernity. Churchgoers want spirituality, they want scriptural guidance, they want old fashioned religon. Not modernism and
liberalism and bending over backwards for every politically correct new grouping or view or trendy attitude that comes along. They don't want (as evidenced by the outcry from grass roots Lutherans in my town, many of them good friends of mine) the Ecco H o m o exhibition in the Lutheran Cathedral, as actually happened, or the Sex and Erotica exhibition in the Lutheran Cathedral as actually happened, or avantgarde late night dance troupes crawling around the church to electronica soundscapes in the Lutheran Cathedral, as actually happened. (Actually, I was at that, and it was rather good) 


Why? Because the majority of Protestant churchgoers in Sweden and England will, believe it or not (the Protestant Churches don't want to believe it because it upsets the hand they're holding in comparison to the Catholic Church), not accept homosexuality as normal, and will not accept abortion as a form of contraception.

This means that thousands of Protestants flock to the Catholic Church each year & that the adoption of modern liberal views and politics has seriously backfired on the Protestant churches.

Most recently in Sweden, the Church at a national level has been holding regular meetings to identify why thousands are fleeing. And I found out recently that at one of the most recent meetings the question was asked, "Why are so many of ours [Lutherans) converting to Rome?" 

And in the face of all the facts, they still don't know why. I spoke to a Lutheran priest about this just a few weeks ago, and even he wouldn't accept that the non-spiritual almost secular nature & appearance of Lutheran churches and services nowadays, combined with liberal views and modernisation was the reason for this exodus of members.

Just before Christmas I had a nice tea break with an English middle aged Opus Dei priest who works in Stockholm with university age students. Two things he told me were fascinating 1. The support service for students he works for is run by the Catholic Church, and there isn't one, to his knowledge, being run by the Lutheran Church 2. He said most of the kids who come to him are a, non-Catholic and b, looking for some sort of guidance and spiritual meaning as they feel lost in an ever increasing non-spiritual, "cult-of-the-self" anything goes society.

Just some facts, observations & theories. No prejudice, no hate, no judgement.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I notice you didn't even mention Universalist Unitarians!! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

First of all, what's your reference for these "facts"? At least in North America the Roman Catholic Church actually lost membership in 2009:

https://www.ncccusa.org/news/100204yearbook2010.html

Secondly, it's absurd to make assumptions about why entire religions are gaining or losing membership, based on the few people you've happened to ask. It's possible or even likely that your sample group might be conservatively biased. If you look at the polling data, an ever-widening chasm exists between popular and RCC positions on homosexuality, contraception and a dozen other subjects, and it's a safe bet that most people, even though they may call themselves Catholic, no longer take the RCC's positions seriously. That's hardly surprising, since the RCC is clinging to known falsehoods and utter nonsense on some of these issues, including homosexuality.

And lastly, the older I get the more all religious mythologies are looking like adult versions of the Santa Claus fable. I think I'm just getting too old for this sky fairy stuff.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*Yes, FrankDC, not everyone loves homosexuality*

People who actually believe in religion go for the real, unchanging thing.

It is unsurprising that fickle 'religion' that bends to the whims of the public becomes unpopular. You just can't respect something that has no respect for itself.

Obnoxious liberals with their self righteousness are recruiters for Catholicism in the same way GWB was a recruiter for Al Qaeda.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> *Yes, FrankDC, not everyone loves homosexuality*


Who claimed everyone loves homosexuality?

There you go again, as Reagan used to say.



chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> People who actually believe in religion go for the real, unchanging thing.


Think about that comment a while. That's the entire problem with religion: people who don't understand the difference between reality and belief. What's real is what exists in reality, belief exists only between one's left ear and their right.

Some people believe they'll be rewarded by God for flying airplanes into skyscrapers, other people believe they'll be rewarded for shooting abortion doctors.

See the problem now?



chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> It is unsurprising that fickle 'religion' that bends to the whims of the public becomes unpopular. You just can't respect something that has no respect for itself.


Oh please. The RCC forced Galileo to live under house arrest because they couldn't handle the truth. This is yet another case of that. As I said earlier, knowledge always defeats ignorance, the only question is how much time it takes for it to happen.


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

Earl, I'll have to track down the book title, but there is a book that essentially makes the argument that you've laid out. The thesis is that the more counter-cultural or peculiar the religious movement (obviously without going to far extremes), the more it thrives. I believe one of the examples used was the Latter Day Saints in the US.



FrankDC said:


> As I said earlier, knowledge always defeats ignorance, the only question is how much time it takes for it to happen.


Eh, this simply isn't true. I think most of us believe it at times out of vanity.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

boatshoe said:


> Eh, this simply isn't true. I think most of us believe it at times out of vanity.


When it comes to larger issues and the overall picture, I see no evidence that it isn't true. How many people still believe the Earth is flat, or is the center of our solar system or universe? How many of us still think African people aren't human beings? Is anyone pushing to take the right to vote away from women or to recriminalize homosexuality?

Of course ignorance wins the occasional battle, but it's not going to win the war.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

One of the problems I see is when the church starts thinking that it is god then it is no longer a church, and it certainly isn't God.

When a "church" thinks that abortion as a form of contraception is fine, when Gods word tells us of two brothers fighting in the womb, then again this "church" has cancelled out it being a church. 

And then there is the Sdom and Gmorra problem, which leads back to paragraph two.

The Church Of England, is it possible to have an atheist as a preacher? A Church has to have a God, so an atheist or agnositc can't be a preacher. No preacher no church.

Liberals are liberating themselves out of reality.

I'ver heard that some Swedes consider the tithe to be a tax, being the Swedish Luthern Church is part of the Governnmnet. A way not to pay so much tax is by not paying the tithe. So, quit the Church.


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> When it comes to larger issues and the overall picture, I see no evidence that it isn't true. How many people still believe the Earth is flat, or is the center of our solar system or universe? How many of us still think African people aren't human beings? Is anyone pushing to take the right to vote away from women or to recriminalize homosexuality?
> 
> Of course ignorance wins the occasional battle, but it's not going to win the war.


Your view is historically inaccurate. Human nature has not ascended over the centuries. The 19th century wasn't bloodless, but even those benighted folks who didn't have HD tv couldn't imagine the Holocaust or the Cultural Revolution. Did you know that in China Christians and Falun Gong practitioners are often imprisoned and reeducated in prison camps? Maybe you'll quibble with my answer, so I'll address one of your examples specifically. Re "recriminalizing" homosexuality, yes, in Uganda.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

boatshoe said:


> Your view is historically inaccurate. Human nature has not ascended over the centuries. The 19th century wasn't bloodless, but even those benighted folks who didn't have HD tv couldn't imagine the Holocaust or the Cultural Revolution. Did you know that in China Christians and Falun Gong practitioners are often imprisoned and reeducated in prison camps? Maybe you'll quibble with my answer, so I'll address one of your examples specifically. Re "recriminalizing" homosexuality, yes, in Uganda.


And what has the world's reaction been to Uganda? You're claiming there would have been the same amount of protest about it 1000 or even 100 years ago?

Honestly, I'm astonished that anyone can claim human nature hasn't ascended over the centuries. Less than 200 years ago black people weren't even considered human according to our laws, women couldn't vote, etc etc. In 1900 the average lifespan for males was a whopping 50 years.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> And what has the world's reaction been to Uganda? You're claiming there would have been the same amount of protest about it 1000 or even 100 years ago?
> 
> Honestly, I'm astonished that anyone can claim human nature hasn't ascended over the centuries. Less than 200 years ago black people weren't even considered human according to our laws, women couldn't vote, etc etc. In 1900 the average lifespan for males was a whopping 50 years.


What kind of answer is that? Are you saying that Moses married an animal just because some people 200 years ago wouldn't consider black human beings to be people? Why do you trip over other peoples problems?


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> Honestly, I'm astonished that anyone can claim human nature hasn't ascended over the centuries. Less than 200 years ago black people weren't even considered human according to our laws, women couldn't vote, etc etc. In 1900 the average lifespan for males was a whopping 50 years.


You're astonished because your historical sense has enormous lacunae which you don't even attempt to address. Why hasn't humanity become less barbarous with each passing century? Why isn't Hitler representative of the barbarous first century, and Jesus a representative of the enlightened twentieth century? I think you conflate increased general knowledge with an enlightened ethic.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

boatshoe said:


> You're astonished because your historical sense has enormous lacunae which you don't even attempt to address. Why hasn't humanity become less barbarous with each passing century?


My precise assertion is that, overall, humanity has become less barbarous with each passing century.

Have you studied what life was like for a typical human being in the 19th Century? 18th? 17th? For any standard one wishes to use, there's been substantial improvement. For crying out loud, you're ranting about the lack of human advancement and knowledge, by typing on a microcomputer and publishing instantly to the entire world, acts which only one century ago were pure science fiction!

Again I find it incredible that anyone could make your claim and still keep a straight face.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Frank, when you were growing up how far away did you father live? Your writing as though he wasn't around much, if at all.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> Frank, when you were growing up how far away did you father live? Your writing as though he wasn't around much, if at all.


WA, you clearly have psychological issues that you need help with. Instead of avoiding these problems by projecting them onto other people, seek out a mental health professional and see what your own family history reveals.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Golden rules :-

1. Never go into the Interchange.

2. Never discuss religion.

Still, here are some questions that the rest of you can discuss if you are so minded :-

a) I always had the impression that Sweden was a very secular society.

b) I get the impression that Islam and asylum seekers are a major issue in Scandanavia now.

c) Can you draw a distinction between Anglicans in UK/US and Africa ? I thought the latter were old skool and thriving ?


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

I think that our Earl of Ormonde made some interesting observations regarding Catholisim. People often do seek discipline and guidance and when things become too liberal, they often turn to the more ordered and structured disciplines. 

It is of sad note however, that I believe the 1 billion member Catholic figure may be true only in number and not in actual adherence to the whole teaching of the Catholic church. If the Catholic church had truly 1 billion members who knew their faith, we would not have had our current president voted in office. A president who does not believe in the sanctity of life (the issue here is abortion) can not have the support of those who understand the whole of Catholic teaching and its' stand on pro life.

There is another interesting observation made here by one of our forum members. It is concerning the Chirch's"persecution" of Galileo as an example of the "antiquated" thinking of the Roman Catholic Church. It should be noted that the Roman Catholic Church has supported and encouraged science throughout its' history. Notable fihures like Copernicus and Johannes Kepler were greeted warmly by the Jesuits.The church had many scientists and astonomers in Rome during Galileo's time. The Catholic Church even funded scientific research. Catholic Church clerics even made scientific advances during this time period. Interesting to note that it was the liberal minded Protestants who had a dim view of Copernicus' work. His "On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs" was not received well by Lutherans. Kepler faced the same reaction for his heliocentric work just as Galileo had. In fact it was Galileo who pressed the issue of doing battle with the Church on a theological basis and not just a scientific one. As a point of information, the geocentric theory was the accepted theory of Galileo's fellow SCIENTISTS at that time. Galileo's work "Dialogue on the Two World Systems" futher fueled the the fire. In it he made fun of the pope, whose arguments were expressed through the character named Simplicio. The pope, Urban III, was Galileo's friend for many years.

As we know today, Galileo's theory ws not completely accurate. The sun is not the center of the universe, as Galileo claimed and it is not in a fixed position. No to be fair, his detractors were also wrong in believing that the earth was not in motion.

I don't know about the numbers Earl of Ormonde uses but I am elated to know that more are flocking to our "team".


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

trent77 said:


> I think that our Earl of Ormonde made some interesting observations regarding Catholisim. People often do seek discipline and guidance and when things become too liberal, they often turn to the more ordered and structured disciplines.


So true. Look at Fred Phelps.



trent77 said:


> I don't know about the numbers Earl of Ormonde uses but I am elated to know that more are flocking to our "team".


Pay close attention to this November's ballot initiatives in California.

Ignorance and bigotry may have won the battle, but you're going to lose the war.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

trent77 said:


> It is of sad note however, that I believe the 1 billion member Catholic figure may be true only in number and not in actual adherence to the whole teaching of the Catholic church. If the Catholic church had truly 1 billion members who knew their faith, we would not have had our current president voted in office. A president who does not believe in the sanctity of life (the issue here is abortion) can not have the support of those who understand the whole of Catholic teaching and its' stand on pro life.


Thank God the American people were smart enough to choose the better candidate, abortion issue aside.

Here in California, the Catholic Church no longer has enough clergy to run their indoctrination camps, er excuse me, I mean their parochial schools. They've been forced to import priests from South America and Africa.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Thank God the American people were smart enough to choose the better candidate, abortion issue aside.
> 
> Here in California, the Catholic Church no longer has enough clergy to run their indoctrination camps, er excuse me, I mean their parochial schools. They've been forced to import priests from South America and Africa.


Frank, do you think that uber-liberal Cardinal Mahoney might have anything to do with that? The Atlanta archdiocese does not have this problem, but then again we have been blessed in recent years with solid orthodox bishops who value vocations. Indeed, I saw a study a few years ago that ranked US dioceses by vocation success. Basically, it looked at the number of seminarians plus ordinations over the past 4 years compared to the population of the diocese. Then, it marked all dioceses generally regarded as conservative in bold, liberal in italics, and unknown or moderate in regular typeface. The list was extremely instructive. The top of the list was populated by bold dioceses and the bottom by italics.

As a product of Catholic education and as a trustee of two middle class/working class Catholic high schools, I know very well the challenges we face. But I also know that we are God's servants doing God's work.

Based on you prior posts, I believe that you are a gay man. Perhaps this is the source of your hostility. If Catholic clergy or lay members have treated you with meanness or unfairness because of your sexual preference, I apologize. Christ makes it clear that we are supposed to love all, and I don't doubt that many of my fellow Catholics have ridiculed their homosexual brothers. Indeed Church teaching is plain that such meanness is sinful. I further realize that you take exception to the Church's teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful, and I respect your view even if I don't agree with it. I wholly accept and agree with Church teaching, and that includes Her teachings on human sexuality. That does not mean that I think that I'm closer to God or closer in line to Heaven than you. We are all sinners and ultimately depend on His mercy.


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> My precise assertion is that, overall, humanity has become less barbarous with each passing century.
> 
> Have you studied what life was like for a typical human being in the 19th Century? 18th? 17th? For any standard one wishes to use, there's been substantial improvement. For crying out loud, you're ranting about the lack of human advancement and knowledge, by typing on a microcomputer and publishing instantly to the entire world, acts which only one century ago were pure science fiction!
> 
> Again I find it incredible that anyone could make your claim and still keep a straight face.


You obviously skimmed the part where I mentioned that you are conflating improvements in technology with improvements in human nature. I don't contest that the standard of living has increased over time. But that isn't what we were discussing. We were discussing human nature and ethical behavior. I'm sorry, but that Jonas Salk was born in the 20th century instead of the 19th doesn't mean that human nature ascended from one century to the next.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

boatshoe said:


> You obviously skimmed the part where I mentioned that you are conflating improvements in technology with improvements in human nature. I don't contest that the standard of living has increased over time. But that isn't what we were discussing. We were discussing human nature and ethical behavior. I'm sorry, but that Jonas Salk was born in the 20th century instead of the 19th doesn't mean that human nature ascended from one century to the next.


Agreed. While life is not as nasty, brutish or short as it was in the time of Hobbes, this is a function of technology, not human nature or moral behavior.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike, I explained the source of my hostility toward the RCC in the DADT thread. I was born and raised in the church, and have zero problems with them -- as a _religious_ institution. My own uncle has been a Catholic priest for over 60 years, and he's probably the most genuinely holy person I've ever known.

Also as I explained in that thread, what I have a problem with is the RCC's _political_ activism and their absolute hypocrisy; in particular, their organizing of campaigns to introduce and pass civil laws which specifically target the gay community and restrict or eliminate civil rights for this minority. I am outraged by this behavior because, depending on which formal study one wishes to believe, somewhere between 30% and 70% of the RCC's clergy are active homosexuals. It's much easier for them to sit with their thumbs up their asses while 30+ million Americans are declared official and permanent second-class citizens, lose their rights to marry, adopt children etc, rather than simply come clean on the issue and change their completely disproven and horribly obsolete postion on human sexual orientation.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

boatshoe said:


> You obviously skimmed the part where I mentioned that you are conflating improvements in technology with improvements in human nature. I don't contest that the standard of living has increased over time. But that isn't what we were discussing. We were discussing human nature and ethical behavior.


No. My original claim was about human knowledge, not human nature:

"The RCC forced Galileo to live under house arrest because they couldn't handle the truth. This is yet another case of that. As I said earlier, knowledge always defeats ignorance, the only question is how much time it takes for it to happen."


----------



## Salvatore123 (Jan 11, 2009)

I am amazed at the hostility that is aimed at it.

Do people who so obviously dislike or hate the Church, realize what would happen if it ceased to exist?

Catholic Charities is the world's largest charitable organization. Millions of people would literally begin starving or die if this organization was disbanded.

The Catholic Church is the largest organization in the world with respect to adoptive services. Millions of people would literally be without even hope to have a child through adoption if this organization ceased to exist.

And before the next person attacks the Church and points to "bad" people in it, try to realize how stupid (and yes, I say stupid) it sounds to find "bad" people in such a large group and then "try" to equate the "bad" as being no different than the organization to which they belong.

If you want to tow that line, then sign me up, too, as I am a member of the human race. Does that mean I am as evil person as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Amin, et al., simply because we are ALL people? Well, the same goes for the Church, and even its leaders. We have had horrible popes in our history - Alexander VIII fathered numerous children, the Borgias were a horrendous group who gave new meaning to nepotism, the bishops and cardinals in the US who allowed the child abuse to go on with heads buried in the sand will have to answer for that one day. But these people do NOT define our Church. Our Church is defined by its teachings - both through the Gospels and through its Traditions. In 2000 years, NOT ONE pope has uttered heresy while speaking for the Church as its head. Now how can that happen without there being a God?

I am not asking anyone to become Catholic. In fact, I am not asking anyone to believe the Catholic faith.

All I say is: If you don't like what the Catholic Church teaches, don't join or leave. It is all very, very simple.

The same simplicity applies to politics in America, where, in my opinion, an electorate that has a less than 50% on average voting record, has, in reality, "given up" its right to complain when it does not even bother to vote. If you don't like a politician, don't vote for him - vote for someone else.

It really is quite simple . . .

Regards,

Sam

P.S. - The Catholic Church apologized for its treatment of Galileo. Has the Angligan Church apologized for its behavior under Henry VIII and Cromwell? Has the Lutheran Church apologized for its behavior towards the Jewish community by its own leader? The Church's apology came late, but it came.

And a bit of irony: Henry VIII was given the title "Defender of the Faith" by the pope before Henry decided he could sleep with whomever he wanted, and cut off people's heads whenever he wanted. That title is STILL, TO THIS DAY, in the coronation oath taken by Kings and Queens of England. I wonder what "faith" it is they are now defending????


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Salvatore123 said:


> I am amazed at the hostility that is aimed at it.


If the Pope called you "objectively evil", you'd understand.

If the church was actively fighting to take away your right to marry the person you love, or adopt children, you'd understand.



Salvatore123 said:


> All I say is: If you don't like what the Catholic Church teaches, don't join or leave. It is all very, very simple.


It's not that simple. I'll get off the church's back just as soon as they get off mine, and stop pushing to have their religious mythology codified in our civil laws.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> If the Pope called you "objectively evil", you'd understand.
> 
> If the church was actively fighting to take away your right to marry the person you love, or adopt children, you'd understand.
> 
> It's not that simple. I'll get off the church's back just as soon as they get off mine, and stop pushing to have their religious mythology codified in our civil laws.


Frank, the Church has never said you were objectively evil and you know it. Quit lying. What the Church says is that homosexual behavior is objectively evil (i.e., sinful). We are all sinners and the Church does not characterize any of us as objectively evil.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

Salavatore123, as you assidiously pointed out, the amount of vitriol against the Catholic Church is quite hostile. This is especially troubling considering the amount of charitable work the Church has performed. 

It is of little use attempting to argue with posters who are not receptive to hearing the truth. Adherence to truth depends on the receiver, If one is ill-disposed to the truth, he will never understand it. As Catholics, we also have to understand that the "truth" is not just a "something" but a 'someone", and that would be Jesus Christ.

I could write paragraphs to address poster FrankDC but I don't think that he will be persuaded at all. That is clearly too much hostility in his posts. No matter how much you write, I am certain he will parse some part of your address, perhaps even out of context, and find some fault with it. No need to fret. As it was mentioned earlier, no one is trying to convert anyone to religion here. We are merely discussing a topic started by Earl of Ormonde. Who would think bringing up religion would stir a heated arguement 

I don't know where the numbers, suggesting up to 70% of the Roman Catholic clergy are active homosexuals, came from. Perhaps he can source his numbers? It should also be pointed out that being married in a church is not one of your "rights" under the constitution. Furthermore, the Church is not bound to marry someone who does not accept its' teachings. If FrankDc desires a civil union, then the local legislature should be petitioned. Even in this regard however, the PEOPLE of California have voted to reject gay marriage. In my opinion, I don't think he understands that the Church is not going to approve an act that it knows to be morally wrong. The Church will not confirm people in their sin.

As Salvatore123 pointed out, the Church does not condem homosexuals, but rejects the homosexual act. Love the sinner, reject the sin. 

With regards to the FrandDc comment "Thank God the American people were smart enough to choose the better candidate, abortion issue aside". 
To Catholics, the abortion issue is the most important issue at hand. In fact one can trace all the evils in the world to this one issue. If a president isn't willing to stand up for the most innocent of us, in a place that a child should feel safest, in his mother's womb, how can we expect him to care for the rest of us. I understand that Obama is not Catholic, but truly no Christian, regardless of the denomination, should prescribe to such a heinous practice. That does not necessarily make Obabma an evil person but, I feel, an uninformed one.

Perhaps this is hostility against the Catholic Church is so pervasive is that so much is at stake. Look at todays' climate, on going troubles in the middle east, high unemployment rate ni the country, acceptance of immoral behaviour tolerated under the specious pretext of "freedom", the attack on 9/11, ... Truly difficult times.

I am reminded of the statement: A demise in the morals of a nation leads to the demise of a nation.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

to mIke Petrick: Excellent response! God Bless


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

After reading this thread, I was reminded of all the wonderful experiences I have had in my life with members of various Catholic contemplative orders. If the Church has an enduring leg-up on the more recent, more liberal Protestants, I think it lies in the monasteries and nunneries. What was central to my experience with these people was their solid grounding in the idea that unless one's own true self is taken care of first, nothing else can change, especially not in the world of politics and the laws of man. Some contemplatives I knew were cloistered, others devoted to the service of others. But in both cases (different paths, same destination) they were looking for a direct experience of the Divine, of the transcendent, of the wondrously inexpressible. I remain very impressed and more than a little humbled by their commitments, vows and perseverance.

I find it amusing that I've never had a particularly hostile disagreement with a monk or nun or even a practicing Catholic, but for some reason I have some antipathy towards "The Church" as if it existed apart from those who make it up.



Mike Petrik said:


> ... What the Church says is that homosexual behavior is objectively evil (i.e., sinful....


Can one really separate a person from their behavior?

In this case, the Church goes into some detail on this notion:

_"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."_

It's clear that the Church considers the _inclination_ of a group of people is ordered toward an _intrinsic moral evil._ Thus it is clear that the Church views this specific inclination prior to any behavior to contain something unwholesome. Behavior is not the issue yet, the mere presence of this "particular inclination" is enough to warrant special consideration, warnings and more recently the devotion of not inconsiderable resources to change or suppress civil laws in the United States and elsewhere.

I don't think FrankDC is saying the Church should change its theology to suit society but rather that it leave such civil legal matters to civil society and not attempt to shape these laws according to Church doctrines.

Quote source: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/...faith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Thank God the American people were smart enough to choose the better candidate, abortion issue aside.
> 
> Here in California, the Catholic Church no longer has enough clergy to run their indoctrination camps, er excuse me, I mean their parochial schools. They've been forced to import priests from South America and Africa.


Easy does it Francis. You are letting your anti-Catholicism slip out again.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Frank, the Church has never said you were objectively evil and you know it. Quit lying. What the Church says is that homosexual behavior is objectively evil (i.e., sinful).


Mike, see above. The notion that a gay person's sexuality should (or even can) be surgically separated from who they are as human beings is the precise deception and delusion I keep referring to in this discussion. You know, the old "love the sinner but hate the sin" horsesh*t. Gay people are no different than heterosexuals: their sexuality is not just something they do, it's one of the most fundamental components of what defines them as human beings. For the Catholic Church to seriously claim gay people should remain continent their entire lives, and live a horribly lonely, emotionally starved existence, simply to avoid making a bunch of anal retentive heterosexuals uncomfortable, is beyond selfish in my opinion. It's immoral and obscene.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Quay said:


> I don't think FrankDC is saying the Church should change its theology to suit society but rather that it leave such civil legal matters to civil society and not attempt to shape these laws according to Church doctrines.
> 
> Quote source: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/...faith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html


Yes, exactly.


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> No. My original claim was about human knowledge, not human nature:
> 
> "The RCC forced Galileo to live under house arrest because they couldn't handle the truth. This is yet another case of that. As I said earlier, knowledge always defeats ignorance, the only question is how much time it takes for it to happen."


My mistake. I thought you were referring to human nature or ethical behavior when you were referring to knowledge.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I wonder what RCs believe about how to go to heaven or stay our of hell. Do they believe that anyone goes to hell? What is salvation? There are certainly different views among Protestants.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

WA said:


> I wonder what RCs believe about how to go to heaven or stay our of hell. Do they believe that anyone goes to hell? What is salvation? There are certainly different views among Protestants.


 The book, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, is an excellent source of information regarding what catholics believe.

Basically, catholics believe that how we conduct ourselves in this life detetmines how we shall live forever.

As Catholics, we believe that sin is like a wound that separates us from God. Through the wonderful sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church, we have available to us the rite of reconciliation, or confession. Through penance and contrition we become one with God again.

Another wonderful dvd series on what catholics believe in is beautifully and simply told by Father John Corapi. It is featured on his website - www.fathercorapi.com

I hope this answers some of your questions abouth Catholisism.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

trent77 said:


> As Catholics, we believe that sin is like a wound that separates us from God. Through the wonderful sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church, we have available to us the rite of reconciliation, or confession. Through penance and contrition we become one with God again.


Do you ever think that the RC has put itself over God when reading the New Testament? Call no man your priest, nor father. And, even further, that a priest can forgive me in place of God? It seems rather clear in the New Testament that forgiveness of sins is between the person and God where Jesus is the high priest and the person is his own priest. For somebody else to say he is a priest between me and Jesus or God is rather erroneous and a chance not going where one would like to. Seems to be a faith in men instead of God cleverly done so you think your faith is in God. Anyway, that is what I see. Has God the Holy Ghost ever confirm to you that the RC is right? I always put God the Holy Ghost ahead of men. I believe with out a doubt that God wants a connection between you and Him without anyone inbetween. Do you trust Him or the men who claim to be inbetween? Like I said that is the way I see it whether Protestant, RC, or anything else.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

WA said:


> Do you ever think that the RC has put itself over God when reading the New Testament? Call no man your priest, nor father. And, even further, that a priest can forgive me in place of God? It seems rather clear in the New Testament that forgiveness of sins is between the person and God where Jesus is the high priest and the person is his own priest. For somebody else to say he is a priest between me and Jesus or God is rather erroneous and a chance not going where one would like to. Seems to be a faith in men instead of God cleverly done so you think your faith is in God. Anyway, that is what I see. Has God the Holy Ghost ever confirm to you that the RC is right? I always put God the Holy Ghost ahead of men. I believe with out a doubt that God wants a connection between you and Him without anyone inbetween. Do you trust Him or the men who claim to be inbetween? Like I said that is the way I see it whether Protestant, RC, or anything else.


In catholisism the transmission of the Word is achieved through oral transmission (sacred Tradition),a written form (Sacred Scripture/ the bible) and the magesterium of the Church which serves as the only true, authentic interpreture of the Word of God. The magesterium is essentially the successor of St Peter, the first pope and a;ll the bishops united to him. The magesterium/church passes down in an unbroken succession what it received from Christ through the apostles. Remember this from Luke 10:16 - "He you heares you, hears me".

The Word is imparted through these forms: Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and magesterial teaching and not one of these can stand on their own without the other. See ( CCC 106; cf. Vatican II, Dei Verbum)

As to your question concerning a priest forgiving the penitent, it is God who forgive you and not the priest. Since the institution of confession was instituted by Christ, it is of divine nature, not human. In the Roman Catholic Church it is one of the sacrements and the absolution must be given by a validly ordained priest. Confession to a priest is essential - see Catechisim of the Catholic Church #1456. As proof of the divine institution of this sacrement, see Matthew 16:19 and John 20:22 - 23.

There are also some great books by Thomas Aquinas, Mother Angelica that can explain far better than I the Churchs' positions on the topics you selected. Father Corapi's wonderful and very easy to understand series is the best I have ever seen. He is also featured on the EWTN program on Sunday night 8pm eastern and on Monday afternoons at 1pm. He covers a wide range of topics.

Let me know if this clears things up or at least gives some insight into your question abouth the Church.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

Please forgive the grammatical errors and misspellings in the my previous post, it is 6am, I am stuck in th eoffice and I am fading fast. Take care.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

trent77 said:


> ...As to your question concerning a priest forgiving the penitent, it is God who forgive you and not the priest. Since the institution of confession was instituted by Christ, it is of divine nature, not human. In the Roman Catholic Church it is one of the sacrements and the absolution must be given by a validly ordained priest. Confession to a priest is essential - see Catechisim of the Catholic Church #1456. As proof of the divine institution of this sacrement, see Matthew 16:19 and John 20:22 - 23.
> ...
> Let me know if this clears things up or at least gives some insight into your question abouth the Church.


...and who is to craft forgiveness for the Church, for their decisions to cover up and keep secret for so long, the actions of pedophile priests, while quietly moving them to shepard other congregations and gifting the miscreants with whole new crops of potential victims?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Mike, see above. The notion that a gay person's sexuality should (or even can) be surgically separated from who they are as human beings is the precise deception and delusion I keep referring to in this discussion. You know, the old "love the sinner but hate the sin" horsesh*t. Gay people are no different than heterosexuals: their sexuality is not just something they do, it's one of the most fundamental components of what defines them as human beings. For the Catholic Church to seriously claim gay people should remain continent their entire lives, and live a horribly lonely, emotionally starved existence, simply to avoid making a bunch of anal retentive heterosexuals uncomfortable, is beyond selfish in my opinion. It's immoral and obscene.


Fair assessment FrankDC. However, it seems sad that one's sexual orientation, whatever it may be, should allowed to become so consuming that it seemingly usurps one's very reason for being! While I try to accept people, regardless of such orientations, I find it quite unnecessary (and perhaps a bit tiring) for anyone to wear a big sign (metaphorical or actual) around proclaiming, "Hi, I'm a hetero/****(sexual)!"


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> ...and who is to craft forgiveness for the Church, for their decisions to cover up and keep secret for so long, the actions of pedophile priests, while quietly moving them to shepard other congregations and gifting the miscreants with whole new crops of potential victims?


Eagle,
Institutions do not commit sins as such; individuals do. And that includes priests, bishops, popes and all manner of clergy. The sins associated with the pedophile scandals (actually hebephilia and phebophilia) were horrible and scandalous. Like all sins, the Sacrament of Penance is available to obtain forgiveness, though punishment is still left to God of course. The Church has never said it would comprise only the sinless or not commit error through its members. Instead, Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error. This is a critical distinction.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Quay said:


> After reading this thread, I was reminded of all the wonderful experiences I have had in my life with members of various Catholic contemplative orders. If the Church has an enduring leg-up on the more recent, more liberal Protestants, I think it lies in the monasteries and nunneries. What was central to my experience with these people was their solid grounding in the idea that unless one's own true self is taken care of first, nothing else can change, especially not in the world of politics and the laws of man. Some contemplatives I knew were cloistered, others devoted to the service of others. But in both cases (different paths, same destination) they were looking for a direct experience of the Divine, of the transcendent, of the wondrously inexpressible. I remain very impressed and more than a little humbled by their commitments, vows and perseverance.
> 
> I find it amusing that I've never had a particularly hostile disagreement with a monk or nun or even a practicing Catholic, but for some reason I have some antipathy towards "The Church" as if it existed apart from those who make it up.
> 
> ...


Quay,
Yes, persons are ontologically different from their behavior. One can indeed hate the sin and love the sinner. 
The teaching re "inclinations" is hardly surprising. The same would be true for those whose sexual appetites incline toward children; the inclination, while not sinful as such, tends to lead to sin and is therefore "disordered."
Most civil laws are grounded in morality. Churches can be expected to try to influence the laws of their societies just as they did during the anti-slavery and civil rights movements.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> Fair assessment FrankDC. However, it seems sad that one's sexual orientation, whatever it may be, should allowed to become so consuming that it seemingly usurps one's very reason for being! While I try to accept people, regardless of such orientations, I find it quite unnecessary (and perhaps a bit tiring) for anyone to wear a big sign (metaphorical or actual) around proclaiming, "Hi, I'm a hetero/****(sexual)!"


I agree, and as I've said in other threads on this topic, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that 20 or 30 years down the road, historians are going to look back on this current debate and shake their heads in astonished wonder. It easily outstrips the tempest-in-a-teapot debate over interracial marriages 50 years ago.

Same-sex unions have been recognized for 20+ years in some countries, and do you know what changes heterosexuals have seen in their daily lives? Zero. Zilch. Nada. Their societies didn't collapse, people didn't start asking to marry their pets, the Lord Jehovah hasn't appeared in the skies to smite anyone, and 9 out of 10 people continue to wind up very heterosexual. And should anyone be surprised by this? Why _should_ it make any difference to heterosexual couples whether homosexual couples can get married?

As Andrew Sullivan astutely pointed out several years ago, when this question is looked at objectively, and in light of the experiences of other countries, the true conservative position is to support same-sex marriage, not oppose it. Society accrues no benefit by isolating gay people and forcing them to choose between remaining single their entire lives or entering into sham marriages, while society does accrue benefits by recognizing same-sex marriages: increased stability, raising families, reduced promiscuity and disease rates etc.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Quay,
> Yes, persons are ontologically different from their behavior. One can indeed hate the sin and love the sinner.
> The teaching re "inclinations" is hardly surprising. The same would be true for those whose sexual appetites incline toward children; the inclination, while not sinful as such, tends to lead to sin and is therefore "disordered."


And yet again the insufferable comparison is made between homosexuals and child molesters.

News flash, Mike: in most states minors cannot give legal consent to sexual relations with adults.

News flash #2: Child molestation is a predatory act and always entails victimization. Neither of these things apply to homosexuality.

News flash #3: Child molestation is a felony crime in our country. Homosexuality is entirely legal.



Mike Petrik said:


> Most civil laws are grounded in morality. Churches can be expected to try to influence the laws of their societies just as they did during the anti-slavery and civil rights movements.


I'm confused by that comment. Are you comparing the civil bashing of gay people to the anti-slavery and black civil rights movements?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> And yet again the insufferable comparison is made between homosexuals and child molesters.
> 
> News flash, Mike: in most states minors cannot give legal consent to sexual relations with adults.
> 
> ...


Frank,
First, I don't think you are confused at all. You know quite well that I am responding to the assertion that churches should not get involved in matters of civil law by pointing out that they absolutely should and have always done so. But you would rather just score feckless debating points via emotional news flashes. Good bye. I only engage in honest discussions.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Quay,
> Yes, persons are ontologically different from their behavior. One can indeed hate the sin and love the sinner.
> The teaching re "inclinations" is hardly surprising....


I was not at all surprised by these modern teachings, vernacular language and all. :icon_smile: One of my academic degrees is in medieval history, so I'm somewhat familiar with Church history, although things start to get fuzzy for me starting in the late 15th century.

I can understand the metaphysical argument concerning the difference between who a person is and what external behavior they engage in. The Church teaches that even if someone has an "objective disorder" they can remain in a state of grace with full access to the sacraments as long as they do not act out on their "inclinations" with another person.

But my question was, can a person truly be separated from their behavior? The Church says yes, to an extent. One of the foundations of this notion is the doctrine of Original Sin in which all persons share in the fall from grace while some persons apparently have a larger share of this fall, those born with "objective disorders." (Parenthetically, the fact that the Church makes a tidy case for people being "born gay" hasn't gotten the attention it deserves.)

The problem with all this is that it is founded on purely theological doctrines and to impose those doctrines on others outside that theology is a form of violence. The Church has a long and colorful history of supporting such violence, but fortunately has amended its ways in recent* times. Within a civil society, there must be room for all citizens to live according to what we have declared our inalienable rights. Imposing civil laws that are grounded in doctrines particular to one religion or trying to suppress laws that are not in accord with those doctrines violates those civil rights.



FrankDC said:


> And yet again the insufferable comparison is made between homosexuals and child molesters....


From the point of view of psychology, psychiatry, medical science and civil laws, it is indeed insufferable. Theodore Olson and his team made this clear in the recent Federal trial over California Proposition 8 when they demolished all the old arguments against gay marriage using tight, nuanced and well-reasoned conservative legal arguments.

But, and this is a big "but", the comparison is quite natural in the Church and is not at all seen as insufferable but rather a component of a larger theological understanding based on centuries of thought and argument. I don't think Mike was speaking from the point of view of civil laws but was talking about how the Church views things. I may be wrong (often am!) but I think it is possible to have a civil discussion about the differences in theology separate from our civil institutions. To risk being cute, one can hate the Church's "sins" but happily still talk about the "sinner."

*(For a former medievalist, that is.)


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Quay said:


> I was not at all surprised by these modern teachings, vernacular language and all. :icon_smile: One of my academic degrees is in medieval history, so I'm somewhat familiar with Church history, although things start to get fuzzy for me starting in the late 15th century.
> 
> I can understand the metaphysical argument concerning the difference between who a person is and what external behavior they engage in. The Church teaches that even if someone has an "objective disorder" they can remain in a state of grace with full access to the sacraments as long as they do not act out on their "inclinations" with another person.
> 
> ...


Quay,
No, the Church's teachings on homosexual behavior, like all its teachings on matters of morals, is grounded not in theology but in natural law -- the law imprinted on the hearts of men. We do not believe that murder, abortion, rape, polygamy, etc. are wrong because the Church says so, we believe the Church says so because they are wrong. Now, people can and do disagree with these things, but all Americans are duty-bound as citizens to try to make sure that our positive laws reflect natural law within the bounds of prudence. I have no doubt that Frank is trying to do just that as he best understands that; and those who agree with Church teaching are doing the same.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Quay,
> No, the Church's teachings on homosexual behavior, like all its teachings on matters of morals, is grounded not in theology but in natural law -- the law imprinted on the hearts of men....


The theory of natural law has undergone a lot of changes, depending on who is doing the theorizing. It is a beautiful, powerful phrase, "imprinted on the hearts of men", but it presumes a Printer of some kind. Again, a theological position, albeit a widely held one. But the widespread acceptance of an idea is no proof of its validity and not a very good reason to found civil laws upon.



> We do not believe that murder, abortion, rape, polygamy, etc. are wrong because the Church says so, we believe the Church says so because they are wrong.


The two things are intertwined, inseperrable, as far as I understand. And I hope that anyone who wants to challenge any religion on its doctrine, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, will note that a doctrine or law that is promulgated isn't done so on a whim. Much research and grounding in scripture, theology and canon law goes on before anything is published.

What I see here is that if one accepts the premises of the Church's arguments, then the conclusions naturally follow a usually logical reasoning. But if any premises are invalid, the conclusions are as well. Simple Aquinian logic here. In a civil society, we obviously have a lot of people who don't accept the very basic premises of the Church, namely that there is some kind of "Printer" or the Church's particular use of natural law theory. These people can readily accept the same basic premises that a society is better off when murder is not condoned and punished and all the like, but they don't have to cotton to the metaphysical and theological premises of the Church to do so.

I can't say it any better than former United States Solicitor General Theodore Olson did in _Newsweek_ in his article _The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage_:

"I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If we are born heterosexual, it is not unusual for us to perceive those who are born homosexual as aberrational and threatening. Many religions and much of our social culture have reinforced those impulses. Too often, that has led to prejudice, hostility, and discrimination. The antidote is understanding, and reason."

Source:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Quay said:


> The theory of natural law has undergone a lot of changes, depending on who is doing the theorizing. It is a beautiful, powerful phrase, "imprinted on the hearts of men", but it presumes a Printer of some kind. Again, a theological position, albeit a widely held one. But the widespread acceptance of an idea is no proof of its validity and not a very good reason to found civil laws upon.


Amen. Homosexuality and homosexual orientation have been observed in hundreds of different animal species. It can accurately be labeled unusual, but it is certainly _not_ unnatural.

As for using "natural law" as a basis for civil laws, this is a bottomless pit, as we've recently found out from the likes of James Dobson and Michael Huckabee.

If this quote from Huckabee's last presidential campaign doesn't send chills down the spine of any patriotic American, nothing else will:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do, to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards, rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."






I'll round up the queers, while y'all fire up the ovens.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Quay,
> Yes, persons are ontologically different from their behavior. One can indeed hate the sin and love the sinner.
> *The teaching re "inclinations" is hardly surprising. The same would be true for those whose sexual appetites incline toward children; the inclination, while not sinful as such, tends to lead to sin and is therefore "disordered."*
> Most civil laws are grounded in morality. Churches can be expected to try to influence the laws of their societies just as they did during the anti-slavery and civil rights movements.





FrankDC said:


> And yet again the insufferable comparison is made between homosexuals and child molesters.
> 
> News flash, Mike: in most states minors cannot give legal consent to sexual relations with adults.
> 
> ...


I've got to side with Frank here. Any link between homosexuality and child molestation is really stretching it.

The problem I have always had with Catholic doctrine (I am Catholic) is: What if one disagrees with parts of it? It seems that church doctrine is of the belief that Catholics are not allowed to disagree. If they do then they are not truly Catholic, or their thinking is somehow flawed. I hope not, because we cannot all be in lock step.

And while we are on the subject, I do not consider homosexuality to be a sin. I believe sexual predisposition is genetic in nature.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

KenR said:


> I've got to side with Frank here. Any link between homosexuality and child molestation is really stretching it.


I agree with that. Otherwise everybody would be child molester, except the assewual.



> And while we are on the subject, I do not consider homosexuality to be a sin. I believe sexual predisposition is genetic in nature.


How do you explain what happened at sodom and Gomorrah?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> How do you explain what happened at sodom and Gomorrah?


"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before Me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." -- Ez 16:49-50

Now let's plug that passage into our English-to-Homophobe translator...

Bing!

"They were all gay! Gay! GAY!!!"


----------



## Dr.Watson (Sep 25, 2008)

You are using just one verse. In Genesis, if I recall correctly, there was the bit about the men of Sodom calling out to the angels visiting Lot, wanting to well. . . you know.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

KenR said:


> I've got to side with Frank here. Any link between homosexuality and child molestation is really stretching it.
> 
> The problem I have always had with Catholic doctrine (I am Catholic) is: What if one disagrees with parts of it? It seems that church doctrine is of the belief that Catholics are not allowed to disagree. If they do then they are not truly Catholic, or their thinking is somehow flawed. I hope not, because we cannot all be in lock step.
> 
> And while we are on the subject, I do not consider homosexuality to be a sin. I believe sexual predisposition is genetic in nature.


The very word Catholic means universal. The constitution of the church is also not merely made of its' individual members. That wouldmake it an imperfect organisim. A spiritual component is involved in the church.

As Catholics we ought to understand that the church is catholic because Christ is present in he. He has grafted Himself to her. The Church is also catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race.

One who is catholic cannot pick and choose what they like about it or whether they agree with what they perceive to be the truth. That makes the whole belief process subjective and open to error, human error and not following diven doctrine. The truth is what it is whether you like it or agree with it or not. This is because truth in the catholic church is not a human idea but the truth is Christ himself. One either believes in the whole doctrine or not at all. Partial belief in all that the church teaches separates one from the Truth.

Other than the emotional and erratic comments form one poster, thhere has been some excellent ideas expreseed in this thread.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

So what you are saying is that you must follow all doctrine or you are not truly Catholic. Therefore I am not truly Catholic because I do not believe or follow all tenets. Oh well, to thine own self be true.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

The Creed is all you need to believe to be a Catholic.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

KenR said:


> So what you are saying is that you must follow all doctrine or you are not truly Catholic. Therefore I am not truly Catholic because I do not believe or follow all tenets. Oh well, to thine own self be true.


As St Ignatius has expressed, Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church. In the curch subsists the fullness of Christ's body united with its'head; the implication being that she recieves the fullness from Him as the means of salvation which he has willed - the correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession.

Catholics accept the Bible and the Doctrine of the Faith because the author of it is God, Truth itself; the One who can neither deceive nor be deceived. As Catholics we are obliged to accept as true ALL that the inspired authors affirm, for through them it is the Holy Spirit who is affirming this truth, thus we must acknowledge thatthe books of Sacred Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error teach the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures (CCC 107; cf. VATICAN II, Dei Verbum 11).

Suppose I don't believe in the divinity of Christ, a tenet of the Catholic Faith, or I do not believe in the living presence of God in the Eucharist during mass, another Catholic tenet. Perhaps I find these tenets difficult to comprehend. Mainly, I find that people don't truly know enough about their Catholic Faith and therefore find themselves at odds with the tenets of the Church, the pope or passages in the bible. Or they feel that it is okay to disagree with certain aspects of their faith as long as they are generally good people. Being Catholic implies a much more profound understanding than that. It is especially difficult if their catholic education did not fully explain Catholic Church Doctrine.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

trent77 said:


> Catholics accept the Bible and the Doctrine of the Faith because the author of it is God, Truth itself; the One who can neither deceive nor be deceived. As Catholics we are obliged to accept as true ALL that the inspired authors affirm, for through them it is the Holy Spirit who is affirming this truth, thus we must acknowledge thatthe books of Sacred Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error teach the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures (CCC 107; cf. VATICAN II, Dei Verbum 11).


I don't know what religion you think that is, but it's certainly not Roman Catholicism. Just as one example (I can cite many others), on the question of divorce in Mark 10:

10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

So why does the Roman Catholic Church allow divorce, even in cases where no lewd conduct is involved?


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> So why does the Roman Catholic Church allow divorce, even in cases where no lewd conduct is involved?


The Catholic Church doesn't "allow" divorce. Annulment exists, which many confuse with divorce. A divorce is a break in the marriage contract. An annulment is a recognition that the contract was not valid in the first place.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> First of all, what's your reference for these "facts"? At least in North America the Roman Catholic Church actually lost membership in 2009:
> 
> https://www.ncccusa.org/news/100204yearbook2010.html
> 
> Secondly, it's absurd to make assumptions about why entire religions are gaining or losing membership, based on the few people you've happened to ask.


Okay, here se go. Some short answers to some of the responses in this thread.
First of all Frank, my facts are "facts" taken from reliable sources, e.g. Vatican, Catholic Church of Sweden, the regular newsletter from the Catholic Bishop of Sweden and so on; which is why I've listed them under the heading Facts. And they refer to NOW, 2010.
Now did you even read the heading and content of the article you linked? If you did how did you manage to miss the following:

Catholics, Mormons, Assemblies of God growing
The Catholic Church, the nation's largest at more than 68 million members, also reported a slight membership loss in 2009 _but rebounded this year with a robust growth of 1.49 percent._

Also Frank, a loss in the US, which ironically your own linked article doesn't actually support for 2010 has no relevance on a global increase. Global means global i.e. the Catholic church as a whole,worldwide. This means that any national loss unless extremly substantial in any given year in an almost exclusively and large Catholic country, for example, Brazil or Poland isn't going to turn the previous year's global growth into a global loss. 


Secondly, I'm not making assumptions at all, about anything. I posited some theories under the heading "Reasons" i.e. not "Facts" but my theories. Like I wrote at the bottom of that initial post.
My theories for reasons are based on the findings of many socio-cultural observers and on the observations of various churches themselves. I wouldn't base a theory for a reason purely on having spoken to a few other Catholics, when the Church itself is constantly monitoring these issues. All I have to do is read the right magazines and the right websites. ​


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

ON SEX

Homosexuals, you feel hard done by?

Well, you're not the only ones!

According to the Catholic church: Masturbation is out, as is sex without marriage, as is sex for the clergy. 

But you don't hear/see thousands of people complaining to the Church that they can't masturbate or single people complaining that they can't have sex until they're married or priests petitioning the Church to remove the celibacy rule.

If you want to beleive in the theology of Catholicism and your conscience allows you to do so even though you masturbate (hey, who doesn't?) or have sex without marriage or you have homosexual sex then welcome to the club. 

But if you don't like what the RC church says & it goes against your conscience and you can't keep your mouth shut about the "sins" you commit then it's clearly not the club for you, especially if you're not even a member of it anyway! 

BUT HEY, don't criticise it and try to change its rules in order to bend it to your likes, liberal views and sexual preferences just because you masturbate, or you're homosexual or you agree with abortion.

It is harder for those who convert from other religions, because they want to generally buy into the whole concept, lock, stock and barrel.
Whereas we born (cultural) Catholics have worked around and adjusted the secular "rules" for decades!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> People who actually believe in religion go for the real, unchanging thing.
> 
> It is unsurprising that fickle 'religion' that bends to the whims of the public becomes unpopular. You just can't respect something that has no respect for itself.
> 
> Obnoxious liberals with their self righteousness are recruiters for Catholicism in the same way GWB was a recruiter for Al Qaeda.


Exactly. I agree on all three points!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> Think about that comment a while. That's the entire problem with religion: people who don't understand the difference between reality and belief. What's real is what exists in reality, belief exists only between one's left ear and their right.


Frank, if you're looking for religion to be a reflection of reality then you clearly haven't grasped the concept of "faith" or what religion is all about, or even spirituality, or The Mysteries. I'm glad to say that worldy reality has bugger all to do with faith and spirituality.

If you want to harp on about reality why are you discussing in a religious thread? Other than, obviously, to vent your own very clear hatred of the Roman Catholic church. In other words, leave htis thread to those of us who do want to discuss the liberal decline of Protestantism, which is one of the main reasons for the continuing growth in Catholicism. The other main reason of course being the migration of oppressed Catholics from countries without religious tolerance to countries with it.

I would even go as far as to say that some Protestant churches,in their eagerness to grow and the measures they are taking to bend over backwards to accommodate liberal and non-Christian trends, sexual-politics and views have in effect CEASED to be Christian churches, and are now simply non-spiritual Sunday Liberal Clubs.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

boatshoe said:


> Earl, I'll have to track down the book title, but there is a book that essentially makes the argument that you've laid out. The thesis is that the more counter-cultural or peculiar the religious movement (obviously without going to far extremes), the more it thrives. I believe one of the examples used was the Latter Day Saints in the US.


Thanks, I've actually come across books covering this & simlar theories, part of the basis for my own theories in my initial post of course.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Kingstonian said:


> Still, here are some questions that the rest of you can discuss if you are so minded :-
> 
> a) I always had the impression that Sweden was a very secular society.
> 
> ...


Hey Kingstonian,

a) It is, when viewed from a socio-political perspective and from Church attendance. and the fact that the Swedish State split from the Church of Sweden in 2000. But what isn't revealed by that is the level of belief among non-church going Swedes. Sweden is sitll very much a Lutheran country living by the Lutheran work ethic and so on.

b) Sweden has for many years taken in more refugees and asylum seekers per capita than in the UK and the US. The only problem is ghettoization i.e. the authorities always placing refugees together in the most convenient and cheapest places. Islam is not a problem here in the way that certain vocal-fundamentlaist Muslims are a problem in the UK. 
Denmark on the other hand, following the Mohammed as Dog and Allah drawings...oy vay!!! Big trouble there!

c) Yes, that's my understanding. And certainly the picture I got in when I was in South Africa a few months ago.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Salvatore123 said:


> I am amazed at the hostility that is aimed at it.
> 
> Do people who so obviously dislike or hate the Church, realize what would happen if it ceased to exist?
> 
> ...


Spot on Salvatore, spot on! 
I could add as my own analogy, that during the worst years of The Troubles in Northern Ireland some of the older police officers I worked with in London became Uber-English and refused to buy anything from Ireland, including cheese and butter. Claiming that the entire Irish race were a bunch of IRA supporting terrorist scum.

As regards the 1 billion plus. Of course it's just a number of membership as opposed to the number of practicing Catholics. The same is true however of the membership numbers for all religions.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WA said:


> I'ver heard that some Swedes consider the tithe to be a tax, being the Swedish Luthern Church is part of the Governnmnet. A way not to pay so much tax is by not paying the tithe. So, quit the Church.


Firstly, the Swedish State and Church of Sweden split in 2000. Before that though, the Church was never part of the government.

Secondly, it was a tax, unless you actively specfiied you did not want to pay that 2% Church tax, you automatically paid it every month. 
Also, you do not have to quit the church to avoid paying the tax. The Church of Sweden, curiously has and has always had political church elections every year.

The church tax and major influence of the Church was partly due to the fact EVERYONE, regardless of religion is registered locally under the local registration system...ok, nothing wrong with that you think, as a municipal administrative function as in the Ward registering of UK residents. UNTIL, you are aware of the fact that the the local registration system in Sweden isn't a municipal function at all but is run by the Church of Sweden and the registration unit is not the district or borough or village or town but the Church Parish!!!! And this is still the system that exists!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

boatshoe said:


> The Catholic Church doesn't "allow" divorce. Annulment exists, which many confuse with divorce. A divorce is a break in the marriage contract. An annulment is a recognition that the contract was not valid in the first place.


That doesn't answer my question. I'm responding to Trent's claim that Catholics are obligated to believe everything in the Bible. So, given what Jesus himself said about divorce, why does the church recognize it, even in cases where no lewd conduct exists? Why is it ok to cherry pick Biblical teachings on one issue but not another?


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> That doesn't answer my question. I'm responding to Trent's claim that Catholics are obligated to believe everything in the Bible. So, given what Jesus himself said about divorce, why does the church recognize it, even in cases where no lewd conduct exists? Why is it ok to cherry pick Biblical teachings on one issue but not another?


Ugh, it does answer your question. The Catholic Church doesn't "allow" divorce. Ok class, let's open our catechism.

"*Divorce * 
*2382 *The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.173 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.174 
Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."175 
*2383 *The _separation _of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.176 
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. 
*2384 *_Divorce _is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.177 *2385 *Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society. 
*2386 *It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.178"

Now I can only imagine you are misinterpreting, "If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense." That section means that if your spouse is unfaithful or abandons you, maybe leaving you with your children, you may divorce as a means to get alimony or child support or to gain custody of the children. Even with this type of divorce, the divorced person would not be able to marry in the Catholic Church without securing an annulment, as you can only participate in the sacrament of marriage once.

All this is tedious and beside the point, since you aren't really concerned with this teaching per se, but rather with the Church's teaching on homosexuality. I think someone pointed out earlier, the Church's argument against homosexuality is rooted in natural law _and _the Bible. The relevant section of the catechism will refer you to section 8 of _Persona Humana, _which is a document from the CDF on sexual ethics. To really understand the Church's teaching, you would want to familiarize yourself with Aquinas, as he details an argument on homosexuality that is essentially the view the Church adoptd.

Sorry to Earl of O for derailing this thread with my response.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> So why does the Roman Catholic Church allow divorce, even in cases where no lewd conduct is involved?


That was your question, which can't be answered because it is based on a false premise i.e. that the Catholic church allows divorce, therefore the question is invlauid. And as Boatshoe, Trent,myself and every other Catholic on here will tell you, the Catholic chruch does not allow divorce.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

> It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; 

Innocent victim? When was the last time the state forcibly imposed divorce on a married couple?

As for Aquinas, I read the Summa Theologica many years ago, and tossed the three volumes into the trash can where they belong IMO. I thought it was an absolute joke. Anyone can discuss issues with himself, start with pre-ordained conclusions, limit the scope of each discussion in order to not prove himself wrong, and then proclaim himself definitive proof of his own (or a church's) beliefs. IMO the Summa is the point where the RCC "jumped the shark".


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> Innocent victim? When was the last time the state forcibly imposed divorce on a married couple?


I am not a lawyer, but there are certain states (I believe Florida is one of them), where either the husband or wife can file for divorce, the state will contact the other spouse with a court date to decide the separation of assets, and if the spouse fails to appear in court, the judge will make a default judgment. So yes, you can be divorced through no effort of your own.



FrankDC said:


> As for Aquinas, I read the Summa Theologica many years ago, and tossed the three volumes into the trash can where they belong IMO. I thought it was an absolute joke. Anyone can discuss issues with himself, start with pre-ordained conclusions, limit the scope of each discussion in order to not prove himself wrong, and then proclaim himself definitive proof of his own (or a church's) beliefs. IMO the Summa is the point where the RCC "jumped the shark".


Why the world recognizes Aquinas's genius and not FrankDC's remains one of the great impenetrable mysteries of life.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

boatshoe said:


> Why the world recognizes Aquinas's genius and not FrankDC's remains one of the great impenetrable mysteries of life.


HAR!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> Anyone can discuss issues with himself


Such are all philosophies Frank. As are initially all theologies. And spiritual works and within religious mysticism. Flesh & blood men thinking and then arguing with themsleves. Then laying down a set of parameters then arguing against those to prove the philosophy or theology. That's how it works.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

boatshoe said:


> I am not a lawyer, but there are certain states (I believe Florida is one of them), where either the husband or wife can file for divorce, the state will contact the other spouse with a court date to decide the separation of assets, and if the spouse fails to appear in court, the judge will make a default judgment. So yes, you can be divorced through no effort of your own.
> 
> Why the world recognizes Aquinas's genius and not FrankDC's remains one of the great impenetrable mysteries of life.


 Bravo boatshoe!


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde: Do you really think one can reason with anyone who throws Thomas Aquinas' books in the trash?! 

Then again, maybe your pesuasive , logical arguments will prevail. After all, you are an Earl


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

boatshoe said:


> Why the world recognizes Aquinas's genius and not FrankDC's remains one of the great impenetrable mysteries of life.


That funny right there, even to a Methodist.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Such are all philosophies Frank. As are initially all theologies. And spiritual works and within religious mysticism. Flesh & blood men thinking and then arguing with themsleves. Then laying down a set of parameters then arguing against those to prove the philosophy or theology. That's how it works.


That's a perfect example of why I consider the Summa to be a joke. One cannot "prove" a theology, since doing so would first require one to prove the existence of God. In fact this is one of the first questions Aquinas claims to answer in the Summa, and assuming one is patient enough to wade through all of his circular logic and other gobbleygook, finally he "proves" God's existence by using the "first mover" and "first cause" arguments. The bad news is, neither of these arguments has had any relevance since Newton's view of the universe was replaced by Einstein's.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

Quay said:


> The theory of natural law has undergone a lot of changes, depending on who is doing the theorizing. It is a beautiful, powerful phrase, "imprinted on the hearts of men", but it presumes a Printer of some kind. Again, a theological position, albeit a widely held one. But the widespread acceptance of an idea is no proof of its validity and not a very good reason to found civil laws upon.
> 
> The two things are intertwined, inseperrable, as far as I understand. And I hope that anyone who wants to challenge any religion on its doctrine, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, will note that a doctrine or law that is promulgated isn't done so on a whim. Much research and grounding in scripture, theology and canon law goes on before anything is published.
> 
> ...


 With regards to Theodore Olson's position that science has "proven" that gays do not choose to be born that way, there has never been a scientic study that conclusively proved one is born gay. That is speculation. Even if the case were true, the Catholic Church's position is that on eought not act out his inclination. Suppose due to a mental condition I had the inclination to hurt people.Should I act out my desire because I was born with a violent tendancy?

It is a pity that some, as our effusive poster FrankDc expressed, his human existence is defined by his sexual orientation. I could see stating that procreation is necessary in order to further life, but not sexual desire. Then again, anyone who vehementally attacks anyone who doesn't share his viewpoints, labels people homophobes, argues for the right to express himself but wants to silence the rights of Catholics to their mission work, is someone whose mind remains closed to any intelligent debate.

Interesting how people who scream the loudest about intollerance and respect for who they are have the least tolerance and respect for others with a dissenting voice.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

trent77 said:


> It is a pity that some, as our effusive poster FrankDc expressed, his human existence is defined by his sexual orientation.


I didn't say gay peoples' existence is defined by their sexual orientation, I said sexuality is a basic component of what defines human beings. This applies equally to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

How much sense would it make if someone told you it's ok for you to be sexually attracted to women, but not ok to actually have sex with women? Well, that's precisely what the Catholic Church tells gay people. It's ok to be perpetually horny, emotionally starved and isolated their entire lives, but God forbid they actually make love to each other?!

That position is not only absurd, it's morally indefensible.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

boatshoe said:


> Why the world recognizes Aquinas's genius and not FrankDC's remains one of the great impenetrable mysteries of life.


Almost as impenetrable as mankind's tendency to tuck gratuitous insults into the language of cosmic lamentations.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

trent77 said:


> ...the Catholic Church's position is that one ought not act out his inclination. Suppose due to a mental condition I had the inclination to hurt people.Should I act out my desire because I was born with a violent tendancy?


Conflating sexual identity with a violent pathology or even general tendency to wish to harm others is a straw man at best.

As regards Olson's "speculation," he did so after reviewing all available scientific literature on the subject to date and drawing the same logical conclusions the medical establishment has. Therefore it is not a speculation but rather a conclusion derived from reason, logic and available evidence.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Quay said:


> Almost as impenetrable as mankind's tendency to tuck gratuitous insults into the language of cosmic lamentations.


 Thanks for the support.

BTW Aquinas isn't viewed as a genius by anyone these days. I first read the Summa when I was 12 years old, and even then I saw right through Aquinas' circular logic. It's an embarrassing shill for the Catholic Church.


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

Quay said:


> Almost as impenetrable as mankind's tendency to tuck gratuitous insults into the language of cosmic lamentations.


I'm sorry. When someone tells me that he has taken a glance at Aquinas and threw the volumes in the garbage, he invites insults. I don't find _Das Kapital _all that convincing, but it sits on my bookshelf, not in my garbage can.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

boatshoe said:


> I'm sorry. When someone tells me that he has taken a glance at Aquinas and threw the volumes in the garbage, he invites insults. I don't find _Das Kapital _all that convincing, but it sits on my bookshelf, not in my garbage can.


No apologies necessary to me. I think I understand the flare of emotion when you put it in terms of book loving and seeing a book, any book, talked about in terms of being made literal rubbish. I have actually thrown a book or two across a room in a fit, only to go rescue them as if they were stray kittens. I'm probably bad enough that if I heard the call on a ship to man the lifeboats I'd be waddling to the railing with my books jammed into my trousers, shirt and coat. :icon_smile:


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

Quay said:


> I'm probably bad enough that if I heard the call on a ship to man the lifeboats I'd be waddling to the railing with my books jammed into my trousers, shirt and coat. :icon_smile:


Exactly. Same here.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

boatshoe said:


> I'm sorry. When someone tells me that he has taken a glance at Aquinas and threw the volumes in the garbage, he invites insults. I don't find _Das Kapital _all that convincing, but it sits on my bookshelf, not in my garbage can.


I did a lot more than glance at it, Mr. Boatshoe. The Summa was in my book collection for over 25 years, and I read it from cover to cover on more than one occasion. As my spirituality developed during my teen years and into my 20's and 30's, my contempt for this book grew steadily. As I mentioned before, I can't stomach the way Aquinas frames and limits his "discussions" and "objections" to specifically accomodate his (or rather, the RCC's) pre-ordained answers.


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> I did a lot more than glance at it, Mr. Boatshoe. The Summa was in my book collection for over 25 years, and I read it from cover to cover on more than one occasion. As my spirituality developed during my teen years and into my 20's and 30's, my contempt for this book grew steadily. As I mentioned before, I can't stomach the way Aquinas frames and limits his "discussions" and "objections" to specifically accomodate his (or rather, the RCC's) pre-ordained answers.


It seems the dumb ox's trip from your bookshelf to your garbage can was a very long one.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

Poor Thomas has taken quite a beating on this thread.


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

trent77 said:


> Poor Thomas has taken quite a beating on this thread.


I know. Although Frank is one of maybe three people I've corresponded with who has read the entire Summa more than once. Granted, the other two are philosophers, one of them being the foremost expert on Thomas in the country.

If anyone is interested, I found a pdf of Chesterton's terrific biography of Thomas. It's pretty short.
https://www.catholicprimer.org/chesterton/st_thomas.pdf

"You call him a Dumb Ox: I tell you this Dumb Ox shall bellow so loud that his bellowings will fill the world."


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Quay said:


> As regards Olson's "speculation," he did so after reviewing all available scientific literature on the subject to date and drawing the same logical conclusions the medical establishment has. Therefore it is not a speculation but rather a conclusion derived from reason, logic and available evidence.


I remember when medical doctors were absolutely against vitiams, now some of them are pushing some of them. In the seventies you were laughed at by the doctors. They were absolutely right in the seventies, right?

Faith in the Bible is right. But the beliefs, or understandings of it can be wrong. Like does all scriptures in the Bible about the earth suggest that the earth is flat? Do some suggest that the earth is round but the scholars, back a few hundred years ago, miss them or misunderstood them?

_Therefore it is not a speculation but rather a conclusion derived from reason, logic and available evidence. _ At the time sometimes this statement seems right but proven wrong sometimes hundreds of years later. Nobody can say that scientist know it all yet, but really have much to learn.

Faith in the Bible of sodom and gomorrah is right. Science just hasn't caught up yet.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

boatshoe said:


> I know. Although Frank is one of maybe three people I've corresponded with who has read the entire Summa more than once. Granted, the other two are philosophers, one of them being the foremost expert on Thomas in the country.
> 
> If anyone is interested, I found a pdf of Chesterton's terrific biography of Thomas. It's pretty short.
> https://www.catholicprimer.org/chesterton/st_thomas.pdf
> ...


He may have read Aquinas but did he unerstand him?


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

WA said:


> I remember when medical doctors were absolutely against vitiams, now some of them are pushing some of them. In the seventies you were laughed at by the doctors. They were absolutely right in the seventies, right?
> 
> Faith in the Bible is right. But the beliefs, or understandings of it can be wrong. Like does all scriptures in the Bible about the earth suggest that the earth is flat? Do some suggest that the earth is round but the scholars, back a few hundred years ago, miss them or misunderstood them?
> 
> ...


When reading the Bible, a person has to understand that it was using the phenomenological language ( language of appearences) concerning the motion of the stars and the non- motion of the earth.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

trent77 said:


> He may have read Aquinas but did he unerstand him?


Doesn't this call for a whole new thread?

Never read the book and don't intend to. But it does maybe sound interesting.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

As St Augustine stated: "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: " I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and the moon. For He willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians."

Furthermore, Scripture has to be read within "the living Tradition of the whole Church."

The Navarre Bible has been recommended to me as a very good trsnslation with commentaries for those interested in biblical/Catholic study. It is a very simple and easy read and a very good source to Scripture study.

Goodnight gentlemen.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> That's a perfect example of why I consider the Summa to be a joke. One cannot "prove" a theology, since doing so would first require one to prove the existence of God. In fact this is one of the first questions Aquinas claims to answer in the Summa, and assuming one is patient enough to wade through all of his circular logic and other gobbleygook, finally he "proves" God's existence by using the "first mover" and "first cause" arguments. The bad news is, neither of these arguments has had any relevance since Newton's view of the universe was replaced by Einstein's.


But Frank, we're not discussing whether you believe in God or not. 
And of course you can prove a theology - through faith! 
You're dismissing Aquinas because you're an Atheist.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

trent77 said:


> It is a pity that some, as our effusive poster FrankDc expressed, his human existence is defined by his sexual orientation.


And that, since the 60s or 70s at least has been the way for many gays, but not all, that they define themselves by their sexuality, by going on Pride marches and other openly gay places and events. Could you imagine if a specific group of heterosexuals also defined themselves by their sexuality by going on marches through the streets? Boooring! 
And tragic I think when a person's identity and lifestyle circles around and consists mainly of their sexuality.

Also a very correct observation you make about not always acting on
ones impulses, desires or lusts.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

boatshoe said:


> I know. Although Frank is one of maybe three people I've corresponded with who has read the entire Summa more than once. Granted, the other two are philosophers, one of them being the foremost expert on Thomas in the country.


Spot on Boatshoe! I had a very learned and dear friend up to about 10 years ago, very sadly he was lost to serious mental illness and hasn't recovered yet, such is often the fate of the genius, the eccentric. I still get sad thinking about him. 
Anyway, he once said to me over a Guinness while sitting in O'Hanlons, and I hold it as a truism to this day, and I think it can apply to many other large,great and difficult works as well 
"James, if anyone tells you they've finished reading Joyce's Ulysses, be prepared to believe them but take it with a pinch of salt and rely on your own judgement. But if anyone ever tells you they've read Joyce's Ulysses twice then you know they're lying and you should remember that in the future when conversing with them, because mo chara no one has ever read Ulysses twice, not even me." - Patrick Spencer - get well mate!


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> "James, if anyone tells you they've finished reading Joyce's Ulysses, be prepared to believe them but take it with a pinch of salt and rely on your own judgement. But if anyone ever tells you they've read Joyce's Ulysses twice then you know they're lying and you should remember that in the future when conversing with them, because mo chara no one has ever read Ulysses twice, not even me." - Patrick Spencer - get well mate!


:icon_smile:

Earl, I think Mark Twain said a classic is a book everyone wants to have read, but no one wants to read.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> How much sense would it make if someone told you it's ok for you to be sexually attracted to women, but not ok to actually have sex with women? Well, that's precisely what the Catholic Church tells gay people. It's ok to be perpetually horny, emotionally starved and isolated their entire lives, but God forbid they actually make love to each other?!
> 
> That position is not only absurd, it's morally indefensible.


Who is it exactly Frank that is forcing you to be a Catholic? Who's forcing you to believe in God?

"morally indefensible" You are joking of course.

So by your reasoning not only is every other religion in the world, Islam, Judaism, Rastafarianism, alongside Catholicism (we already know about the morally corrupt liberal anti-Christian Protestant churches) immoral but also entire countries and entire states in the US, that still outlaw homosexuality, are all also immoral!

My bottom line is very simple Frank, I have no problem whatsoever iwth you being a homosexual, and I have no problem whatsoever with you having homosexual sex -sex should be a private thing, each to his own, not bandied about as an anti-Catholic battle flag as many homosexuals do, clearly yourself included. 
What I do have a problem with however is that you feel you can attack the Catholic Church and show absolutely no respect whatsoever for the views of Catholics.

If you don't want to hear it, then don't listen, don't go into a Catholic Chruch, don't read about the Catholic Church. Like I asked before, who's forcing you?

Thank God, the Catholic Church isn't going to change like some Protestant Churches and give in on the homosexuality issue.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

boatshoe said:


> :icon_smile:
> 
> Earl, I think Mark Twain said a classic is a book everyone wants to have read, but no one wants to read.


So true, some of the classics are so boring. In 1977, aged 15, a group of us were forced in secondary school to read Robinson Crusoe over a summer holiday, as a punishmnet for some bad behaviour*, and to submit a book report on it. It was as dull as ditchwater! Perhaps that's why our headmaster chose that book for us to read, knowing that is was so boring and knowing it was by an Irish author (this will become clear when you read the footnote).

Apologies to any lovers of Swift! :icon_smile_wink:

* The offence was this, at the end of summer term 1977 (now this is a Catholic school in London, consisting mostly of Irish kids, with a good smattering of Spanish, Polish, Italian, Czech and West Indian kids) all our Year was gathered in the gym and we were concluding our First World War literature theme, and part of this was to sing the First World War songs that the British soldiers had sung. Now myself, and Martin McQuade and Tony Gerraghty and Michael O'Connor and John Downey and Michael Gilgun and Robert Fitzgerald and Gerard Buggy and Gordon Cleary and Tony O'Shea and Mark Bryan and Timothy Dalton ...you get the general idea....a huge group of the Irish boys in our Year point blank refused to sing English war songs.
Despite the fact (in some cases because of it) that many of our grandfathers had been conscripted (or like mine,volunteered) from Ireland to fight in Flanders Fields with the British Army, the forces of the Crown! :icon_smile_wink: Ah, sure now, what a wee rebel I was at 15 :icon_smile_big:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> ...How much sense would it make if someone told you it's ok for you to be sexually attracted to women, but not ok to actually have sex with women? Well, that's precisely what the Catholic Church tells gay people. It's ok to be perpetually horny, emotionally starved and isolated their entire lives, but God forbid they actually make love to each other?!
> 
> That position is not only absurd, it's morally indefensible.


It seems to me, these are the very same expectations the Church holds for their Priests and Nuns. Yes...no? How's that working for them? Fortunately, ours is a very gracious God!


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I didn't say gay peoples' existence is defined by their sexual orientation, I said sexuality is a basic component of what defines human beings. This applies equally to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
> 
> How much sense would it make if someone told you it's ok for you to be sexually attracted to women, but not ok to actually have sex with women? Well, that's precisely what the Catholic Church tells gay people. It's ok to be perpetually horny, emotionally starved and isolated their entire lives, but God forbid they actually make love to each other?!
> 
> That position is not only absurd, it's morally indefensible.


Other than the "morally indefensible" phrase, there is a point to be made. I have a problem with people not expecting others to act on normal sexual impulses whether one is heterosexual or homosexual. (Please note I'm not including pedophilia, etc. within the range of "normal" for this discussion).



Earl of Ormonde said:


> And that, since the 60s or 70s at least has been the way for many gays, but not all, that they define themselves by their sexuality, by going on Pride marches and other openly gay places and events. Could you imagine if a specific group of heterosexuals also defined themselves by their sexuality by going on marches through the streets? Boooring!
> And tragic I think when a person's identity and lifestyle circles around and consists mainly of their sexuality.
> 
> Also a very correct observation you make about not always acting on
> ones impulses, desires or lusts.


I think that for most homosexuals, they would prefer to just be accepted, rather than take to the streets.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> Who is it exactly Frank that is forcing you to be a Catholic? Who's forcing you to believe in God?
> 
> "morally indefensible" You are joking of course.
> 
> ...


I think Catholics are not all united behind the Church on this issue. As a matter of fact I think they are all over the place as far as opinions.

Question: What is a homosexual to do if he wants to continue practicing his/her faith as a Catholic?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

boatshoe said:


> :icon_smile:
> 
> Earl, I think Mark Twain said a classic is a book everyone wants to have read, but no one wants to read.


_"I don't believe any of you have ever read Paradise Lost, and you don't want to. That's something that you just want to take on trust. It's a classic...and it meets [the] definition of a classic -- something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read."_
- Mark Twain, "The Disappearance of Literature" speech, November 20, 1900.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

KenR said:


> Other than the "morally indefensible" phrase, there is a point to be made. I have a problem with people not expecting others to act on normal sexual impulses whether one is heterosexual or homosexual. (Please note I'm not including pedophilia, etc. within the range of "normal" for this discussion).


Agreed. I'm just bitter 'cos I haven't had any recently! :icon_smile_wink:



KenR said:


> I think that for most homosexuals, they would prefer to just be accepted, rather than take to the streets.


Agreed, based on those I know.



KenR said:


> I think Catholics are not all united behind the Church on this issue. As a matter of fact I think they are all over the place as far as opinions.


Oh, absolutely. Totally agree again. But Frank is launching a blanket attack on the Catholic church, so he's getting a united Catholic front in return from the Catholic members here, defending the church,whether they agree with abortion, homosexuality, celibacy or not.



KenR said:


> Question: What is a homosexual to do if he wants to continue practicing his/her faith as a Catholic?


Like I said before if his conscience allows him to stay, then stay, and keep your gob shut about being gay. Despite my hard line defence of the Church towards Frank. I'm actually sympathetic of the dilemma. My problem is that Catholic gays are on a loser, and rightly so, if they think anyone is going to listen to them or change anything as a result of their anti-Catholic protests on the homosexual issue.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

KenR said:


> I think that for most homosexuals, they would prefer to just be accepted, rather than take to the streets.


I was completely on board with acceptence and tollerance.

Now, however, it seems like it's the "gay-way" or the hi-way!!


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I guess because Frank and I had some MAJOR issues with each other a few years ago I'm consciously trying to look past the messenger and see the message.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

And to confuse things even more, I'm for civil unions but not for homosexual marriage.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

KenR said:


> And to confuse things even more, I'm for civil unions but not for homosexual marriage.


My view as well.

Get hitched in the town hall,registry office, I've got no problem with that. But don't expect that you can get married in a church, expecting the church to discard it's theology for people i.e gays that, by pure definition, aren't even adhering to that theology anyway!!!

That said, the Lutheran Church of Sweden has already backed down and is now offering same sex marriages! Often officiated by women priests! It also openly acknowledges homosexual clergy.

About a year ago, hundreds if not thousands of members left the Church of Sweden because of the same sex marriages issue. Like I said in the opening post, the groundswell of opinion among true believers of the Christian faiths, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox alike is still very much against homosexuality in the church, its clergy, and its believers. Contrary to what liberal Protestant churches would like people to believe in a world suffering from politcal correctness, and the idea that Homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism is normal!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

What amazes me is atheist and agnostic "preachers". No God = no religion = no preacher.

About Homosexuality; why do people refuse to believe God didn't make anybody like that, and there is help if one repents to God about it? Deliverance from any sin does happen. Not always when we expect, and some people struggle the whole way through life. This one person who used to smoke said that one day sitting in Church something happened and there after he never had an interest in smoking again. So many people believe God is powerless, what a shame.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

KenR said:


> Other than the "morally indefensible" phrase, there is a point to be made. I have a problem with people not expecting others to act on normal sexual impulses whether one is heterosexual or homosexual. (Please note I'm not including pedophilia, etc. within the range of "normal" for this discussion).
> 
> I think that for most homosexuals, they would prefer to just be accepted, rather than take to the streets.
> 
> ...


You do have homosexuals of Catholic Faith and they are called to do same as are priests and unmarried people. They are called to be celibate.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Who is it exactly Frank that is forcing you to be a Catholic? Who's forcing you to believe in God?
> 
> "morally indefensible" You are joking of course.
> 
> ...


Great points!

I actually feel sorry for FrankDc's callow view on this subject. It is obvious this thread is merely used as a platform for him to hurl invective at those those who agree with the Catholic Church.

Quite typical is the reaction to call a Catholic a homophobe. This conveniently shifts the focus of having a rational arguement to the person making the arguement. It dismisses any valid points of the arguement to the notion of supposed "fear" of homosexuals. However, even if fear were present , it would not dismiss theCatholic's arguement against homosexual behavior.

One can disagree with something without fearing it.

As Earl of Ormonde noted, no one is forcing anyone to religon. Ideas have been presented regarding the topic Earl has introduced as well as inquiries about the Roman Catholic Church and some of its tenets. No reason to use this as a basis for venting anger.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> * The offence was this, at the end of summer term 1977 (now this is a Catholic school in London, consisting mostly of Irish kids, with a good smattering of Spanish, Polish, Italian, Czech and West Indian kids)


* Should have been easy to identify based on tie colours from a different thread. However, I have already discounted the Oratory, Vaughan's, Hinsley - and further out Gunnersbury and the Salvo.

This is just a sidetrack from the main thread and a fairly safe Interchange line.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Kingstonian said:


> * Should have been easy to identify based on tie colours from a different thread. However, I have already discounted the Oratory, Vaughan's, Hinsley - and further out Gunnersbury and the Salvo.
> 
> This is just a sidetrack from the main thread and a fairly safe Interchange line.


You little detective you...but I thought I actually named it earlier on or in another thread :icon_smile:

Well, while the Oratory was just over the RBK&C / H & F border in West Kensington, my school, just off Sloane Square was less than 500 yards from the RBK & C / C of W border. :icon_smile_wink:

Our lunch time and after school street fighting rivals were the C of E boys at St. Michael's comprehensive, who were over the border in the City of Westminster. Clashes in Kings Road and on Sloane Square itself. It got so bad during 75-78 (Punk days) that we were confined to the north side of the Kings Road and they to the south. Not that any of us took a blind bit of notice of such rules.:icon_smile_big:

Now, while you've mentioned some of the boy's RC secondary schools, you haven't mentioned any of the main RC comprehensive secondary schools in RBK & C. In fact, I went to what was in its day the largest RC comprehensive not only in RBK & C but in that catchment area for the Diocese of Westminster, which area for our school was huge, I had classmates travelled in from as far afield as Brixton and Neasden every day.
Plenty of clues there to go on now. :icon_smile_wink:

I must say I'm very glad I went to secondary school with girls, especially some of those very pretty Italian and Spanish girls. Early exploration :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

trent77 said:


> You do have homosexuals of Catholic Faith and they are called to do same as are priests and unmarried people. They are called to be celibate.


Celibacy is a choice. To demand it of those who do not wish to be celibate is wrong. I may be hetero, but if someone said that I must become celibate, they wouldn't be in one piece for too long.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Oh, absolutely. Totally agree again. But Frank is launching a blanket attack on the Catholic church, so he's getting a united Catholic front in return from the Catholic members here, defending the church,whether they agree with abortion, homosexuality, celibacy or not.
> 
> Like I said before if his conscience allows him to stay, then stay, and keep your gob shut about being gay. Despite my hard line defence of the Church towards Frank. I'm actually sympathetic of the dilemma. My problem is that Catholic gays are on a loser, and rightly so, if they think anyone is going to listen to them or change anything as a result of their anti-Catholic protests on the homosexual issue.


It's funny watching Catholics portray themselves as the victims in this fight. Can someone point us to a single ballot initiative that proposes to eliminate civil rights for Catholics? I must have missed all the "God Hates Catholics" signs at the funerals of our servicemen. How could I not have noticed the thousands of fundraisers being held by the gay community to push for laws to eliminate civil rights for Catholics. And how many gay people have testified in our courts that Catholics should not have the right to marry one another?

If you seriously believe Catholics are the one who've been stoned to death for the last 3500 years, the ones who've been boiled alive in oil, persecuted, prosecuted, exiled, mobbed, lynched, castrated, disemboweled and beheaded etc being I seem to be "in your face" about it, you guys ain't seen nothing yet. Watch what happens when the phobe contingency on our Supreme Court declares gay people to be official second-class U.S. citizens.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

KenR said:


> Celibacy is a choice. To demand it of those who do not wish to be celibate is wrong. I may be hetero, but if someone said that I must become celibate, they wouldn't be in one piece for too long.


Of course it is not completely a choice, unless one assumes prostitution is an option. Some men are celibate who would rather not be. But to the extent that it is a choice, so is being a Catholic.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> It's funny watching Catholics portray themselves as the victims in this fight. Can someone point us to a single ballot initiative that proposes to eliminate civil rights for Catholics? I must have missed all the "God Hates Catholics" signs at the funerals of our servicemen. How could I not have noticed the thousands of fundraisers being held by the gay community to push for laws to eliminate civil rights for Catholics. And how many gay people have testified in our courts that Catholics should not have the right to marry one another?
> 
> If you seriously believe Catholics are the one who've been stoned to death for the last 3500 years, the ones who've been boiled alive in oil, persecuted, prosecuted, exiled, mobbed, lynched, castrated, disemboweled and beheaded etc being I seem to be "in your face" about it, you guys ain't seen nothing yet. Watch what happens when the phobe contingency on our Supreme Court declares gay people to be official second-class U.S. citizens.


Frank, now you're just ranting and attacking the church for all sorts of historical events. Your argument is just going round in circles. My last word to you on this is either accept Catholic teachings as they are, be a Catholic, and DADT. 
OR don't, and carry on spreading your vitriol against the church, but don't expect Catholics to agree with you..or for that matter to even listen to you...and don't expect the Church to change.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> If you seriously believe Catholics are the one who've been stoned to death for the last 3500 years, the ones who've been boiled alive in oil, persecuted, prosecuted, exiled, mobbed, lynched, castrated, disemboweled and beheaded etc being


You're not very well versed in European history are you? Remember the Christians in the Colosseum? Remember Henry VIII's dissoluton of the monastries and his subsequent torture of Catholics, monks,nuns, clergy and laymen alike. Remember Queen Elizabeth's purge on Catholics? Remember Cromwell's genocide of Catholics in Ireland? Remmeber William's purge of Catholics in Ulster during the clearances in the 1700s. Remember England's Genocide of Catholics during the potato blight? Remember the numerous European religious wars involving severe persecution of Catholics in Holland, Germany and France etc.? 
Northern Ireland from 1920 to the 1970s where Catholics were not allowed to vote or have a mortgage, and couldn't get jobs, and were being burned out of their houses by Protestants?

In other words Frank, find your facts out. And stop moaning, you're not so hard done by, you have a choice. Persecuted and tortured and murdered Catholics didn't! Also, you're starting to get boring.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> What amazes me is atheist and agnostic "preachers". No God = no religion = no preacher.
> 
> About Homosexuality; why do people refuse to believe God didn't make anybody like that, and there is help if one repents to God about it?


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

*Trying to understand...*



FrankDC said:


> It's funny watching Catholics portray themselves as the victims in this fight. Can someone point us to a single ballot initiative that proposes to eliminate civil rights for Catholics? I must have missed all the "God Hates Catholics" signs at the funerals of our servicemen. How could I not have noticed the thousands of fundraisers being held by the gay community to push for laws to eliminate civil rights for Catholics. And how many gay people have testified in our courts that Catholics should not have the right to marry one another?


Is it your position that Catholic people are the _sole_ ones responsibile for these acts? Is it your position that these acts are endorsed by the Catholic Church? Is it your position that all Catholics ensorse these acts? Or is it your position that these acts are committed by people, _some_ of whom you know to be Catholic?

If your position is one or all of the first three, I'd doubt your facts, but I'd sympathize with your position. If your position is the fourth...well, maybe the invective against Catholics as a whole and the Catholic Church is misplaced.

For what it is worth, as a Catholic myself, with large families on both my and my wife's side, I can tell you first hand that position #3 lacks a factual basis.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> Is it your position that Catholic people are the _sole_ ones responsibile for these acts? Is it your position that these acts are endorsed by the Catholic Church? Is it your position that all Catholics ensorse these acts? Or is it your position that these acts are committed by people, _some_ of whom you know to be Catholic?
> 
> If your position is one or all of the first three, I'd doubt your facts, but I'd sympathize with your position. If your position is the fourth...well, maybe the invective against Catholics as a whole and the Catholic Church is misplaced.
> 
> For what it is worth, as a Catholic myself, with large families on both my and my wife's side, I can tell you first hand that position #2 lacks a factual basis.


I'll answer your questions in order:

1. No. In fact most of the money to push for Prop 8 here in California came from the LDS, not the RCC. But recently we've seen more fundraisers being held by Catholic churches for similar measures.

2. Yes. The RCC's current Pope, Joseph Ratzinger, has been a raging homophobe for well over 30 years now. He and I began exchanging letters on the subject in 1976, and my considered opinion is that Ratzinger is a deeply repressed and self-loathing homosexual.

3. No. I've found that people who are secure in their own sexual orientation aren't threatened by people who have other orientations. It's only the insecure wrecks who feel compelled to shove their insecurity down everyone else's throats.

I always try and focus my criticism toward the hierarchies of churches, since most followers feel it's their duty to believe whatever these hierarchies tell them to believe.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> I'll answer your questions in order:
> 
> 1. No. In fact most of the money to push for Prop 8 here in California came from the LDS, not the RCC. But recently we've seen more fundraisers being held by Catholic churches for similar measures.
> 
> ...


So the Catholics are not to blame, it is the gay Pope that's the problem... :icon_smile_big:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> So the Catholics are not to blame, it is the gay Pope that's the problem... :icon_smile_big:


Not just the Pope. Depending on which study one chooses to believe, somewhere between 30% and 70% of Catholic clergy are active homosexuals. In fact my uncle (who's been a priest for 62 years) believes this fact is what's preventing the church from "coming clean" on the issue. It's got zilch to do with traditional dogma.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> 2. Yes. The RCC's current Pope, Joseph Ratzinger, has been a raging homophobe for well over 30 years now. He and I began exchanging letters on the subject in 1976, and my considered opinion is that Ratzinger is a deeply repressed and self-loathing homosexual.


I think this is diagnosed as delusional paranoia. Seek help! 

I find your tone increasingly more and more offensive as you besmirch the good name of the Pope and the Catholic clergy.:crazy:
However, Christians usually just accept this kind of thing.Whereas Muslims get active when their religion is attacked like this. Maybe it's time for Catholics to start getting active


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> somewhere between 30% and 70% of Catholic clergy are active homosexuals.


Bullshit!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Not just the Pope. Depending on which study one chooses to believe, somewhere between 30% and 70% of Catholic clergy are active homosexuals. In fact my uncle (who's been a priest for 62 years) believes this fact is what's preventing the church from "coming clean" on the issue. It's got zilch to do with traditional dogma.


Actually, there are no truly reliable studies, though there are some instructive ones. And no serious estimates support Frank's fabricated range. Moreover, those studies that place a percentage as high as 30% are in each case addressing orientation as opposed to conduct, notwithstanding Frank's falsehood. Frank, really one should learn not to falsely defame groups of people, especially in the age of Google. I really don't care to have forum exchanges with you, Frank, because you insist on angry emoting rather than reasoned discourse; but it would be wrong to allow your defamatory outbursts to go unchallenged.

And please be so kind as to post copies of your correspondence with Pope Benedict. I'm sure we'd all be edified. Of course, I'm 100% positive you conveniently no longer have such copies.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

How about this then Frank, a recent study shows that 30 to 70% of all homosexuals are repressed self-loathing paedophiles.....


...not nice is it? 

( I think Francis has got me on ignore, what do you reckon guys? )


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

What was a frank discussion is now a _Frank_ discussion. Wasn't there an interesting topic here somewhere?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Frankly my dear...


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Now, while you've mentioned some of the boy's RC secondary schools, you haven't mentioned any of the main RC comprehensive secondary schools in RBK & C. In fact, I went to what was in its day the largest RC comprehensive not only in RBK & C but in that catchment area for the Diocese of Westminster, which area for our school was huge, I had classmates travelled in from as far afield as Brixton and Neasden every day.
> Plenty of clues there to go on now. :icon_smile_wink:
> 
> I must say I'm very glad I went to secondary school with girls, especially some of those very pretty Italian and Spanish girls. Early exploration :icon_smile_wink:


I may have made a few incorrect assumptions. In the days of grammar schools, it was a fairly small world. Fail to put down the right school as first choice and you could forget about getting in. The catchment areas were often large - say Kilburn to Watford, Elstree, Hillingdon and all points in between.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Actually, there are no truly reliable studies, though there are some instructive ones. And no serious estimates support Frank's fabricated range.


Fabricated? Hardly:

https://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/homosexual-priests1.htm

Estimates of 30-50% are so consistent, they're a given. The highest estimate I ever saw (70%) was from a 2001 study of St. John's in New York.

Look, don't shoot me. I'm just the messenger here. If you can't handle the simple truth -- that the Catholic clergy has been the world's largest refuge for gay men and lesbians for the last 1500 years -- that's not my problem.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

KenR said:


> Celibacy is a choice. To demand it of those who do not wish to be celibate is wrong. I may be hetero, but if someone said that I must become celibate, they wouldn't be in one piece for too long.


My post was for those of the Cathloic Faith. It was not meant as instruction for those who are not Catholic.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Fabricated? Hardly:
> 
> https://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/homosexual-priests1.htm
> 
> ...


I stand by my statements. First, read carefully the article linked acknowledges that no study is reliable, which is a remarkable admission coming from such a controversial figure as Sungenis. Second, taken together the "estimates" are significantly lower than yours. And finally, the figures in each case deal with "orientation," not "active homosexuals."


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Bullshit!


I sain said earlier in my posts, there is nothing one can do with someone who is ill disposed to the truth.

The people who usually rant like this never can source their statements beyond citing silly web blogs. It is just blind ideaology. No reason to get upset at such utter nonesense. Take care


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

In light of some recent negative comments, I think this spiritual principle is worth remembering: Focus on the light, not on the darkness. If we continually seek the flaws and imperfections in the members of the body of Christ, the church, surely we shall find them. Focus on the darkness and you run the real risk of being absorbed into the darkness, of becoming part of the darkness. Focus on the light and you will be absorbed in the light and indeed become light to the world in the one who is the "Light of the World."

Goodnight gentlemen.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Agreed. While life is not as nasty, brutish or short as it was in the time of Hobbes, this is a function of technology, not human nature or moral behavior.


Mike, your points are well taken. The link I posted is an accurate reflection of my own experience with the RCC clergy (from my 12 years in a parochial school, 50+ years of experiences with my uncle and his friends etc), but I had no business extrapolating that onto you or anyone else here on AAAC.

I bought up the issue of the prevalence of gay priests as part of a larger point, one that I started to explain in an earlier post: my uncle believes (and I agree) this sizable gay membership is the actual reason the RCC cannot change to a more honest and accurate position toward homosexuals and homosexuality. Doing so would wreak literal havoc within their ranks. However I still believe the church could return to its pre-Vatican II approach, where civil issues are left to civil authorities. IMO no church has the right to push their religious mythology via civil laws which everyone is obligated to obey.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

trent77 said:


> In light of some recent negative comments, I think this spiritual principle is worth remembering: Focus on the light, not on the darkness. If we continually seek the flaws and imperfections in the members of the body of Christ, the church, surely we shall find them. Focus on the darkness and you run the real risk of being absorbed into the darkness, of becoming part of the darkness. Focus on the light and you will be absorbed in the light and indeed become light to the world in the one who is the "Light of the World."
> 
> Goodnight gentlemen.


Wise words Trent. Thank you.

James


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Mike, your points are well taken. The link I posted is an accurate reflection of my own experience with the RCC clergy (from my 12 years in a parochial school, 50+ years of experiences with my uncle and his friends etc), but I had no business extrapolating that onto you or anyone else here on AAAC.
> 
> I bought up the issue of the prevalence of gay priests as part of a larger point, one that I started to explain in an earlier post: my uncle believes (and I agree) this sizable gay membership is the actual reason the RCC cannot change to a more honest and accurate position toward homosexuals and homosexuality. Doing so would wreak literal havoc within their ranks. However I still believe the church could return to its pre-Vatican II approach, where civil issues are left to civil authorities. IMO no church has the right to push their religious mythology via civil laws which everyone is obligated to obey.


I understand, Frank, thanks. We'll just have to disagree. The Church's teachings on human sexuality have never changed, and those teachings are not grounded in its man-made laws that bind its members but in natural moral laws applicable to all men. To the extent civil laws are not in opposition to natural laws, the Church has no need to seek to shape the former. When they are not, which has happened in more recent years regarding sexual matters, the Church and its body must speak out. The idea that the Church did not intervene in civil issues pror to VII is simply mistaken, as any historian can testify.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Kingstonian said:


> I may have made a few incorrect assumptions. In the days of grammar schools, it was a fairly small world. Fail to put down the right school as first choice and you could forget about getting in. The catchment areas were often large - say Kilburn to Watford, Elstree, Hillingdon and all points in between.


I specifically didn't want to go to a gramamr school or an all boys' school. I was given the option of the London Oratory, Cardinal Vaughan and St. Thomas More's, and so of course I chose the mixed comprehensive.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

KenR said:


> Celibacy is a choice. To demand it of those who do not wish to be celibate is wrong. I may be hetero, but if someone said that I must become celibate, they wouldn't be in one piece for too long.





trent77 said:


> My post was for those of the Cathloic Faith. It was not meant as instruction for those who are not Catholic.


I was discussing Catholics also.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

KenR said:


> I was discussing Catholics also.


Ken,
If one does not believe in the teachings of the Catholic faith, then one should not be a Catholic. Catholics believe in the importance of chastity, a virtue that manifests itself as celibacy in the unmarried state. It is only reasonable for Catholics to expect and exhort their fellow Catholics to aspire to live the Church's teachings. The notion that it is appropriate to threaten bodily harm if they do so is unreasonable to say the least.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Ken,
> If one does not believe in the teachings of the Catholic faith, then one should not be a Catholic. Catholics believe in the importance of chastity, a virtue that manifests itself as celibacy in the unmarried state. It is only reasonable for Catholics to expect and exhort their fellow Catholics to aspire to live the Church's teachings. The notion that it is appropriate to threaten bodily harm if they do so is unreasonable to say the least.


Well said Mike. I'm just dumbfounded every time a homosexual criticises the Catholic church for its teachings on homosexuality.

It would be like me being a speedway rider and criticising Formula 1 because it won't let me ride my motorbike in Formula 1 races alongside the drivers in their Formula 1 cars.

It's so basic that it's almost beyond a fundamental explanation for people who just won't listen.

In the simplest terms possible Frank: Homosexuals are not accepted by the Catholic faith. If you are homosexual you cannot and will not be accepted by the Catholic faith.

Each faith has its teachings- either accept them or don't accept them.

Where would the Catholic church be if it bent to the will of every single person and new group who wanted the church to change its teachings to suit them.

I'll tell you where - in the bin and long forgotten as a weird sect not as a unified religion, because it wouldn't have survived its first 100 years.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Well said Mike. I'm just dumbfounded every time a homosexual criticises the Catholic church for its teachings on homosexuality.
> 
> It would be like me being a speedway rider and criticising Formula 1 because it won't let me ride my motorbike in Formula 1 races alongside the drivers in their Formula 1 cars.
> 
> ...


I agree in most part, Earl, but not completely. First, the Church not only welcomes those with homosexual orientations, it welcomes those who engage in homosexual conduct as well, just as it welcomes all sinners (thank God). Each and every one of us falls short of Church teaching. What Catholics may not do is justify their sins by dissenting from Church teaching. At that point intellectual honesty should compel one to acknowledge that they are no longer in communion with the Church. In defense of Frank, it appears that this is exactly what he has done.

In addition, I think Frank's primary point is not a criticism of the application of the Church's teachings to its members, but the Church's efforts to influence civil law (applying to members and non-members alike) so that it conforms to Church teaching on matters of sexual morality. I disagree with Frank on this at several levels, but I think his emotional denunciations or Church teaching as such are really quite secondary to his primary point.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Yes, I think we're on the same hymn sheet Mike, I was perhaps being a bit too blunt. What I of course meant by "cannot and will not be accepted" was that if a homosexual doesn't cease homosexual activity. Not the fact that they are homosexual.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree in most part, Earl, but not completely. First, the Church not only welcomes those with homosexual orientations, it welcomes those who engage in homosexual conduct as well, just as it welcomes all sinners (thank God). Each and every one of us falls short of Church teaching. What Catholics may not do is justify their sins by dissenting from Church teaching. At that point intellectual honesty should compel one to acknowledge that they are no longer in communion with the Church. In defense of Frank, it appears that this is exactly what he has done.


Thank you, and yes.



Mike Petrik said:


> In addition, I think Frank's primary point is not a criticism of the application of the Church's teachings to its members, but the Church's efforts to influence civil law (applying to members and non-members alike) so that it conforms to Church teaching on matters of sexual morality. I disagree with Frank on this at several levels, but I think his emotional denunciations or Church teaching as such are really quite secondary to his primary point.


Also correct, but I don't understand how any patriotic American would want to see our civil law influenced by any specific religious mythology. Time and again history has proven the downhill slope between "influence" and "theocracy" is short, steep and extremely slippery. There's no shortage of examples in world history where initial "influence" by a religion on a civil government quickly decayed into outright theocracy, and this merging has always, without exception, resulted in the wholesale corruption of both entities, whether we're talking about "Islamic Republics", "the Jewish State", or political Christian bishoprics in the Holy Roman Empire.

So when I hear people like Michael Huckabee saying we need to amend our Constitution to be "in God's standards", or when I read polls where 65% of the American people actually believe our Constitution was based on the Ten Commandments(?!), this abysmal ignorance sends literal chills down my spine.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

There is some intersting commentary here regarding the influence of the Catholic Church on civil law.

It should not be surprising since this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution states in part: 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The Founders intended this to mean as a constitutional prohibition of one state sponsored religion and to keep government out of the affairs of various religions. 

How can Christian thought not be permitted to influence this country already founded on Christian principles?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I THINK THAT THREAD HIJACK & attack on the RC church over its stance on homosexuality LASTED LONG ENOUGH. Can we know get back to the original topic please.

Dwindling numbers in Protestant churches, rising numbers in the Catholic church. Is the liberalism and modernism of some Protestant churches the only cause of decreasing membership? Thus boosting the membership of the Catholic church because it refuses to budge on certain issues, and to stick to its theology, spirituality and traditions.

Or is there an even greater cause for the growing Catholic church. i.e. fear of the future, the unkown, an uncertain world, a lack of spirituality all around us, 24/7 secularism and atheism at every turn, lack of guidance and help for people in need of it, lack of spiritual recharging.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I THINK THAT THREAD HIJACK & attack on the RC church over its stance on homosexuality LASTED LONG ENOUGH. Can we know get back to the original topic please.
> 
> Dwindling numbers in Protestant churches, rising numbers in the Catholic church. Is the liberalism and modernism of some Protestant churches the only cause of decreasing membership? Thus boosting the membership of the Catholic church because it refuses to budge on certain issues, and to stick to its theology, spirituality and traditions.
> 
> Or is there an even greater cause for the growing Catholic church. i.e. fear of the future, the unkown, an uncertain world, a lack of spirituality all around us, 24/7 secularism and atheism at every turn, lack of guidance and help for people in need of it, lack of spiritual recharging.


It is hard for me to respond fairly since I haven't really studied the matter. My own observation (which obviously is of limited utility) is that most Americans seem to fall into 1 of 3 categories: (1) athiestic/agnostic -- no attraction to a church or religious tradition at all; (2) spiritual -- not attracted to an orthodoxy of any type, but vaguely believe in a loving higher spirit of some sort (and Jesus was a good man); and (3) traditional --attracted to an orthodoxy or tradition that makes sense to them. The problem with the liberal protestant traditions in the US (Presbyterian USA, Episcopal, Lutheran (ELCA), and United Methodist) is that they have gradually so relaxed whatever orthodoxies they once had that they have largely jettisoned category (3) in favor of category (2). The problem is that category (2) isn't really interested in church membership. (As my brother once said to me, "I'm dating all these girls who are 'spiritual'; and the best I can tell is that that means they believe in a god that demands nothing of them.") Meanwhile, fundamentalist, and evangelical churches (especially non-denominational) are attracting category (3) largely due to their fidelity to traditional moral teachings, even if their actual theologies are rather thin or undeveloped. The Catholic Church is benefiting as well, but to a lesser extent probably because its theology is more developed and is therefore arguably less accessible. That is my knee jerk reaction -- probably wrong.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I THINK THAT THREAD HIJACK & attack on the RC church over its stance on homosexuality LASTED LONG ENOUGH. Can we know get back to the original topic please.
> 
> Dwindling numbers in Protestant churches, rising numbers in the Catholic church. Is the liberalism and modernism of some Protestant churches the only cause of decreasing membership? Thus boosting the membership of the Catholic church because it refuses to budge on certain issues, and to stick to its theology, spirituality and traditions.
> 
> Or is there an even greater cause for the growing Catholic church. i.e. fear of the future, the unkown, an uncertain world, a lack of spirituality all around us, 24/7 secularism and atheism at every turn, lack of guidance and help for people in need of it, lack of spiritual recharging.


There is no doubt on my mind that the continuing trend of secularism has caused rot in this great nation.

I don't believe there has been a rising in Catholic membership in the US. However, I am surprised at the rise in number of Catholic membership over Protestant in Sweden. Perhaps they are much wiser than we are here.

I have been recently told by an FBI agent of the increase in membership and conversion to Islam by many of the black youths in impoverished areas here in NYC. The ones who were willing to discus there involvement cited the strong leadership, discipline and the unwavering doctrine set forth in Islam. Sadly, several have been converts from the Catholic Church, among other Christian groups, as well as members with an affluent background. Clearly they are lacking something fundamental in their homes and churches.

It is simple and clear that the churches here have failed. Indeed I believe the whole family structure here has failed. Unity, discipline and a strong moral sense that was once the strongpoint of this great nation has to be restored before it is too late.

As I mentioned earlier, the moral demise of a nation always leads to the ultimate demise of that nation.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Trent,

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church is growing in the US, but most (not all) of the growth is attributible to immigration, especially from Mexico.

Interestingly, the Church is receiving many converts from mainline more liberal denominations, and these converts tend to be highly educated and very catechised.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I belong to the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. The LCMS is a pretty conservative church however over the past several years there has been a move towards a more contemporary service in many of the churches. Some of the more liturgical based churches have dropped in membership or started having two services to please those who want a contemporary service. I prefer the liturgy and traditions, but sadly it seems the number of those churches are dwindling. 

I attended a baptism at a friend's church recently and could not even tell the church was Lutheran. No vestments for the pastors, no hymns, no confession and absolution just giant screens and a band. This to me is very sad. I was born, baptized and confirmed a Catholic then joined the Lutheran church after I was married. I was new to the area at the time and decided to just join my wife's church. The more the LCMS divides itself over this issue the more I want to return to the Catholic church.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

trent77 said:


> There is some intersting commentary here regarding the influence of the Catholic Church on civil law.
> 
> It should not be surprising since this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.


Hogwash. It's popular hogwash, but extremely subversive hogwash.

This same discussion appeared in this forum sometime last year, and the person who made the claim, after much desperate searching, finally admitted the only civil law in the U.S. that is possibly specific to Judeo-Christianity is the no-liquor sales on Sundays that some states still enforce.

That's it. All other laws either have no direct relationship to Judeo-Christianity, or the commonality between them is purely coincidental (e.g. all countries have laws against murder, theft etc, they're not specific to any one religion).


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> Trent,
> 
> It is my understanding that the Catholic Church is growing in the US, but most (not all) of the growth is attributible to immigration, especially from Mexico.
> 
> Interestingly, the Church is receiving many converts from mainline more liberal denominations, and these converts tend to be highly educated and very catechised.


I have know doubt of the growing number of immigrants flocking to the Catholic Church, especially those from Mexico. There are a large number of new parishioners in my local church that have come from Mexico. They seem to be far more interested and devoted to the tenets of the church than the people living here are. I have noticed how expressive and vocal they are in the Mass. They are imbued with a joyful spirit that is simply not present in the local parishioners.

I have heard comments from the local bishops mentioning how the average catholic does not even attend Mass on Sundays. The number reported was near the 70% figure. Truly a shame.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

trent77 said:


> I have know doubt of the growing number of immigrants flocking to the Catholic Church, especially those from Mexico. There are a large number of new parishioners in my local church that have come from Mexico. They seem to be far more interested and devoted to the tenets of the church than the people living here are. I have noticed how expressive and vocal they are in the Mass. They are imbued with a joyful spirit that is simply not present in the local parishioners.
> 
> I have heard comments from the local bishops mentioning how the average catholic does not even attend Mass on Sundays. The number reported was near the 70% figure. Truly a shame.


"Is this the kind of worship I desire, that men hang their heads like reeds?"
(Anyone know where that line is from?)

Many Mexicans, like many South Americans have discovered Charismatic masses, and rediscovered what Christianity is all about:

"In March 1992, Pope John Paul II stated:

At this moment in the Church's history, the Charismatic Renewal can play a significant role in promoting the much-needed defense of Christian life in societies where secularism and materialism have weakened many people's ability to respond to the Spirit and to discern God's loving call. Your contribution to the re-evangelization of society will be made in the first place by personal witness to the indwelling Spirit and by showing forth His presence through works of holiness and solidarity.

Moreover, during Pentecost 1998, the Pope recognized the essential nature of the charismatic dimension:

"The institutional and charismatic aspects are co-essential as it were to the Church's constitution. They contribute, although differently, to the life, renewal and sanctification of God's People. It is from this providential rediscovery of the Church's charismatic dimension that, before and after the Council, a remarkable pattern of growth has been established for ecclesial movements and new communities."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> I belong to the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. The LCMS is a pretty conservative church however over the past several years there has been a move towards a more contemporary service in many of the churches. Some of the more liturgical based churches have dropped in membership or started having two services to please those who want a contemporary service. I prefer the liturgy and traditions, but sadly it seems the number of those churches are dwindling.
> 
> I attended a baptism at a friend's church recently and could not even tell the church was Lutheran. No vestments for the pastors, no hymns, no confession and absolution just giant screens and a band. This to me is very sad. I was born, baptized and confirmed a Catholic then joined the Lutheran church after I was married. I was new to the area at the time and decided to just join my wife's church. The more the LCMS divides itself over this issue the more I want to return to the Catholic church.


What made you decide to leave the Catholic Church after you were married? What did you find lacking in the Catholic Church?

It is a shame that your Lutheran Church has divided itself in this way. This division greatly disorients people spiritually.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I THINK THAT THREAD HIJACK & attack on the RC church over its stance on homosexuality LASTED LONG ENOUGH. Can we know get back to the original topic please.
> 
> Dwindling numbers in Protestant churches, rising numbers in the Catholic church. Is the liberalism and modernism of some Protestant churches the only cause of decreasing membership? Thus boosting the membership of the Catholic church because it refuses to budge on certain issues, and to stick to its theology, spirituality and traditions.
> 
> Or is there an even greater cause for the growing Catholic church. i.e. fear of the future, the unkown, an uncertain world, a lack of spirituality all around us, 24/7 secularism and atheism at every turn, lack of guidance and help for people in need of it, lack of spiritual recharging.


I think what most drives people to the Catholic Church is when Catholics begin to live what they profess with voracity instead of the usual spiritual tepidness that has crept into our nation.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Hogwash. It's popular hogwash, but extremely subversive hogwash.
> 
> This same discussion appeared in this forum sometime last year, and the person who made the claim, after much desperate searching, finally admitted the only civil law in the U.S. that is possibly specific to Judeo-Christianity is the no-liquor sales on Sundays that some states still enforce.
> 
> That's it. All other laws either have no direct relationship to Judeo-Christianity, or the commonality between them is purely coincidental (e.g. all countries have laws against murder, theft etc, they're not specific to any one religion).


Is there a distinction between the principles on which the nation was founded (that Trent mentioned) and the normative bases for certain of our civil laws (that you mention)?

Also, do you think the fact that certain laws also have bases in multiple religions (e.g., non-Judeo Christian) and/or secular principles _disproves_ that those laws are nonetheless based on Judeo-Christian principles?

On the Sunday issue, I recall from my days in Con law class _many _moons ago icon_smile_big that in the Constitution there is clause that grants the president a certain number of days to sign a bill but excludes Sundays from the count.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> Is there a distinction between the principles on which the nation was founded (that Trent mentioned) and the normative bases for certain of our civil laws (that you mention)?
> 
> Also, do you think the fact that certain laws also have bases in multiple religions (e.g., non-Judeo Christian) and/or secular principles _disproves_ that those laws are nonetheless based on Judeo-Christian principles?


That's like claiming the tail wags the dog. If Judeo-Christianity didn't exist, or never existed, in fact if no religions ever existed, it would make zero difference in the necessity for and purpose of civil laws.



PatentLawyerNYC said:


> On the Sunday issue, I recall from my days in Con law class _many _moons ago icon_smile_big that in the Constitution there is clause that grants the president a certain number of days to sign a bill but excludes Sundays from the count.


Ok, so we're up to two laws now.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> That's like claiming the tail wags the dog. If Judeo-Christianity didn't exist, or never existed, in fact if no religions ever existed, it would make zero difference in the necessity for and purpose of civil laws.


I am not claiming anything; I have asked two questions, both of which have gone unanswered.

No one is saying that the existence of religion is some sort of prerequiste for civil laws; in fact, that is not the issue at all. The position that you take is that the normative bases of our civil laws are not rooted in the Judeo Christian tradition _because _those normative bases _also _exist in other religious and secular traditions.

What is being questioned is your premise that a normative basis must exist _exclusively _in the Judeo-Christian tradition for it have been the basis for a civil law. Are you sticking to it?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> I am not claiming anything; I have asked two questions, both of which have gone unanswered.
> 
> No one is saying that the existence of religion is some sort of prerequiste for civil laws; in fact, that is not the issue at all. The position that you take is that the normative bases of our civil laws are not rooted in the Judeo Christian tradition _because _those normative bases _also _exist in other religious and secular traditions.
> 
> What is being questioned is your premise that a normative basis must exist _exclusively _in the Judeo-Christian tradition for it have been the basis for a civil law. Are you sticking to it?


I responded to trent77's specific claim that "this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles". The fact that some of our civil laws happen to agree with basic religious principles doesn't make trent's claim any less misleading: it's just as ridiculous to say our country was "founded on Islamic principles".


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> ...it's just as ridiculous to say our country was "founded on Islamic principles".


No, that would be FAR more rediculous!!


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> I responded to trent77's specific claim that "this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles". The fact that some of our civil laws happen to agree with basic religious principles doesn't make trent's claim any less misleading: it's just as ridiculous to say our country was "founded on Islamic principles".


Nowhere do I see in Trent's message that _because_ there is basic agreement with some laws and J-C principles, that therefore those laws are based on J-C principles. What I do see is you arguing that because the normative bases _also _exist in other religious and secular traditions, they _cannot_ be based in J-C principles. Your argument is a fallacious one.

In all fairness neither you nor Trent have pointed to _facts_ to support your respective positions. To resolve this we need to know what ethical framework did the legislature have in mind when erecting a given law? Good luck on that one. But where do you think average people (and the legislature is _full_ of those :devil get their ethical framework?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> Nowhere do I see in Trent's message that _because_ there is basic agreement with some laws and J-C principles, that therefore those laws are based on J-C principles. What I do see is you arguing that because the normative bases _also _exist in other religious and secular traditions, they _cannot_ be based in J-C principles. Your argument is a fallacious one.
> 
> In all fairness neither you nor Trent have pointed to _facts_ to support your respective positions. To resolve this we need to know what ethical framework did the legislature have in mind when erecting a given law? Good luck on that one. But where do you think average people (and the legislature is _full_ of those :devil get their ethical framework?


Trent is the one who made the original claim, so it's up to him to provide facts to support his claim. But to answer your first question, read the First Amendment. This much cannot be denied: it was very important to our founding fathers that no single religious mythology be established in our civil laws.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Trent is the one who made the original claim, so it's up to him to provide facts to support his claim. But to answer your first question, read the First Amendment. This much cannot be denied: it was very important to our founding fathers that no single religious mythology be established in our civil laws.


I am more familiar than most with the 1st amendment. :icon_smile_big:

Your response (which still fails to answer my question) appears to be misinformed. _A law can have a J-C principle as its normative basis and be constitutional. _The inquiry under the establishment clause is not whether a law has a relgious principle as its underpinning; it merely requires religous neutrality. Read _Gillette v. US_, a Supreme Court case from the early 70s. If your understanding were correct, we'd have to repeal the murder and larceny statutes simply because they overlap with the Ten Commandments.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> I am more familiar than most with the 1st amendment. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Your response (which still fails to answer my question) appears to be misinformed. _A law can have a J-C principle as its normative basis and be constitutional. _The inquiry under the establishment clause is not whether a law has a relgious principle as its underpinning; it merely requires religous neutrality. Read _Gillette v. US_, a Supreme Court case from the early 70s. If your understanding were correct, we'd have to repeal the murder and larceny statutes simply because they overlap with the Ten Commandments.


Then you just answered Trent's question, not mine, which was:

"How can Christian thought not be permitted to influence this country already founded on Christian principles?"

Did you know the Human Rights Campaign is very close to qualifying a ballot initiative in California this year, that will outlaw heterosexual divorce? Nobody expects the ballot measure to pass, but the gay community wants heterosexuals to consider how they'd feel if they needed to get the permission of a majority of their fellow citizens before they could divorce their spouses.

So the question is, how far does Trent77 wish to take his "Christian principles" rhetoric? After all, Jesus himself explicitly condemned divorce, but according to the gospels he didn't say anything about homosexuality.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Trent is the one who made the original claim, so it's up to him to provide facts to support his claim. But to answer your first question, read the First Amendment. This much cannot be denied: it was very important to our founding fathers that no single religious mythology be established in our civil laws.


The First Amendment certainly makes clear that no particular religion can be established as an official faith. But that does not mean that citizens who are religious cannot participate in the formation of laws. Many, perhaps most, laws impart morality. The laws against murder, theft, rape, etc. are all grounded in moral beliefs. Citizens form their moral beliefs in all sorts of ways, including through religious instruction and teachings, and all citizens are entitled to participate in the formation of a society that reflects their understanding or morality. In addition to the crimes mentioned, we also have laws against polygamy, burning cats, and eating grandma after she dies. We don't even normally allow people to kill each other even with consent. It is one thing to assert that we are all free to worship or not worship whatever God we choose. Fair and true. But when it comes to our interactions with our fellow men, it is not a First Amendment violation to assert ones views just because they are informed by a religious tradition, even if that tradition is a mythology.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Did you know the Human Rights Campaign is very close to qualifying a ballot initiative in California this year, that will outlaw heterosexual divorce? Nobody expects the ballot measure to pass, but the gay community wants heterosexuals to consider how they'd feel if they needed to get the permission of a majority of their fellow citizens before they could divorce their spouses.
> 
> So the question is, how far does Trent77 wish to take his "Christian principles" rhetoric? After all, Jesus himself explicitly condemned divorce, but according to the gospels he didn't say anything about homosexuality.


I did not know that; it is an interesting use of the political process. I agree that its chance of passage is nil, at most.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> The First Amendment certainly makes clear that no particular religion can be established as an official faith. But that does not mean that citizens who are religious cannot participate in the formation of laws. Many, perhaps most, laws impart morality. The laws against murder, theft, rape, etc. are all grounded in moral beliefs. Citizens form their moral beliefs in all sorts of ways, including through religious instruction and teachings, and all citizens are entitled to participate in the formation of a society that reflects their understanding or morality. In addition to the crimes mentioned, we also have laws against polygamy, burning cats, and eating grandma after she dies. We don't even normally allow people to kill each other even with consent. It is one thing to assert that we are all free to worship or not worship whatever God we choose. Fair and true. But when it comes to our interactions with our fellow men, it is not a First Amendment violation to assert ones views just because they are informed by a religious tradition, even if that tradition is a mythology.


Two lawyers agree! Let's write this down... :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I specifically didn't want to go to a gramamr school or an all boys' school. I was given the option of the London Oratory, Cardinal Vaughan and St. Thomas More's, and so of course I chose the mixed comprehensive.


Fair enough, but the ones you rejected are well regarded - even by Tony Blair

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3406347/Bright-pupils-win-more-places-at-faith-schools.html


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Kingstonian said:


> Fair enough, but the ones you rejected are well regarded - even by Tony Blair
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3406347/Bright-pupils-win-more-places-at-faith-schools.html


Oh I know they're good schools. But I didn't reject anything, it was my parents that made the choice. All I said was I wanted to go to a mixed school.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I THINK THAT THREAD HIJACK & attack on the RC church over its stance on homosexuality LASTED LONG ENOUGH. Can we know get back to the original topic please.
> 
> Dwindling numbers in Protestant churches, rising numbers in the Catholic church. Is the liberalism and modernism of some Protestant churches the only cause of decreasing membership? Thus boosting the membership of the Catholic church because it refuses to budge on certain issues, and to stick to its theology, spirituality and traditions.
> 
> Or is there an even greater cause for the growing Catholic church. i.e. fear of the future, the unkown, an uncertain world, a lack of spirituality all around us, 24/7 secularism and atheism at every turn, lack of guidance and help for people in need of it, lack of spiritual recharging.


 I've heard from a few Protestants who said that their main reason for joining the Roman Catholic Church was that it offers all seven of the sacraments. They expressed their overflowing joy to know that there is the real presence of God in the Holy Eucharist.

Of course I don't deny the effect of liberalism on church membership but that could be true for Catholic Churches as well as Protestant ones.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

trent77 said:


> I've heard from a few Protestants who said that their main reason for joining the Roman Catholic Church was that it offers all seven of the sacraments. *They expressed their overflowing joy to know that there is the real presence of God in the Holy Eucharist.*
> 
> Of course I don't deny the effect of liberalism on church membership but that could be true for Catholic Churches as well as Protestant ones.


Some Protestant churches believe in the real presence. I know all Lutherans do and I'm pretty sure Anglican/Episcopalian, Orthodox and some Methodist churches do as well.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> Some Protestant churches believe in the real presence. I know all Lutherans do and I'm pretty sure Anglican/Episcopalian, Orthodox and some Methodist churches do as well.


Listening to the two former Protestants in our parish, both were explaining how their belief in the real presence of God differed from our (Catholic)meaning. In their church, they believed God was present only as far as He is present in his people assembling for worship and in no other way. What they found inspirational was that Catholics believe God is present in the tabernacle, where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved, because the Blessed Sacrament is Christ.

The interior of their church is far more plain. The pulpit is in the center and the altar was merely a table. The layout was similar but not the decor. In the Catholic Church the altar is the main piece and very ornate. It is located in the sanctuary. Above the tabernacle is a lamp indicating Christ's presence. There are also statues of Saints, the Blessed Mother, stations of the Cross and holy water fonts.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Some Protestant churches believe in the real presence. I know all Lutherans do and I'm pretty sure Anglican/Episcopalian, Orthodox and some Methodist churches do as well.


Laxplayer is corrrect, though the precise meaning of the term differs in important theological ways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Presence


----------



## Salvatore123 (Jan 11, 2009)

*Catholic/Orthodox vs. other Christian churches*

Only Catholic (Western and Eastern Rite) and Orthodox Churches, as part of their dogma, believe that, upon consecration, the wine and bread are changed so that EVERYTHING CONSECRATED become Christ's body and blood. This is called "transubstantiation". These churches use Aristotelean philosophical terms to describe the change that occur at the moment of consecration. The term "accidents" refers to what man SEES and TASTES, that is, man sees and tastes wine and bread, but this is merely for one's "palate". No wine or bread remains. The "substance" of bread and wine have become Christ's body and blood.

Note how carefully priests and servers handle consecrated wine and bread. After Holy Communion, all vessels that held consecrated wine and bread are thoroughly cleaned so that every particle (as best as humanly possible) of bread or wine is consumed and properly disposed of.

Very few other Christians denominations "believe" in a change at the time of consecration (which is not recognized by the Catholic and Orthodox faiths). Their view is called "consubtantiation", that is, they teach that although the bread and wine become Christ's body and blood, they also teach that the bread and wine also remain and are "comingled" with Christ's body and blood so that both the bread/wine as well as Christ's body/blood are present.

Most Christian faiths in the US (particularly in the South, such as evanglical and Baptist faiths) do not believe in ANY change. Many Southern Baptist (formed as a result of the US Civil War) churches serve bread and grape juice - and it is done rarely: an example would be only when a calendar month happens to have a fifth Sunday during that month. On that Sunday, they will serve what they called "the Lord's Supper".

In the late 1800's, Pope Leo XIII promulgated a bull finding that Anglican "consecration" had long since "died" after the break from Rome by Henry VIII. This was primarily due to the Anglican teaching that transubstantion did not occur during the consecration.

One has to believe in an article of faith if one is to carry on that article of faith.

P.S. Although many "liberal" Catholic Churches began, in the 1980's to distribute Holy Communion under both forms (wine and bread), the Catholiic Church has ALWAYS taught that Christ's body and blood are present in the consecrated hosts. One does NOT need to consume consecrated wine in order to claim that one has also received Christ's blood along with this body. If that person received a consecrated host, then that person received body and blood; receiving consecrated wine afterwards was, for lack of a better description, "redundant".

Regards,

Sam


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

One word is all you need: Transubstantiation


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

trent77 said:


> The interior of their church is far more plain. The pulpit is in the center and the altar was merely a table. The layout was similar but not the decor. In the Catholic Church the altar is the main piece and very ornate. It is located in the sanctuary. Above the tabernacle is a lamp indicating Christ's presence. There are also statues of Saints, the Blessed Mother, stations of the Cross and holy water fonts.


And here Trent you have pre-empted the subject of my next thread....coming soon to an Interchange near you! :icon_smile:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Thanks to all for your views. In conclusion I think it's fair to say that there seem to be several factors involved in the decrease in Protestant churches and the increase in the Catholic chruch.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Having read through every (yes, all of them) freakin post in this thread, I am left wondering, why the Catholic Church chooses to systemically exercise a greater level of forbearance/forgiveness for it's wayward priests and nuns than it does for so many of the "flawed" members of their flocks? Priests and nuns, who have committed some of the seemingly most egregious sins imaginable, have been allowed to continue to serve and yet members of the church who have stumbled into much less egregious conduct (IE: perhaps a divorce) are permanently banned from certain roles, such as administering the sacraments, even after the Church has approved an annulment. Seems to me to be just a bit hypocritical, eh! :icon_scratch: Just a thought from another protestant heathen!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Having read through every (yes, all of them) freakin post in this thread, I am left wondering, why the Catholic Church chooses to systemically exercise a greater level of forbearance/forgiveness for it's wayward priests and nuns than it does for so many of the "flawed" members of their flocks? Priests and nuns, who have committed some of the seemingly most egregious sins imaginable, have been allowed to continue to serve and yet members of the church who have stumbled into much less egregious conduct (IE: perhaps a divorce) are permanently banned from certain roles, such as administering the sacraments, even after the Church has approved an annulment. Seems to me to be just a bit hypocritical, eh! :icon_scratch: Just a thought from another protestant heathen!


I hear you and I agree wholeheartedly. My father suffered at the hands of the Christian Brothers while at school in Ireland in the 1940s, regular beatings. As did my mother at the hands of the nuns while at school in Ireland in the 1930s & 40s.
I think all clergy should be sacked and excommunicated immediately on proof of first offence of any type.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> Having read through every (yes, all of them) freakin post in this thread, I am left wondering, why the Catholic Church chooses to systemically exercise a greater level of forbearance/forgiveness for it's wayward priests and nuns than it does for so many of the "flawed" members of their flocks? Priests and nuns, who have committed some of the seemingly most egregious sins imaginable, have been allowed to continue to serve and yet members of the church who have stumbled into much less egregious conduct (IE: perhaps a divorce) are permanently banned from certain roles, such as administering the sacraments, even after the Church has approved an annulment. Seems to me to be just a bit hypocritical, eh! :icon_scratch: Just a thought from another protestant heathen!


Well, I'm certainly not going to suggest the Church handled the scandalous clergy misbehavior correctly. That said, let me clarify a couple things. First, it is important to distinguish between sinful behavior and heretical beliefs. People who make clear that they do not accept or believe in Church teaching separate themselves from the Church. In contrast, the Church seldom formally excommunicates its believers simply because they sin, even when such sins are very serious. And in those cases where that does happen, the Church makes clear the path to return. Indeed, the Church understands that the members of the Body of Christ are all fallen, and all are in need of forgiveness. Part of the process of forgiveness is to make right whatever wrong is caused to the extent possible. Sins cannot be undone, of course, but one cannot just persist in an ongoing state of sin. A man cannot claim to be repentant for his infidelity while he continues to live with his mistress, for instance. As for divorce, it simply isn't true that the Church removes Sacramental access from divorced Catholics. The Church simply does not recognize civil divorce at all, and therefore there is no Sacramental impairment. Indeed, the Church acknowledges that in some cases the legal consequences of civil divorce are appropriate ends to be sought for the protection of a spouse or children. What is not permissible is the infidelity associated with a spouse treating a civil divorce as an actual divorce in a manner incompatable with the marital Sacrament, such as engaging in an unchaste relationship with a third party (e.g., entering into another civil marriage). Of course, such a new marriage would be permissible if the first marriage was recognized as invalid via what is commonly known as an annulment. There is no Sacramental bar due to remarriage in such a case, and that includes one's ability to administer Sacraments (such as serving as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist). Any understanding to the contrary is simply a *mis*undererstanding.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Mike: I've a friend who has been a Catholic all of his life. He married when he was in his early 40's and (I think) after eight or nine years of marriage, his (now) ex-wife, moved in with another man and divorced him! He filed for and was granted an annulment, through the Church. The annulment was granted and now, while he is permitted to receive the sacraments, he is not allowed to serve the sacraments...or so says the priest in his parish. Were he me, I'm sorry to say, my response would be to say fine, this parish doesn't need that check I write each month. However, my friend is less of a heathen than I and he has been active in the (I guess you would call it) lay ministries in the church and he is hurt by the reality that he may recieve the sacraments but, may no longer serve them. Doesn't seem fair, right or just, to me!


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

My Lutheran parish is more Roman Catholic (liturgically speaking) than the Roman Catholic parish down the street. 

Also, Lutherans DO believe in the Real Presence, and not consubstantination either. That term does not apply, at least on my parish. We regard it as a mystery which we will never fully understand, but we know that somehow, He is present in the Blessed Sacrament (yes, we use that term too.) We also reserve the leftover consecrated elements, and treat them with the utmost respect. It is not uncommon to fully genuflect to the Blessed Sacrament, at least at my parish.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Mike: I've a friend who has been a Catholic all of his life. He married when he was in his early 40's and (I think) after eight or nine years of marriage, his (now) ex-wife, moved in with another man and divorced him! He filed for and was granted an annulment, through the Church. The annulment was granted and now, while he is permitted to receive the sacraments, he is not allowed to serve the sacraments...or so says the priest in his parish. Were he me, I'm sorry to say, my response would be to say fine, this parish doesn't need that check I write each month. However, my friend is less of a heathen than I and he has been active in the (I guess you would call it) lay ministries in the church and he is hurt by the reality that he may recieve the sacraments but, may no longer serve them. Doesn't seem fair, right or just, to me!


Eagle,
I'm very sad to hear that. I can only say that I'm unaware of any canonical justification for the priest's view under the facts as you've explained them. Please remember, priests are imperfect too. The only explanation I can think of is the pastor is exercising his prudential judgment with the purpose of avoiding scandal grounded in the misunderstandings of fellow parishioners. But that strikes me as a stretch.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

That’s just gross. Why would you want to taste (or imagine you were tasting) some human flesh and blood if you weren't otherwise a cannibal in ordinary life?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Bog said:


> That's just gross. Why would you want to taste (or imagine you were tasting) some human flesh and blood if you weren't otherwise a cannibal in ordinary life?


And the answer is: https://www.lifeteen.com/default.aspx?PageID=BGQADETAIL&__DocumentId=550


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> And the answer is: https://www.lifeteen.com/default.aspx?PageID=BGQADETAIL&__DocumentId=550


I read that, and the takeaway is that it isn't that Catholics are pretending to eat human flesh and blood, but that they are pretending to eat flesh and blood of a divine being.

So, it appears to be worse than at first sight.

Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a diving being seems much more repulsive and wrongheaded than eating someone of lesser importance, say a mere human.

Maybe some perverse mind thought this was all well some time ago, but why otherwise ordinary people perpetuate imitating such macabre sickness is really beyond belief.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Bog said:


> I read that, and the takeaway is that it isn't that Catholics are pretending to eat human flesh and blood, but that they are pretending to eat flesh and blood of a divine being.
> 
> So, it appears to be worse than at first sight.
> 
> ...


There is a line between clever and rude, and you just crossed it Bog. It is perfectly appropriate to ask questions regarding the religious beliefs of others, but you are simply engaging in satirical ridicule. That is called being a jerk.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> There is a line between clever and rude, and you just crossed it Bog. It is perfectly appropriate to ask questions regarding the religious beliefs of others, but you are simply engaging in satirical ridicule. That is called being a jerk.


There's no satire involved. You have to look at things as what they are. A ritual that claims to let ordinary people devour the flesh and blood of a divine being is exactly what it is, a violation of that divine being's state of existence.

Consider the "real barbarousness of this Sacrament and Rite of our Religion, [we] verily eat and drink the natural flesh and blood of Christ. And what can any man do more unworthily towards a Friend? How can he possibly use him more barbarously, than to feast upon his living flesh and blood?" - John Tillotson, Discourse against Transubstantiation, London 1684, 35.

Also, next time you consider yourself party to the game of pretending that something changed in the wine and bread or not, keep your BS filter on in your head and don't delude yourself. Most of humanity would be disgusted to know you were playing games eating someone's flesh.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Hey, no ones forcing you to stay here & read this!
> Now,tell me, what do you believe in, I'd like to know so that I can ridicule that and be rude about it!
> 
> YOU PR*CK!


For one thing, I believe pretending to eat humans or divine beings is immoral.

And do knock off the name calling, this is a theological discussion here.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You clearly know Fvk all about Christinaity


What we all do know about Christianity, is that it uses an instrument of torture as its main symbol. Put that in context of the above, and the image is quite disturbing.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Christ told us to eat of his flesh! You've clearly never read anything in the Bible
> 
> Not anymore it isn't, not since you turned it into an anti-Christian crusade calling the Eucharist disusting and wrong.


Not worth getting angry about, Earl. Bog is rather playing the part of the sophomoric provacateur. While most of us stopped that sort of nonsense when we were, well, sophomores, cases of arrested development abound. Best to ignore them.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

You're going to have to watch your language Earl. Especially when dealing with religious topics, it isn't really good manners to loose it.

I'm not sure what got you so excited, these things are simply the way the religious presents itself.


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

*That's Enough!*

*This is the Interchange, but enough fighting and name calling. If you want to have a theological debate, do so in a civilized manner!*


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

welldressedfellow said:


> My Lutheran parish is more Roman Catholic (liturgically speaking) than the Roman Catholic parish down the street.
> 
> Also, Lutherans DO believe in the Real Presence, and not consubstantination either. That term does not apply, at least on my parish. We regard it as a mystery which we will never fully understand, but we know that somehow, He is present in the Blessed Sacrament (yes, we use that term too.) We also reserve the leftover consecrated elements, and treat them with the utmost respect. It is not uncommon to fully genuflect to the Blessed Sacrament, at least at my parish.


How sad for the RC parish down the street, but good for you! The theological differences between Lutherans and Catholics, while not insignificant, are diminishing with dialogue. I pray that unity will come soon. Catholic liturgy has gone through some difficulties over the past 40 years, but a re-anchoring is well under way.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

welldressedfellow said:


> *This is the Interchange, but enough fighting and name calling. If you want to have a theological debate, do so in a civilized manner!*


You are totaly correct, and I apologise unreservedly and wholeheartedly to the other forum members for my offensive language and for losing control there for a few minutes.

Best regards

James de Buitléir


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

Again, thank you. We welcome debates on almost any subject, so long as all parties remain civil.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> You are totaly correct, and I apologise unreservedly and wholeheartedly to the other forum members for my offensive language and for losing control there for a few minutes.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> James de Buitléir


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

In the interest of full discolsure, we also have a charismatic mass in which all of the General Rubrics are thrown out the window, but our traditional mass is top notch. On Easter, our liturgy is very near to a proper Solemn High Mass. I too hope and pray for reunification.

The RC parish isn't as bad as some that I've seen, but they have very, very laid back (once in the summer, the priest did not vest, not even an alb and stole) masses. Even on Holy Days.



Mike Petrik said:


> How sad for the RC parish down the street, but good for you! The theological differences between Lutherans and Catholics, while not insignificant, are diminishing with dialogue. I pray that unity will come soon. Catholic liturgy has gone through some difficulties over the past 40 years, but a re-anchoring is well under way.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

welldressedfellow said:


> In the interest of full discolsure, we also have a charismatic mass in which all of the General Rubrics are thrown out the window, but our traditional mass is top notch. On Easter, our liturgy is very near to a proper Solemn High Mass. I too hope and pray for reunification.
> 
> The RC parish isn't as bad as some that I've seen, but they have very, very laid back (once in the summer, the priest did not vest, not even an alb and stole) masses. Even on Holy Days.


I know Frank and others (including my mother) think the world of the charismatic movement within the Church. It plainly appeals more to emotional touchy-feely types than linear folks with more of an intellectual bent. I regard it as simply an aesthetic preference available to those who find it to be an attractive path to holiness. While the Order of Mass has some room to accomodate a charismatic flavor, I do object to those who take liberties with our sacred liturgy in order to indulge their preferred idiosyncratic innovations. Such personal indulgences smack of arrogance in my opinion. Any Mass that's within liturgical norms is fine by me, but like you I do prefer appropriate solemnity and dignity.


----------



## Salvatore123 (Jan 11, 2009)

I am able to attend the 1961 Latin Mass under Benedict XVI's _Summorum Pontificum_ promulgated in July, 2007.

As for the poster who was disparaging our belief in transubstantiation, perhaps he should move off of his "island" and realize that the consumption of the Holy Eucharist has been THE central tenet of our Faith for 2000 years and is believed by approximately 1 billion people.

And if you are as smart as you want people to believe, you would have understood my reference to Aristoteleon philisophy regarding "accidents" and "substance".

Finally, if you don't like what we do, and think it is "disgusting and gross", take it up with Jesus Christ - He said it. Not me. I just try to follow Him.

P.S. For those "unlucky" and have to put up with irreverent Masses, type in "litugical abuses" at YouTube; you will certain be disgusted. In one, the Church is having a "Halloween Mass" and one of the Eucharistic servers is DRESSED LIKE A WITCH!!!!! In another, some idiotic priest (there - I said it, because it is true) dressed up like Barney the dinosaur and gave a "Barney blessing" to the congregation in what appears to be a town hall instead of a church.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Salvatore123 said:


> I am able to attend the 1961 Latin Mass under Benedict XVI's _Summorum Pontificum_ promulgated in July, 2007.


Grazie Salvatore, I just brought up the Tridentine Mass in the new thread I've created. I was so pleased with _Summorum Pontificum_ for various aspects, but that especially.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Salvatore123 said:


> I am able to attend the 1961 Latin Mass under Benedict XVI's _Summorum Pontificum_ promulgated in July, 2007.
> 
> As for the poster who was disparaging our belief in transubstantiation, perhaps he should move off of his "island" and realize that the consumption of the Holy Eucharist has been THE central tenet of our Faith for 2000 years and is believed by approximately 1 billion people.
> 
> ...


Well said on all points! Exactly how I feel.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> I know Frank and others (including my mother) think the world of the charismatic movement within the Church. It plainly appeals more to emotional touchy-feely types than linear folks with more of an intellectual bent. I regard it as simply an aesthetic preference available to those who find it to be an attractive path to holiness. While the Order of Mass has some room to accomodate a charismatic flavor, I do object to those who take liberties with our sacred liturgy in order to indulge their preferred idiosyncratic innovations. Such personal indulgences smack of arrogance in my opinion. Any Mass that's within liturgical norms is fine by me, but like you I do prefer appropriate solemnity and dignity.


Mike, in a prior post I think I outlined my experience with the Charismatics, but that was in the mid-1970's, when the "movement" was in its infancy, at least in the RCC. In fact back then the liturgy was exactly the same as any conventional Catholic mass, except usually with far fewer people in attendance (often small enough groups to accomodate sitting around the altar during mass in some churches, and the passing of a wine cup during Communion). Those were the only differences.

As for the subject at hand, it's a matter of belief, and it's amazing that 2000+ years of commentary, interpretation and analysis hasn't changed anything: read the sixth chapter of John, and you'll find Jesus lost a large number of his disciples due to this same misunderstanding of "heavenly bread".


----------



## Salvatore123 (Jan 11, 2009)

*John 6*

Frank (if you permit me to call you on a first name basis - if not, I apologize):

If you are TRULY Catholic and were RAISED Catholic, then you should KNOW that John 6 is THE CLEAREST EXPLANATION OF WHY CATHOLICS BELIEVE IN THE TRUE PRESENCE!!!!!!!!

If Jesus Christ wanted people to follow Him (which He clearly did), why wouldn't he "correct" a supposed (according to you and many, many Protestants) "misunderstanding" of his teaching that he was truly present?

70+ people (supposedly "disciples" - NOT Apostles) just announced they were leaving Him because they could not "stomach" the idea of what He just taught, and Jesus says nothing to change what He just said?

Don't you think that is a very odd way of keeping people? Perhaps it was the group who left who misunderstood and JESUS was the one who knew what HE meant . . .

Geez, people. This is not rocket engineering (btw - no such thing as a rocket scientist) - you either believe or you do not. I cannot prove anything that Jesus Christ taught as being true. If I could, I would not need faith, would I?

Frank - PROVE to me that you love someone. I can guarantee that for EVERY example of something you say or do as an offer of proof, I can show that someone else does the same thing at one time or another, and yet does not necessarily love that person.

So, because you cannot PROVE that you love someone, does that mean you do not? I would hope for the sake of your loved ones that they have "faith" (damn - that messy word) in you more than you have in Jesus Christ.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

Salvatore123 said:


> Frank (if you permit me to call you on a first name basis - if not, I apologize):
> 
> If you are TRULY Catholic and were RAISED Catholic, then you should KNOW that John 6 is THE CLEAREST EXPLANATION OF WHY CATHOLICS BELIEVE IN THE TRUE PRESENCE!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


Excellent thoughts! Sad to hear there are no rocket scientists


----------



## Salvatore123 (Jan 11, 2009)

*Sorry - wasn't trying to be a smart-aleck*

You know how everyone has at least ONE thing that gets under their skin? Well, as a legal writing teacher, I try to be precise with my words and thoughts when I type (although my job constricts what I often can say and the time in which I have to say it).

It's like people who say "irregardless". No such word. I suppose some people think that if you say it enough times, it will be accepted.

Kinda like some of the arguments some people have made in this thread 

And really - no such thing as a "rocket scientist".


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Salvatore123 said:


> Perhaps it was the group who left who misunderstood and JESUS was the one who knew what HE meant . . .


That's what I meant.

According to the gospel, many disciples left the company of Jesus after this, so either they misunderstood what Jesus was saying, or couldn't handle it. Either way, the gospel doesn't say anything about Jesus running after these people to explain himself.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Salvatore123 said:


> It's like people who say "irregardless". No such word. I suppose some people think that if you say it enough times, it will be accepted.


Oh thank you, a man after my own heart!


----------



## Salvatore123 (Jan 11, 2009)

*Logic, logic, logic*

Frank,

You said:

According to the gospel, many disciples left the company of Jesus after this, so either they misunderstood what Jesus was saying, or couldn't handle it. Either way, the gospel doesn't say anything about Jesus running after these people to explain himself.

Frank, you seem to be an intelligent person, yet I do not understand how you reach some of your conclusions . . .

The POINT is NOT that they left - the POINT is that Jesus DID NOTHING TO PREVENT THEM FROM LEAVING!!!

If, as you claim, Jesus REALLY did not mean for himself to be taken literally, don't you think that BEFORE THEY LEFT would have been a good time to "clear things up"?

Don't people, especially atheists, wonder why and how a "band of brothers", so small in number at the beginning, could have survived the onslaught of emperors such as Nero, and yet still managed to found a Church that has survived 2000 years?

Frank, I cannot force or convince you or others like you that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church that Christ promised, whilst he lived and was personally present on Earth, would NOT fail. That, as I mentioned several times, comes down to a matter of faith.

Yet it is that FACT that a religious institution that has survived 2000 years that tells ME that God is with the Catholic Church.

One might say, "Well look at the Middle East - some jihadists believe that killing themselves along with hundreds of others whom they consider blasphemers, is a righteous thing. They are no less "sincere" in their belief than the early Catholics."

But that would be an illogical and patently false comparison. The Taliban and followers of radical Islam have their beliefs drilled into them from the time they learn to walk and talk. No such thing occurred within the early Catholic Church. Hundreds of Catholics voluntarily went to their deaths in the Colesseum - not to take others with them - but because they refused to renounce their belief in Christ.

Who does such a thing? Was EVERY Christian martyr psychotic or a sociopath? It simply makes no sense to me that ALL of these people died, willingly, because they were crazy.

Haven't you ever wondered how only ONE man (God, who became man) influenced Earth, through his Church, like no one else in history?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Eagle,
> I'm very sad to hear that. I can only say that I'm unaware of any canonical justification for the priest's view under the facts as you've explained them. Please remember, priests are imperfect too. The only explanation I can think of is the pastor is exercising his prudential judgment with the purpose of avoiding scandal grounded in the misunderstandings of fellow parishioners. But that strikes me as a stretch.


Mike: Thank you for sharing your knowledge on this issue with me/us. And yes I agree with you, "priests are imperfect too"...probably just about as imperfect, as our Protestant ministers (when considered as a group)! As for my friends desire to continue to participate in serving the Sacraments, is this an issue he might discuss with the Bishop, or would he be out of line in doing so? Thanks again!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Salvatore, I simply referenced the gospel of John. Apparently you interpret that as some kind of attack on the RCC. Whatever. That was not and is not my intent. My only point is that 2000+ years of discussion hasn't changed the difference of opinion over what Jesus meant by this teaching.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Salvatore, I simply referenced the gospel of John. Apparently you interpret that as some kind of attack on the RCC. Whatever. That was not and is not my intent. My only point is that 2000+ years of discussion hasn't changed the difference of opinion over what Jesus meant by this teaching.


I agree, Frank, that Salvatore probably misunderstood you. I read you as simply pointing out the fact that Christ's instruction was difficult to understand and caused confusion and discomfort from the very beginning -- nothing more. While Salvatore's subsequent point may be true it really was in any way contradictory or particularly responsive to your post.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> Mike: Thank you for sharing your knowledge on this issue with me/us. And yes I agree with you, "priests are imperfect too"...probably just about as imperfect, as our Protestant ministers (when considered as a group)! As for my friends desire to continue to participate in serving the Sacraments, is this an issue he might discuss with the Bishop, or would he be out of line in doing so? Thanks again!


Eagle,
The question is a ticklish one. It is true that a Catholic who is feeling unfairly treated by his pastor can always appeal to his bishop, and that would be especially true regarding *access* to the Sacraments. But the ability to administer Sacraments is not a right, and the *feeling* of being denied such a right might at least suggest a disordered understanding of the role. I'm assuming the Sacrament you are referring to is the Eucharist, and the role that of Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (EM). These roles are servant roles, not leadership roles; and one should approach the role with a sense of being unworthy rather than worthy. It is hard for me to perfectly communicate what I'm trying to say, but perhaps an example would help a little. Many years ago my parish was celebrating the archbishop's consecration of our newly built church. The Mass was attended by many priests, which obviated the need for EMs. I overheard several EMs complaining that they would therefore be unable to participate as EMs at this very special occasion. This struck me as very wrong-headed. First, the word "extraordinary" is not an accident. It is intended to communicate the fact that the service of EMs is not intended to be the norm, but is intended only to assist the celebrating priest if insufficent priests are unavailable given the size of the congregation. Second, the sentiment suggests the placement of one's ego (i.e., the desire to be seen and understood as important) ahead of service to the Lord and his congregation. Much like the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, we should not focus on success or reward but instead on gratitude. The bottom line is that a complaint presented to the bishop could be seen by the bishop as confirmation of a pastor's assessment that the person is not correctly disoposed for the job. I know this might sound like a Catch 22, and perhaps it is, but if your friend is as faithful as you suggest, then I have a hunch if he thinks about this a bit, he'll realize that his best course of action is to serve the Lord in whatever way the Lord makes available to him, rather than seeking something that instead may be grounded in his own personal preference. This is not to say that the priest in this case is corrrect in his treatment of your friend. He may not be. Or he may be right for the wrong reasons. But the Lord has a way of providing opportunities to serve Him every day, even if most are only noticed by you and Him. It is those opportunities we should focus on.
Hope that helps a little.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Salvatore123 said:


> It's like people who say "irregardless". No such word...


Well, there it is, right there, a word. :icon_smile: And it's in the Oxford English Dictionary, albeit currently noted as non-standard and chiefly used in the United States.



> I suppose some people think that if you say it enough times, it will be accepted.


That is often how language grows. English in particular is always in flux. New words crop up, most fade away into the arcane, but some stick. Irregardless seems to be on its way to stay.

Now if someone could do something about the abuse of the at symbol by the "twitterati", _that_ would make _me _happy. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Eagle,
> The question is a ticklish one. It is true that a Catholic who is feeling unfairly treated by his pastor can always appeal to his bishop, and that would be especially true regarding *access* to the Sacraments. But the ability to administer Sacraments is not a right, and the *feeling* of being denied such a right might at least suggest a disordered understanding of the role. I'm assuming the Sacrament you are referring to is the Eucharist, and the role that of Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (EM). These roles are servant roles, not leadership roles; and one should approach the role with a sense of being unworthy rather than worthy. It is hard for me to perfectly communicate what I'm trying to say, but perhaps an example would help a little. Many years ago my parish was celebrating the archbishop's consecration of our newly built church. The Mass was attended by many priests, which obviated the need for EMs. I overheard several EMs complaining that they would therefore be unable to participate as EMs at this very special occasion. This struck me as very wrong-headed. First, the word "extraordinary" is not an accident. It is intended to communicate the fact that the service of EMs is not intended to be the norm, but is intended only to assist the celebrating priest if insufficent priests are unavailable given the size of the congregation. Second, the sentiment suggests the placement of one's ego (i.e., the desire to be seen and understood as important) ahead of service to the Lord and his congregation. Much like the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, we should not focus on success or reward but instead on gratitude. The bottom line is that a complaint presented to the bishop could be seen by the bishop as confirmation of a pastor's assessment that the person is not correctly disoposed for the job. I know this might sound like a Catch 22, and perhaps it is, but if your friend is as faithful as you suggest, then I have a hunch if he thinks about this a bit, he'll realize that his best course of action is to serve the Lord in whatever way the Lord makes available to him, rather than seeking something that instead may be grounded in his own personal preference. This is not to say that the priest in this case is corrrect in his treatment of your friend. He may not be. Or he may be right for the wrong reasons. But the Lord has a way of providing opportunities to serve Him every day, even if most are only noticed by you and Him. It is those opportunities we should focus on.
> Hope that helps a little.


Mike: You are a very wise teacher and your words are as thought provoking as they are instructive. Your assumption was correct...I was speaking of the Eucharist. Recognizing the wisdom represented in your response to my inquiry, I fear that the past advice I have offered to my friend has represented some of the baser aspects of my character and my advice was perhaps, less than constructive. If you don't mind, I will share your response with him. I too have benefited from your counsel...to be (perhaps) less reactive!

Thanks again,

Chuck (AKA: Eagle)


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree, Frank, that Salvatore probably misunderstood you. I read you as simply pointing out the fact that Christ's instruction was difficult to understand and caused confusion and discomfort from the very beginning -- nothing more. While Salvatore's subsequent point may be true it really was in any way contradictory or particularly responsive to your post.


Mike, that's for sure. I have problems with the RCC, but their system of sacraments isn't one of them. Even as a kid, Communion in my view was the real point of a mass service, and everything that came before it was just preparation. But as a teenager my faith matured, and I noticed that people who received this sacrament every week (or even every day) weren't any holier than people who didn't. I also realized that a person's holiness depends on whether they choose to seek and do the will of God, while Communion was often used (as in the EM example you cited) as a catalyst for spiritual pride. This certainly can't be what Jesus had intended when he instructed his apostles to "do this in remembrance of me". From the gospels Jesus rants more often and more vehemently against spiritual pride than anything else.

Also, aside from this issue of real presence, which will never be settled because it's a matter of faith, many priests over the years (including my own uncle) have explained Communion in entirely practical terms, i.e. a Catholic thinks twice about sinning, because sinning means going to Confession, which few people look forward to, and Confession is required before one can properly receive Communion again. So in purely practical terms this system of sacraments has spared people countless sins over the years.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Quay said:


> Well, there it is, right there, a word. :icon_smile: And it's in the Oxford English Dictionary, albeit currently noted as non-standard and chiefly used in the United States.
> 
> That is often how language grows. English in particular is always in flux. New words crop up, most fade away into the arcane, but some stick. Irregardless seems to be on its way to stay.
> 
> Now if someone could do something about the abuse of the at symbol by the "twitterati", _that_ would make _me _happy. :icon_smile_wink:


Ah, the tension between the descriptive and prescriptive functions of English words and grammar! You are right, Quay, that all languages, certainly including American English, are quite dynamic, and it is essential that changes are accomodated and in some cases even welcomed. That said, there is a difference between innovations that are not incompatable with existing rules versus those that are rule-breakers. Obviously, the former obtain acceptance more easily. The word "irregardless" falls more comfortably in the latter camp given the offensive use of the prefix "ir" serving to mean exactly the opposite of what "ir" does mean. Moreover, the word has no particular practical utility given the pre-existence of the more economical "regardless." Indeed, "irregardless" suffers from ridiculous pretense in that it is a word used for the purpose of sounding erudite that manages to accomplish its opposite. For these reasons I hope your prognosis is wrong about its future. I will say that I know no educated person who uses the word, though no doubt there must be a few. I do think that its use tends to mark one as ill-educated, and that kind of pejorative marker does tend to retard acceptance over time.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Mike, that's for sure. I have problems with the RCC, but their system of sacraments isn't one of them. Even as a kid, Communion in my view was the real point of a mass service, and everything that came before it was just preparation. But as a teenager my faith matured, and I noticed that people who received this sacrament every week (or even every day) weren't any holier than people who didn't. I also realized that a person's holiness depends on whether they choose to seek and do the will of God, while Communion was often used (as in the EM example you cited) as a catalyst for spiritual pride. This certainly can't be what Jesus had intended when he instructed his apostles to "do this in remembrance of me". From the gospels Jesus rants more often and more vehemently against spiritual pride than anything else.
> 
> Also, aside from this issue of real presence, which will never be settled because it's a matter of faith, many priests over the years (including my own uncle) have explained Communion in entirely practical terms, i.e. a Catholic thinks twice about sinning, because sinning means going to Confession, which few people look forward to, and Confession is required before one can properly receive Communion again. So in purely practical terms this system of sacraments has spared people countless sins over the years.


Agreed on all counts, Frank. You might be interested to know that many folks with a pre-Vatican II sensibility are uncomfortable with the current practice of pretty much the entire congregation receiving Communion while the Confession lines are short or non-existent. While I do indeed agree that Communion reception is a poor indicator of holiness, I think in most cases the phenomenon is simply a result of the combination of poor catechesis and thoughtless social expectations. It is good that God is forgiving. Indeed, mercy is my personal salvation strategy.


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

I do not normally venture over to the interchange, but I am glad I did. As a practicing Roman Catholic I have found the discussion excellent and appreciate those willing to share their thoughts.


----------



## Salvatore123 (Jan 11, 2009)

*Catholic Church and Latin*

Quay,

It is EXACTLY for the reason you cite, that the Catholic Church still uses Latin as its official language.

Latin is a "dead" language, that is, no one other than scientists and the Catholic Church use it on a regular basis. Thus, its words are not subject to different interpretations because they mean now exactly what they meant 2000 years ago (with, of course, some very minor exceptions - conversational Latin and ecclesiastical Latin differ in some respects).

English, on the other hand, is a bastardization of many languages. English has a huge influx of the Romance languages, but it also incorporates German, Dutch, and especially Celtic/Old English.

That is why we have some of the following ridiculous or confusing "words":

In the 1800's, "gay" meant happy and carefree. I do not know ANYONE who uses "gay" in that context any more.

The word "free" means "without restraint", but it also means that you received something without having to pay for it. Same word, same spelling, yet two entirely different meanings.

And why not just spell out "phone" - "fone"?

And Frank, at FIRST I thought you were attacking our belief in the Holy Eucharist, but when I re-read your post several times, I realized you were saying that people have been debating Jesus's meaning for 2000 years. While that may be true, the Catholic Church has never doubted Christ's presence as He meant it in John 6.

Here is where the "confusion" comes in: whenever the Catholic Church, either through the Pope speaking _ex cathedra_, or the Church speaking as a whole through its Magisterium (such as, Council of Nicea, Council of Trent, Vatican I), it is NOT setting forth anything "new". It is simply formulating a "truth" for the people alive at the time it speaks. The Church has always believed that the Holy Father was protected by the Holy Spirit from speaking heresy on matters of faith and morals. Just because it was not formulated into an official pronouncement during Vatican I in the latter part of the 1800's does not mean it was not true or not believed until Vatican I said so. The same goes for the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception. These are events that factually occurred 2000 years ago - the "fact" that the Church formulated a "teaching" on them many, many years later does not alter the FACT of their occurrence.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> ...given the offensive use of the prefix "ir" serving to mean exactly the opposite of what "ir" does mean. Moreover, the word has no particular practical utility given the pre-existence of the more economical "regardless."


The mangled prefix gives me the grumps, but that also comes from having been a Junior Classical League member. :icon_smile: I'm also a great fan of Strunk & White and Jacques Barzun and their attention to economy, simplicity and elegance of the written word. I also enjoy Mark Twain's comment about using big words when a small one serves just as well:

_"I never write metropolis for seven cents because I can get the same price for city. I never write policeman because I can get the same money for cop." _- the "Simplified Spelling" speech, first given in 1906.



> Indeed, "irregardless" suffers from ridiculous pretense in that it is a word used for the purpose of sounding erudite that manages to accomplish its opposite. For these reasons I hope your prognosis is wrong about its future. I will say that I know no educated person who uses the word, though no doubt there must be a few. I do think that its use tends to mark one as ill-educated, and that kind of pejorative marker does tend to retard acceptance over time.


My prediction is based on noting that politicians seem to be overfond of the word and goodness knows they also love "ridiculous pretense" to a degree that would make a carnival barker blush. This does not bode well for the rest of us.  Despite my observations, I will hope that the good, regular folks will not pick up this word and leave it alone so that it will fade away to only be recalled in the Congressional Record.

This aside does provide a road back to the original topic of this thread. One of the things that always attracted me to the Catholic Church was the liturgy of the high mass. It always struck me that since God was beyond the limits of human language that humans should pull out all the stops when it came to praise, worship and the celebration of sacraments. Go for baroque, even! The richness of language, the depth of the music and the entire celebration was exactly the time, in my mind, to reject the plain and go for the elaborate. While I appreciate the simple and serene nature of a Quaker meeting, and its architectural environs, I've always been more inclined to want to be overwhelmed by a high mass, not left thinking of things that might have been included.

Salvatore123, yes, Latin has many advantages over English for the Catholic Church. Having a relatively fixed lexicon certainly does help to keep the meaning of important terms stable over the ages. In communication of "aeternal verities" you can't do much better, at least in the Western world. But it is a handicap when the Church tries to talk about modern issues in official documents. As grumpy as I can get by badly prefixed words like "irregardless", the contortions are formidable and ugly that one has to do in Latin to, for example, talk about something as simple as whether or not to broadcast a mass on television. Latin does an excellent job of keeping liturgical and other maters such as Canon law pretty clear but thank heavens for the vernacular for everything else! :icon_smile:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Quay said:


> The mangled prefix gives me the grumps, but that also comes from having been a Junior Classical League member. :icon_smile: I'm also a great fan of Strunk & White and Jacques Barzun and their attention to economy, simplicity and elegance of the written word. I also enjoy Mark Twain's comment about using big words when a small one serves just as well:
> 
> _"I never write metropolis for seven cents because I can get the same price for city. I never write policeman because I can get the same money for cop." _- the "Simplified Spelling" speech, first given in 1906.
> 
> ...


Nice post, Quay. As much as I value Latin I do agree that its usage can present challenges when addressing certain modern concepts or developments. That said it isn't entirely clear to me whether the challenge lies in the limitations of Latin itself or the imperfections associated with the modern languages into which it must be inevitably be translated. Moreover, my hunch is that any built-in limitations are probably outweighed by its advantages.

Also, the word "policeman" does have utility insomuch as the word "cop" connotes a somewhat diminished respect. I'm all for as many word options as possible as long as they add value. Words that mean *almost* the same thing as another word are quite valuable (at least to those of us who value words). One of the problems I have with the word "irregardless" is that it adds no value whatsoever and is nonsensical at best (one might argue it is even self-contradictory). Even the nonstandard "ain't" has the benefits of (i) substituting one syllable for two and (ii) potentially conveying a deliberate or intended sense of informality. For the record, as an adopted Atlantan I use "y'all" routinely and without remorse. 
Cheers!


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Nice post, Quay. As much as I value Latin I do agree that its usage can present challenges when addressing certain modern concepts or developments.  That said it isn't entirely clear to me whether the challenge lies in the limitations of Latin itself or the imperfections associated with the modern languages into which it must be inevitably be translated. Moreover, my hunch is that any built-in limitations are probably outweighed by its advantages.


 (underline mine)

It has been a few years since I did any substantial Latin translation, but I think you're quite right when it comes to the problem of presenting contemporary concepts, developments and, in particular, devices. The limitation is Latin, as Salvatore123 noted, it being a "dead" language in that its vocabulary hasn't grown since around the 2nd century A.D. Since neologisms are impossible, anything new must be described in terms of its appearance, function or some combination of the two. This is what I was thinking about when I wrote of such "contortions being formidable and ugly." Modern languages are full of perfectly useful terms like television, phone and radio, but bringing these things into Latin is definitely problematic. It is also a problem in that Latin has not really fixed any standard phrases for these modern things and translational difficulties often occur when, for example, a translator is taking one of these "ugly" phrases into English, French and Mandarin. Unless the translator is almost hyper-aware of the nuances in these languages, some really funny things (at best!) can result.



> Also, the word "policeman" does have utility insomuch as the word "cop" connotes a somewhat diminished respect.


I think this was Twain's intent in that speech, as by that time he often had a police escort and was quite fond of poking fun at them pretty much any chance he could get. :icon_smile:



> I'm all for as many word options as possible as long as they add value. Words that mean *almost* the same thing as another word are quite valuable (at least to those of us who value words).


I value that as well and hope many others do. It is also pleasant to think of what it is to "add value" in this example such as choosing "cop" instead of "officer" or "policeman." One might want to show respect or give a dig of some kind, both valuable things depending on the context.



> One of the problems I have with the word "irregardless" is that it adds no value whatsoever and is nonsensical at best (one might argue it is even self-contradictory).


I agree, although it might be of some unintended value as it helps the listener or reader to identify the pretentious and the politicians. 



> Even the nonstandard "ain't" has the benefits of (i) substituting one syllable for two and (ii) potentially conveying a deliberate or intended sense of informality.


The ain't/isn't usage is something that was (and still is) endlessly discussed in my old area of study, English language and literature. It's pretty well settled that if the context supports an ain't then it is quite a fine thing to use it. But in standard use, isn't is preferable most of the time.



> For the record, as an adopted Atlantan I use "y'all" routinely and without remorse. Cheers!


As I recall, in Hotlanta it's the law. 

I'll close with another Twain quote:

_"A powerful agent is the right word: it lights the reader's way and makes it plain; a close approximation to it will answer, and much traveling is done in a well-enough fashion by its help, but we do not welcome it and applaud it and rejoice in it as we do when the right one blazes out on us.

"Whenever we come upon one of those intensely right words in a book or a newspaper the resulting effect is physical as well as spiritual, and electrically prompt: it tingles exquisitely around through the walls of the mouth and tastes as tart and crisp and good as the autumn-butter that creams the sumac-berry." _- from correspondence on William Dean Howells.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Agreed on all counts, Quay. Nice post.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

*Irregardless of whether it is proper grammar,*



Mike Petrik said:


> Ah, the tension between the descriptive and prescriptive functions of English words and grammar! You are right, Quay, that all languages, certainly including American English, are quite dynamic, and it is essential that changes are accomodated and in some cases even welcomed. That said, there is a difference between innovations that are not incompatable with existing rules versus those that are rule-breakers. Obviously, the former obtain acceptance more easily. The word "irregardless" falls more comfortably in the latter camp given the offensive use of the prefix "ir" serving to mean exactly the opposite of what "ir" does mean. Moreover, the word has no particular practical utility given the pre-existence of the more economical "regardless." Indeed, "irregardless" suffers from ridiculous pretense in that it is a word used for the purpose of sounding erudite that manages to accomplish its opposite. For these reasons I hope your prognosis is wrong about its future. I will say that I know no educated person who uses the word, though no doubt there must be a few. I do think that its use tends to mark one as ill-educated, and that kind of pejorative marker does tend to retard acceptance over time.


In law school, my friends and I took pleasure in sarcastically using "disirregardless." Too many people made no objection. We were dorks, but alas, we matured into laywers.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> In law school, my friends and I took pleasure in sarcastically using "disirregardless." Too many people made no objection. We were dorks, but alas, we matured into laywers.


I can appreciate the humor. There are many discomforting things about being a lawyer, but one advantage is that our collegues do tend to have a common appreciation for words and use them to achieve all manner of things, including humor.


----------

