The Scandals

[MC Just]

im not saying people who sin are heterodox, that would make everyone heterodox. I'm just saying that people who think and believe it's ok to dissent are heterodox.

I've experienced people like this, no matter how many times you open the catechism and or read them church history, they will not budge. They choose to defy church teachings.

[Cam42]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Jun 25 2005, 09:52 AM']Then what should we do? keep saying "all we need is love" and let the evil people take over? like weve been doing in this country all along?

We let the heterodox have their way with our church during the sick and disgusting 60's and 70's and we end up with the worst scandal in our history.

It's time to stop using "love, humility and charity" as excuses to sit back and do nothing.
[right][snapback]622816[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, that is not what I said. What we should do is rehabilitate them. Teach them right from wrong. Sins against chastity are wrong. Teach them that. If we have to start from the beginning, so be it. If not, they have already left.

We don't keep saying "All we need is love." We show them love and charity. We teach them right from wrong. Evil will not prevail, unless we let it.

Did we let the heterodox have their way? Was John Paul II heterodox? How about Paul VI and Bl. John XXIII? Is Bruskewitz? Is Dolan? Is Chaput? Is Burke? Is Carlson? There is good there too. Don't paint such a bleak picture.

Vatican Council II was necessary. The actions of a few cannot and should not dictate the whole of Catholicism. Yet that is the prevailing attitude.

Love them yes, but love them with an iron fist. Teach them, but be firm in the teaching. If they don't embrace it, then they have already left.

I agree that we should not use those things as excuses, but use them for that which they are....virtues. Teach virtue.

[MC Just]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 25 2005, 09:04 AM']No, that is not what I said.  What we should do is rehabilitate them.  Teach them right from wrong.  Sins against chastity are wrong.  Teach them that.  If we have to start from the beginning, so be it.  If not, they have already left.

We don't keep saying "All we need is love."  We show them love and charity.  We teach them right from wrong.  Evil will not prevail, unless we let it.

Did we let the heterodox have their way?  Was John Paul II heterodox? How about Paul VI and Bl. John XXIII?  Is Bruskewitz?  Is Dolan?  Is Chaput?  Is Burke?  Is Carlson?  There is good there too.  Don't paint such a bleak picture.

Vatican Council II was necessary.  The actions of a few cannot and should not dictate the whole of Catholicism.  Yet that is the prevailing attitude.

Love them yes, but love them with an iron fist.  Teach them,  but be firm in the teaching.  If they don't embrace it, then they have already left.

I agree that we should not use those things as excuses, but use them for that which they are....virtues.  Teach virtue.
[right][snapback]622835[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Thats understandable. I wasnt saying anything about those you mentioned above, of course they werent heterodox. I'm complaining about those who ignore the ones you mentioned. I believe Vatican II was necessary. I dont blaim all of catholicism either. I love the church too much, thats why im over defensive.

[Cam42]

Understood.....now how about stopping the complaining, as you assert earlier and teach, as I assert.

We seem to be in agreement.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Jun 25 2005, 09:01 AM']im not saying people who sin are heterodox, that would make everyone heterodox. I'm just saying that people who think and believe it's ok to dissent are heterodox.

I've experienced people like this, no matter how many times you open the catechism and or read them church history, they will not budge. They choose to defy church teachings.
[right][snapback]622834[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Don't you think that if those Church teachings are proven to be in error, people are entitled to dissent?

In 1633 Catholics were deemed heretics for dissenting from this teaching of the Holy Office:

"The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith. "

And which of the many versions of the Catholic catechism do you claim to be free from all error? Are any claimed to be infallible???

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 25 2005, 11:32 AM']RESPONSE:

Don't you think that if those Church teachings are proven to be in error, people are entitled to dissent?

In 1633 Catholics were deemed heretics for dissenting from this teaching of the Holy Office:

"The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith. "

And which of the many versions of the Catholic catechism do you claim to be free from all error?  Are any claimed to be infallible???
[right][snapback]622888[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Church cannot be in error!!!!!! We've been over this......wrapping two defeated arguments into one. Clever.

[Noel's angel]

can i just say a wee thing? Right, we stop homosexuals from entering the Seminary. I then said that they are hardly gonna say that they are homosexual if they wanted to get in. I was then told that they would if they were devout Catholic men. But surely if they were devout Catholic men, they wouldn't try to entre the seminary in the first place if they were homosexual. So, barring those who admit their homosexuality will not get rid of the problem.

[Jaime]

[quote]But surely if they were devout Catholic men, they wouldn't try to entre the seminary in the first place if they were homosexual.[/quote]

So you are saying that someone who is struggling with same sex attraction cannot be a devout Catholic man?

[Noel's angel]

No, not at all. I'm saying that he would know that it wouldn't be right for him to enter the Seminary. Of course someone who struggles with attraction to others of the same sex can be a devout Catholic.

[Jaime]

What about someone who is struggling with alcohol addiction? A guy is a recovering alcoholic but thinks he's called to the priesthood.

No go ?

[Noel's angel]

Your post reminds me of an incident actually that happened in a neighbouring diocese. The priest was a recovering alcoholic and he had sexual relations with a vunerable young male adult.

Back to the question. I was directing my statement towards Ermerite's comment that homosexuals should be preventeed from entering a Seminary. He said they should be barred, not me.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Jun 25 2005, 09:01 AM']im not saying people who sin are heterodox, that would make everyone heterodox. I'm just saying that people who think and believe it's ok to dissent are heterodox.

I've experienced people like this, no matter how many times you open the catechism and or read them church history, they will not budge. They choose to defy church teachings.
[right][snapback]622834[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

ANOTHER RESPONSE:

Isn't it OK to dissent form an erroneous teaching like this one (since reversed) that required a Catholic physician to permit both a mother and fetus to die in the case of ectopic (tubal) pregnancy?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, we have this admission:

"The teachings of the Catholic Church admit of no doubt on the subject. Such moral questions, when they are submitted, are decided by the Tribunal of the Holy Office. Now this authority decreed, 28 May, 1884, and again, 18 August, 1889, that "it cannot be safely taught in Catholic schools that it is lawful to perform . . . any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother." Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot. "

The fact that this teaching was reversed evidences that the original Church pronouncement by the Holy Office was in error.

Hang in there heterodoxy. Lives sometimes depend on it!

[Aloysius]

goodness gracious. the Church continues to teach that surgical operations DIRECTLY destructive of the life of the fetus are wrong, even if the mother is in danger by an ectopic pregnancy

it's the indirect surgery with the thomistic double effect concept that is acceptable. you may not directly harm the fetus, but doing surgery that may indirectly cause the death of the fetus is okay if absolutely necessary and every attempt is made to save both the mother and the child.

anyway, there is no greater love you know, than to give up your life
Saint Giana Baretta Molla, pray for us
[url="http://www.saintgianna.org/"]http://www.saintgianna.org/[/url]

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 25 2005, 01:44 PM']goodness gracious.  the Church continues to teach that surgical operations DIRECTLY destructive of the life of the fetus are wrong, even if the mother is in danger by an ectopic pregnancy

it's the indirect surgery with the thomistic double effect concept that is acceptable.  you may not directly harm the fetus, but doing surgery that may indirectly cause the death of the fetus is okay if absolutely necessary and every attempt is made to save both the mother and the child.

anyway, there is no greater love you know, than to give up your life
Saint Giana Baretta Molla, pray for us
[url="http://www.saintgianna.org/"]http://www.saintgianna.org/[/url]
[right][snapback]623165[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes indeed. As I mentioned ,the Church changed her teaching here and introduced the concept of "double effect" which really allowed for the killing of the fetus if that were necessary. (But it was termed an indirect killing).

Question. Might this same reasoning apply to the use of condoms to limit the spread of AIDS?

[Aloysius]

how can you INDIRECTLY use condoms???

there's no change in the teaching of the Church, there is a change in the surgery available. this is not the same type of surgery that was available back when your quote is from. the surgery they were talking about was directly taking the fetus and destroying the life of it. now, the surgery can be made as an attempt to remove a section of the tube and attempt to re-implant it in the uterus and patch up the tube.. much more sofisticated and much more ability to attempt to save the child (i'm not sure of the success rate of this, but even if it isn't very high or not at all the point is that we don't go cut the baby's head off.

alright, I'm going to show how we could apply the same thing to condoms. notice the other one, the surgery developed and so the teaching developed, the teaching did not change.

so, suppose in 50 years they have come out with a type of condom that filters out all STDs including HIV, but still allows the sperm through. the Church would probably support these types of condoms to prevent the spread of STDs and AIDS whole-heartedly. Now, people like you would be pulling up quotes about the Church's condemnation of condoms from this present day or maybe back even further into the 20th century... saying the teaching changed and the heterodox back then were correct. that would be clearly false, we're not talking about these super-magic condoms of the future right now.