Friday, August 31, 2012

Lucia Catholics in NZ need to be Catholic or leave the Church

A major problem with a lot of Catholics in the Church today is that they don't really know what it is that they are supposed to believe, or they know and they think it's quite acceptable to pick and choose for themselves.

Take Josie Pegani, for example, a woman who to me seems quite likeable and smart from what I've heard from her on the radio, who today on NewsTalkZB identified herself as Catholic. During a recent Sunday at Mass, she said she heard the Bishop's Letter to Generation Y on Marriage being read out, and she found herself quite cross by it.

"We are a broad church", she said, thus implying that it's ok for Catholics to think that same-sex marriage is fine. But the "broad church" is Anglican, not Catholic.

Don't you believe the Pope talks directly to God, quipped Sean Plunkett to her. That would have been a perfect teaching moment to say that the Pope, when teaching on faith and morals, speaks for God. And on marriage, the Pope has said many times that marriage is between a man and a woman... whoops!

The other night on NewsTalkZB, Pam Corkery said she was Catholic as well and fully supported same-sex marriage.

Megan Hands, NZ Policy Chair of the Young Nats, also Catholic and clueless. She wrote, on a guest post on Kiwiblog a couple of days ago:

Marriage is about life-long love and commitment. It is the foundation of a family and about bringing two families together. It is not something that should be entered into lightly. It is the pinnacle of recognising your relationship in a way that is intimate yet deliberately public.

Nothing about life-long commitment, love, the joining or two families is exclusively heterosexual. Under the current law, because I am heterosexual I can choose to either recognise my relationship in law under the civil union legislation, or I can choose to get married. Friends in same sex relationships cannot choose to enter into a marriage in the same way that I can simply because they are gay.

But you’re Catholic you say?

The Catholic faith teaches us to love thy neighbour as yourself or do unto others as you would have them do unto you; to be tolerant and accepting; and that God will be the judge of our actions rather than our fellow men on earth.

Pope Benedict XVI, the leader of the Catholic faith at this time, has repeatedly said the marriage can only be between a man and a woman. As an example, he said early early this year:

[P]ride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman. This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself.
The above, of course, led to worldwide condemnation that the Holy Father had said that gay marriage threatened the future of humanity.  Which is the danger with being Catholic and proclaiming the faith - it's counter-cultural.  We are going to get jumped on just for speaking the truth.  Which is probably why so many Catholics today don't live their faith, it's much easier not to.

However, if you want to consider yourself Catholic, it's very important to find out what the Church (through the Pope and the Bishops and the Magisterium) has to say about about your faith.

Pope Benedict XVI said recently of Judas, who betrayed Our Lord:

"The problem is that Judas did not leave, and his fault is that of falsehood, which is the mark of the devil."

Don't say you are Catholic and then support same-sex marriage, even though you know the the Church doesn't support it. Don't betray Our Lord in this way. Either find out what it is the Church says you are supposed to believe and believe it and proclaim it, or do the honest thing and leave if you cannot accept it! Be Catholic or be not, do not pretend, because as the Holy Father says, falsehood is mark of the devil.

20 comment(s):

Chris Sullivan said...

Being Catholic is not determined by what one thinks about this or that matter of Catholic doctrine (that speaks to degree of communion); it is determined by baptism. Lucia's opinion to the contrary is heresy and amounts to a direct denial of the creed's belief in the sacrament of baptism.

So there you are Lucia, you are hung on your own words, and can't say you are really Catholic, can you ? :)

Maybe you need to follow your own advice and leave the Church too ? :)

Or, better, just learn to live with your brothers and sisters who disagree with some aspect of Catholic teaching and give up attempts to drive them out of the Church.

the Pope, when teaching on faith and morals, speaks for God

The would require considerable qualification as the Church is adamant that those Popes who taught instrinsic evils such as slavery or torture were certainly NOT speaking for God.

Of course one can be a Catholic and support gay marriage; but such support would distance oneself somewhat from full communion with what the Church teaches.

God Bless

Chris Sullivan said...

Friends in same sex relationships cannot choose to enter into a marriage in the same way that I can simply because they are gay.

That is not correct. Gay people are perfectly free to enter marriage provided it is to someone of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination here on the basis of being gay. Simply a requirement that marriage, by it's nature, requires 1 man and 1 woman.

God Bless

DrCP said...

Well said Lucia

I think Catholic's need to be made aware that the day is coming when the electric fence they are trying to straddle gets turned on, to full amperage.

And it won't be pretty. But nothing worth it ever is.

DrCP

Lucia Maria said...

Chris,

I mean "be Catholic" in the way that you would say "be a man" to a man. There is no question that the man one would say this to is biologically so, however, living up to what is expected of a man (or a Catholic) is another thing.

I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot. But because you are lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit you out of my mouth.
~ Revelation 3:15-16

Revelation is somewhat uncompromising on this as well, don't you think?

"The would require considerable qualification as the Church is adamant that those Popes who taught instrinsic evils such as slavery or torture were certainly NOT speaking for God."

Which popes taught slavery or torture?

mzala said...

Lucia, there is no chance that 'they' will leave. From the pulpit, down to the pew, to the bishop's office.Why leave when you can do more damage whilst on the 'inside'? Just ask the LCWR and their liberal supporters.
Those who say "I am a Catholic" generally use this as a justification to contradict church teachings and the Holy Father.

"Of course one can be a Catholic and support gay marriage; but such support would distance oneself somewhat from full communion with what the Church teaches". What do you think this means if you die in this state Deacon Sullivan?

mzala said...

I wonder what percentage of those who disobey are contracepting or fornicating? Methinks there is a link. It's easier to disobey when you have compromised elsewhere. Before Judas's betrayal of Our Lord, he was thieving.

Andrei said...

I wonder what percentage of those who disobey are contracepting or fornicating?

Mzala - all who live a sinners, we disobey and as we grow we learn to repent, all of us at some point have betrayed the Church.

Even St Peter denied Christ as you will recall.

This is a difficult time for Christ's Church - it is a time for prayer

dad4justice said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Isumbras said...

Cafeteria Catholicism is the term that would describe it best Chris.....

Just Ignore the Pope and go with what 'feels right' for the individual...

It seems to be working for the Anglicans...

Would also like to know which pope taught Slavery & Torture?

mzala said...

Andrei
Correct, it is a time for prayer. It is also a time for truth.Catholic truth, which is Christ's truth. One of the spiritual works of mercy is instructing the ignorant, amongst others. Regarding the point you raise, I have lived that life for a very long time. I know what it's like and what sort of fruit it reaps. Sure, it's not about condemning etc. but speaking the truth in charity. Prayer of course must must underline all words and deeds. I am simply suggesting that (in all probability) there is a link between Catholics on contraception and support for homosexual marriage.

leftrightout said...

Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery could not be justified under natural law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law. As a consequence the Roman Catholic Church, up until the modern era, came to accept certain types of slavery as a social consequence of the current human condition, connected by some with original sin, but teaching that slaves should be treated humanely and justly.
Between the 6th and 12th century there was a growing sentiment that slavery was not compatible with Christian conceptions of charity and justice; some argued against slavery whilst others, including the influential Thomas Aquinas, argued the case for slavery subject to certain restrictions. The church did succeed in almost entirely enforcing that a free Christian could not be enslaved, for example when a captive in war, but this was not consistently applied throughout history, as in the case of Pope Paul III who sanctioned the enslavement of baptised Christians in Rome.

However when the Age of Discovery greatly increased the number of slaves owned by Christians, the response of the church, under strong political pressures, was confused and ineffective in preventing the establishment of slave societies in the colonies of Catholic countries. Papal bulls such as Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontifex and their derivatives, sanctioned slavery and were used to justify enslavement of natives and the appropriation of their lands during this era.


Does that help?

leftrightout said...

Mzala - all who live a sinners,

That may be your opinion, but it is not the truth. A growing number of us are not sinners as we reject outright your dated and ridiculous notion of "sin".

And as for the doctrine of "original sin", i have never seen a bigger cock and bull story, Adam and Eve were framed, they were patsies, set up to fail no matter what they did.

Isumbras said...

1462 Pius II declared Slavery a 'great crime'

1537 Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians

as did Urban VIII in 1639 & Benedict XIV in 1741

1815 Pius VII demanded of the congress of Vienna the suppression of the Slave Trade

1839 Condemned by Gregory XVI etc etc

I think the message from the top is pretty consistent and clear, that there were failures on the ground in the New World where communication was slow, undoubtedly. The subject is way too vast and nuanced to cover in a reply on a blog. But I think one could generally say that Slavery was back in it's box, it took the so called 'Enlightenment' to really crank it up to an Industrial intensity of misery...

ZenTiger said...

quote --
A growing number of us are not sinners as we reject outright your dated and ridiculous notion of "sin". --

Ah, this explains why you are so quick to throw those stones.

I'm interested in what you believe you are rejecting, because it isn't clear to me.


Seán said...

LRO said: "That [all who live are sinners] may be your opinion, but it is not the truth. A growing number of us are not sinners as we reject outright your dated and ridiculous notion of "sin"."

Hahahaha. Good luck with that.

Lucia Maria said...

LRO,

We've had these conversations on Adam and Eve, and Original Sin before.

In Why do bad things happen to good people? and Pope says science can unite humans with God.

You said "... Adam and Eve were framed, they were patsies, set up to fail no matter what they did."

Um, no, they were not framed - they were tested. If you notice in the story, God gives both Adam and Eve a chance to explain and say sorry for what they had done, and all they do is blame the snake or blame the other person. They didn't take any responsibility for what they have freely chosen to do.

As I said to you, nearly two years ago now, "Adam and Eve were not like us, not subject to concupiscence in which our will is subject to the desires of our flesh. They were in full control of their desires and their will. So a choice to disobey God was an outright act of supreme rebellion."

I'm sure that you can find many acts in your life that are an outright act of supreme rebellion against God, where you know what you are doing and do it anyway.

Chris Sullivan said...

There are papal bulls mandating torture in the inquisition and enslavement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanus_Pontifex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum_Diversas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_extirpanda

The evidence that Popes have (fallibly) taught intrinsic evil is incontrovertible.

God Bless

Lucia Maria said...

Chris,

Your evidence is flawed.

For instance, in the first you give, Romanus Pontifex (of 1455) wasn't a teaching document. It didn't "teach" anything about slavery. It did allow for King Alfonso to take captured Saracens as slaves, as well as take their property in conquest, but to say the the pope of the time was teaching slavery is a massive stretch.

The second papal bull, Dum_Diversas (of 1452), which came before the previous one, was much the same. Still not a teaching document, however.

Likewise, Ad Extirpanda (of 1252) authorising limited torture of accused persons whose guilt was almost certain, was not a teaching document either.

In all three cases you give, the popes involved were acting as rulers, and were not teaching on faith or morals. So, it's a little mischievous to imply that popes are not always correct on faith and morals, as you do in your first comment.

This comment replaces the much longer one that I wrote last night and seem to have lost, somehow!

Originz said...

In the OP, Megan Hands was quoted as saying “The Catholic faith teaches us … to be tolerant and accepting”. It is remarkable how often tolerance is represented as a virtue, when it is not.

Tolerance does not figure explicitly in the positive teachings of the Church – not in the Seven Corporal Works of Mercy, nor in the Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy, nor in the Seven Gifts of the Holy spirit, nor in the Twelve Fruits of the Holy Spirit, nor in the Four Cardinal Virtues, nor in the Three Eminent Good Works, nor in the Six Precepts of the Church, nor in the Three Evangelical Counsels, nor in any of the Four Pillars of the Catholic Faith (which includes the Ten Commandments).

At a stretch, one might see tolerance implicitly in two of the Spiritual Works of Mercy (to forgive all injuries, to bear wrongs patiently), and two gifts of the Holy Spirit (understanding, fortitude).

On the other hand, admonitions against tolerance are easily found among the negative precepts: in the Six Sins Against the Holy Spirit (resisting the known truth), and in at least four of the Nine Ways We Participate in Others’ Sins (by consent, by praise and flattery, by silence, by defence of the ill done).

Few of Jesus’ actions would be described as championing tolerance; more often the opposite.

Furthermore, the Church explicitly counsels us to take the opposite approach when encountering sin and falsehood: in the Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy (to counsel the doubtful, to instruct the ignorant, to admonish the sinner, to comfort the sorrowful). Indeed, if we neglect to undertake these works when able, we put not just the souls of the lost at risk, but also our own.

Lucia Maria said...

Thanks Originz, for addressing that point.

Tolerance is kind of a false virtue in today's times that everyone aims for, while ignoring the real virtues which are typically much harder to do.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.