VIRTUS/TAT, too explicit?

[jasJis]

Yeah, it's too explicit. Yeah these programs that are offensive have been around for years. I ran across it about 8 years ago with my kids in 'catholic' schools. I'm one of those weird parents who talk to their kids about sex. It was brought to my attention when my kid was creeped out during the first week. The school just brought it in with no notice. We would think the catholic shool would have some sort of standards. Finally, faced with a mutiny, the nun prinicpal and a priest (not the pastor or asst. pastor) met with parents after the 2nd or 3rd week. We were told it was approved by the USCCB and the local Bishop. Tough. We could pull our kids out of the sex ed class or the school.

If you think the all or the vast majority of bishops, priests, and nuns are really doing what they are supposed to be doing, you haven't been reading the news, reading catholic media, or reading posts here at phatmass. A lot of bishops, priests, and nuns are good, holy, christian, people, but many, many, many are not. How did something like this get USCCB approval? How do entire Dioceses adopt this? How does this get implemented in parish after parish? How can a program that is disturbingly WRONG at many levels, goes against common sense and 'official' catholic teaching become a program of the catholic church? How do entire seminarian programs become gay oriented? How do bishops get away with excacerbating the problem of sexually abusive priests without the 'upper management' doing something?

Open you eyes and mind and admit the truth. Divine guidance and holiness is not as overwhelming in the catholic church as the catholic church would have you believe. Be a Christian first, a catholic if it falls in line with being a Christian.

Edited May 14, 2006 by jasJis

[Era Might]

[quote name='jasJis' post='980858' date='May 14 2006, 09:32 AM']
How do entire seminarian programs become gay oriented? How do bishops get away with excacerbating the problem of sexually abusive priests without the 'upper management' doing something? Open you eyes and mind and admit the truth. Divine guidance and holiness is not as overwhelming in the catholic church as the catholic church would have you believe. Be a Christian first, a catholic if it falls in line with being a Christian.
[/quote]

Catholicism is Christianity. There is no distinction. It's either Catholicism or nothing. I would sooner become a pagan than a Protestant. And that's no slight on Protestants. It's just the only logical step if Catholicism is not true.

How do those things happen? Sin. Scandal. Blindness. Tepidity. Misguided compassion.

If the Arian crisis doesn't shake my faith, Priests talking about touching isn't going to. This is the reality of sin. It tears its way through the Church in every age, some more than others. If we can't handle that, it is what it is. But the Kingdom of God suffers violence, and the violent bear it away (Matthew 11:12).

[quote]The whole world awoke with groan to find itself Arian.

--St. Jerome[/quote]

You look at sin and see a lack of Divine guidance. I look at sin and see Divine guidance in all its glory. The Faith and the Church remain intact, whether it's in Avignon or Rome. Every generation dies off, and God continues His plan of redemption. This, too, shall pass.

The real question is, what will we do in response? As I told Rod Dreher recently, we can leave the Church. God will, of course, get someone else to do his work. But that person will get the crown of glory, and we will not. Every problem in the Church is another opportunity for YOU to step up to the plate and be the Saint that God has called you to be. Or you can run and hide. The choice is always ours.

Edited May 14, 2006 by Era Might

[jasJis]

[quote name='Era Might' post='980862' date='May 14 2006, 07:41 AM']
Catholicism is Christianity. There is no distinction. It's either Catholicism or nothing. I would sooner become a pagan than a Protestant. And that's no slight on Protestants. It's just the only logical step if Catholicism is not true.

How do those things happen? Sin. Scandal. Blindness. Tepidity. Misguided compassion.

If the Arian crisis doesn't shake my faith, Priests talking about touching isn't going to. This is the reality of sin. It tears its way through the Church in every age, some more than others. If we can't handle that, it is what it is. But the Kingdom of God suffers violence, and the violent bear it away (Matthew 11:12).
You look at sin and see a lack of Divine guidance. I look at sin and see Divine guidance in all its glory. The Faith and the Church remain intact, whether it's in Avignon or Rome. Every generation dies off, and God continues His plan of redemption. This, too, shall pass.[/quote]You haven't been a parent for a few decades, have you?

It's telling that you'd rather be a Pagan than a Protestant. That is the logical step for you when you find out you're fantasy of what 'catholicism' is, is really a fantasy. If you realize that Christianity is about fullfillment of Godliness, and being 'catholic' is a human attempt to live that fullfillment, then you'd have no problem rejecting the warts within the Christian 'religions' and choose to be Christian regardless of membership in a human religious/social club.

[Era Might]

There can be no distinction between Catholicism and Christianity. If someone chops your son's arm off, and gives it to you, is that your son? Will you be content to take the arm to baseball games and tuck in it at night? No, it's not your son. Your son is either there or he isn't. You can't chop him up and distribute him. He is not a collection of parts, he is a PERSON. And so is the Church.

This is not about "being a parent". Your children will not answer for you when you die. They won't be responsible for your decision to leave the Church. And they won't be your excuse. You make your decisions, and you alone.

When someone gets married, they accept a person as they are. You may find out your wife has a drinking problem, and she's not that nice when she wakes up in the morning, and she suffers from the disease of kleptomania. But her problems do not discredit the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, because the Sacrament is over and above the sinful people who enter into it. And it would be a cowardly thing to toss your wife to the side because she's not perfect like you thought she was. Her problems are what? They're an opportunity for you to love her all the more, and to hold firmly to the covenant you made with her, and to give your own flesh for her betterment. Or you could go marry someone else. But you will have betrayed what is true, your marriage.

Edited May 14, 2006 by Era Might

[Cam42]

[quote name='Era Might' post='980869' date='May 14 2006, 10:03 AM']
There can be no distinction between Catholicism and Christianity. If someone chops your son's arm off, and gives it to you, is that your son? Will you be content to take the arm to baseball games and tuck in it at night? No, it's not your son. Your son is either there or he isn't. You can't chop him up and distribute him. He is not a collection of parts, he is a PERSON. And so is the Church.

This is not about "being a parent". Your children will not answer for you when you die. They won't be responsible for your decision to leave the Church. And they won't be your excuse. You make your decisions, and you alone.

When someone gets married, they accept a person as they are. You may find out your wife has a drinking problem, and she's not that nice when she wakes up in the morning, and she suffers from the disease of kleptomania. But her problems do not discredit the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, because the Sacrament is over and above the sinful people who enter into it. And it would be a cowardly thing to toss your wife to the side because she's not perfect like you thought she was. Her problems are what? They're an opportunity for you to love her all the more, and to hold firmly to the covenant you made with her, and to give your own flesh for her betterment. Or you could go marry someone else. But you will have betrayed what is true, your marriage.
[/quote]

I couldn't agree more.

[quote name='jasJis' post='980864' date='May 14 2006, 09:54 AM']
You haven't been a parent for a few decades, have you?

It's telling that you'd rather be a Pagan than a Protestant. That is the logical step for you when you find out you're fantasy of what 'catholicism' is, is really a fantasy. If you realize that Christianity is about fullfillment of Godliness, and being 'catholic' is a human attempt to live that fullfillment, then you'd have no problem rejecting the warts within the Christian 'religions' and choose to be Christian regardless of membership in a human religious/social club.
[/quote]

Ja know Jas,

This schtick is getting kinda old.....railing on the Church for no apparent reason other than to rail on the Church. You have given no, and I mean no sustainable proof. Just because you are disillusioned for some God-forsaken reason is no excuse to dismiss being Catholic as a fantasy. Please stop with the outrageous statements, unless you plan on backing them up, Jas.....you are looking silly with those statements.

Also, one doesn't need to be a parent to be able to speak to parenting. That is the classic fallacy which states that only one who has been crazy can only help a crazy person. NO WAY, NO HOW....

What I can tell you is this....I think that sex ed should be left to the parents. However, some parents need to be educated and that I do support. Those persons though should be taught in accord with current Catholic teaching and catechetical support. As I have said before, the basis for this needs to be nothing more than the Catechism and the Bible.

If you don't like that answer, fine, however, the Church is very clear on this. If you choose not to accept that, it is on you. I will continue to defend the 2000 year consistent view, as opposed to your >70 year view. I think that the Church knows a bit more than you.

[jasJis]

Wrong. If there were no distinction between Catholicism and Christianity that you would have to say the idea Christianity is flawed because Catholicism would have to be perfect as well. Christianity is more and less than what the Catholic Church is. My child's sins are seperate from who my child is.

Cam,
Please define who/what the catholic church is and we can discuss it from there. Is not the USCCB the catholic church too? Is not the USCCB part of the Magesterium of the Catholic Church?

Since this sex-ed program is approved by the USCCB, it's perfect and I should accept it? I KNOW that's not what you are saying. This sex-ed program is not right or morally neutral. It's church politics that got it approved and where it's at. If one is a Christian before being a "Catholic", you can make that distinction. I'm not into worshiping a denomination and accepting it because a few bishops said it was 'good' and 'moral'. Now if that is what it takes to be a Catholic, I'll burn my membership card.

Edited May 14, 2006 by jasJis

[Cam42]

[quote name='jasJis' post='981030' date='May 14 2006, 03:32 PM']
Wrong. If there were no distinction between Catholicism and Christianity that you would have to say the idea Christianity is flawed because Catholicism would have to be perfect as well. Christianity is more and less than what the Catholic Church is. My child's sins are seperate from who my child is.

Cam,
Please define who/what the catholic church is and we can discuss it from there. Is not the USCCB the catholic church too? Is not the USCCB part of the Magesterium of the Catholic Church?

Since this sex-ed program is approved by the USCCB, it's perfect and I should accept it? I KNOW that's not what you are saying. This sex-ed program is not right or morally neutral. It's church politics that got it approved and where it's at. If one is a Christian before being a "Catholic", you can make that distinction. I'm not into worshiping a denomination and accepting it because a few bishops said it was 'good' and 'moral'. Now if that is what it takes to be a Catholic, I'll burn my membership card.
[/quote]

Jee Jas, I thought that you already burned your membership card....good to know that there is still some hope.

You know, as well as I do, who the Catholic Church is. The USCCB is an orgainzation which is sanctioned by the Church. So, no, the USCCB is not the Catholic Church. The members of the USCCB are part of the heirarchy of the Church. Techincally, the Church is the society that Jesus Christ founded, and was given the Greek name [i]Ecclesia[/i].

The Church is a society formed of living men, not a mere mystical union of souls. As such it resembles other societies. Like them, it has its code of rules, its executive officers, its ceremonial observances. Yet it differs from them more than it resembles them: for it is a supernatural society. The Kingdom of God is supernatural alike in its origin, in the purpose at which it aims, and in the means at its disposal. When we regard the Church simply as the society of disciples, we are considering its external form only. Its inward life is found in the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, the gifts of faith, hope, and charity, the grace communicated by the sacraments, and the other prerogatives by which the children of God differ from the children of the world.

We can see the Church as threefold:

1. A Divine Society
2. God's Temple
3. Bride of Christ

Most of the analogy can be found in three New Testament writings: St. Paul's Letters to the Ephesians and 1 & 2 Corinthians.

Getting back to the issue.....the bishop's can and do make mistakes, they are human after all. And I have publicly disagreed with the VIRTUS program. With that being the case, I have also publicly disagreed with other aspects of the USCCB, but then again, I am able to do that because it is not the Church, simply a committee of members of the heirarchy of the Church. Any one group of bishops cannot be infallible UNLESS they are joined either to the Holy Father's position or the position of the whole of the episcopacy world wide with the support of the Holy Father.

One is not being Christian before being Catholic, they are synonymous. One cannot be one, without the other. If one claims Christianity without being Catholic, one is not fully Christian. It is only fulfilled within the Church. As the Catechism states:

[quote name='CCC #2030']It is in the Church, in communion with all the baptized, that the Christian fulfills his vocation. From the Church he receives the Word of God containing the teachings of "the law of Christ." From the Church he receives the grace of the sacraments that sustains him on the "way." From the Church he learns the example of holiness and recognizes its model and source in the all-holy Virgin Mary; he discerns it in the authentic witness of those who live it; he discovers it in the spiritual tradition and long history of the saints who have gone before him and whom the liturgy celebrates in the rhythms of the sanctoral cycle.[/quote]

You don't need to base everything on one bishop or simply a few....you need to base it on the whole of the episcopacy in union with the Holy Father.

[quote name='CCC #2034']The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice." The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.[/quote]

Again, if you don't like it, fine, however, platitudes will not suffice any longer.....if you are going to call Catholicsm a fantasy, you will need to back it up.....if you are going to arbitrarily slam the Catholic Church, then you need to back it up....if not, someone will call you out, whether it be me or someone else.....I don't want you to look foolish any longer.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Cam42' post='981047' date='May 14 2006, 02:02 PM']
Jee Jas, I thought that you already burned your membership card....good to know that there is still some hope.[/quote]Even when you grab a tiger by the tail, there's still hope.


[quote]The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.[/quote]If a Bishop has not be 'decommissioned' than I assumed they are in communion with the Magesterium. I also don't get the distinction that the USCCB, which is made up of Bishops is or isn't [i]part[/i] of the Church.

[Cam42]

[quote name='jasJis' post='981083' date='May 14 2006, 04:27 PM']
If a Bishop has not be 'decommissioned' than I assumed they are in communion with the Magesterium. I also don't get the distinction that the USCCB, which is made up of Bishops is or isn't [i]part[/i] of the Church.
[/quote]

There is no decommissioning of a bishop, but I suggest that you do some study on the charism of infalliblity. Perhaps if you do that, you'll understand what I am getting at. It would take WAY too long to get into that and it is not the function of this thread. If you would like to resurrect it, I am certain there was a thread on this about a year ago. Happy Hunting.

When you look at an entity, do you automatically equate the members of the commission as the commission itself? An example......my father is the Executive Vice-President (administrative head) of a power cooperative in Northern Iowa. The Board of Directors are a policy board which ratify the operations of the cooperative. The cooperative is made up of the various communities. However, no one member nor my father is the cooperative itself.

What you are misunderstanding is that you think that any given bishop is the USCCB. That is incorrect. There is no one bishop who is the USCCB. Essentially, the USCCB is a policy board which ratifies the operations of the dioceses of the United States. Then the bishops go back and implement the policies. However, no one member of the USCCB is the USCCB, just like no one member of the Church is the Church. However, when all of the members of the Church come together, the Church is there; and the Pontiff is the visible head.

Again, when all the bishops of the world come together and act as a single entity in union with the Holy Father, then they act as a part of the Magisterium.

Again, I would suggest that you study the charism of infallibility.

[Socrates]

Well stated, Cam.

[jasJis]

In otherwords, the USCCB is not infallible and should not be obeyed without question and it's fine to disagree with them?

[Socrates]

[quote name='jasJis' post='981189' date='May 14 2006, 07:12 PM']
In otherwords, the USCCB is not infallible and should not be obeyed without question and it's fine to disagree with them?
[/quote]
No, the USCCB is not infallible.

[Cam42]

[quote name='jasJis' post='981189' date='May 14 2006, 09:12 PM']
In otherwords, the USCCB is not infallible and should not be obeyed without question and it's fine to disagree with them?
[/quote]

No. Where did I say anything about obedience or disobedience to the bishops? Your platitudes are really petty and childish. How about an informed discussion, that would be nice.

We owe deference to our local Ordinaries. Insofar as the USCCB is a commission of our Catholic bishops, we owe respect to said commission. While they are not infallible, as a matter of policy making and as a matter of representation, we do owe them our obedience.

[jasJis]

I'm trying to be plain, not childish. I'm being asked these questions and cannot answer.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around what weight I should give the USCCB and when. This matters as the example in this thread. Even you, Cam, pointed out the problem with this USCCB approved sex ed program not being faithful to a reasonable understanding of Church teacings in the Catechism.

[Cam42]

[quote name='jasJis' post='981251' date='May 14 2006, 10:59 PM']
I'm trying to be plain, not childish. I'm being asked these questions and cannot answer.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around what weight I should give the USCCB and when. This matters as the example in this thread. Even you, Cam, pointed out the problem with this USCCB approved sex ed program not being faithful to a reasonable understanding of Church teacings in the Catechism.
[/quote]

Yes, there is a problem with it, but that doesn't mean that I don't respect the USCCB. I don't advocate anarchy, but rather informed discussion and responsible ammendment to the policies which they enact.

Again, I think that you need to do a little study in order to understand the discussion.....I must assume a modicum of understanding of the charism of infallibility, and workings of the USCCB, in order to hold this conversation. If you don't understand, perhaps it is better to study and read rather than try and continue the conversation with one-liners and platitudes.....and being your "being plain" is coming off as childish. Your "plain" statements are rude and knowing your positioning on this board, are offensive. Please be respectful of the Catholics on this board. I am not playing your little "let's slam the Church through passive-aggressive statements" game.