How Many Catholics Actually Believe Like We Do?

[Socrates]

[quote name='southern california guy' post='1864241' date='May 11 2009, 02:24 PM']If they're not "good" Catholic's than they don't count?? [/quote]


[quote name='havok579257' post='1864279' date='May 11 2009, 03:50 PM']exactly

Yeah, who is a good catholic? Someone who fails at trying to be a catholic? Then none of us are good catholics.[/quote]
Sadly, most baptized "Catholics" nowadays either deliberately reject doctrines of the faith, or have not bothered to learn their Faith, or have been misinformed by bad catechesis. Many calling themselves "Catholic" on opinion polls in fact are simply those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church, yet have rarely or never set foot in church since confirmation.

No, politically-incorrect as it is to say so, such people's opinion doesn't "count" when one is looking for what the Catholic Church believes.

These folks are to be distinguished from those honestly making their best effort to learn and follow what the Magisterium teaches. Everyone sins, even the Pope. But someone who rejects or pays no attention to the teaching of the Magisterium is not Catholic in the full sense of the word.

You need to get over this idea that the Catholic beliefs are determined by some sort of democratic consensus.
The Church is not, never was, and never will be a democracy. Amen.

[Nihil Obstat]

Hm... quick and relevant question: Is somebody who has been excommunicated still considered a Catholic?

[southern california guy]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1864516' date='May 11 2009, 06:40 PM']You need to get over this idea that the Catholic beliefs are determined by some sort of democratic consensus.
The Church is not, never was, and never will be a democracy. Amen.[/quote]

But try visiting San Francisco, or Seattle and listen to the priests sermons. I think that you'll find that they're supportive of the homosexuals and "progressive theology". Isn't that because there are so many homosexuals in those areas and parishes -- and they influence what is taught by the Priests?

It seems like the Vatican isn't doing a very good job of controlling the church, and "beliefs" around the US are sort of being determined by democratic consensus -- or by whoever yells the loudest.

Edited May 12, 2009 by southern california guy

[Guest]

[quote name='southern california guy' post='1864601' date='May 11 2009, 09:56 PM']But try visiting San Francisco, or Seattle and listen to the priests sermons. I think that you'll find that they're supportive of the homosexuals and "progressive theology". Isn't that because there are so many homosexuals in those areas and parishes -- and they influence what is taught by the Priests?

It seems like the Vatican isn't doing a very good job of controlling the church, and "beliefs" around the US are sort of being determined by democratic consensus -- or by whoever yells the loudest. [/quote]

That's why I dont blame chriistians who run to non denominational churches who teach Gods word chapter by chapter and verse by verse. Not that catholics should run to these bible teaching churches but people who aren't catholic aren't going to come into the catholic churches when priest are "preaching" stuff contrary to the Bible.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Guest

[MithLuin]

It is easy to hold to the truth when no one challenges it. I'm sure you could find a Church teaching that everyone is in agreement with (in this day and age - which truths are 'unpopular' has varied throughout history).

In some countries in the world, saying that homosexual relations are wrong would be met with the equivalent of...'duh, of course they are!' In SoCal or the Bay Area...not so much. There is huge social pressure clamoring for acceptance on this issue. It is unfortunately true that not all priests stand firm on this issue and continue to preach the truth despite opposition.


I think the goal of finding out how many people are 'really' Catholic is about as suspect as trying to figure out how many of us are 'really' going to heaven. While I can certainly point out a person's error (if they are in error), that does not mean they aren't 'really' a Catholic. While they might be a bad theologian, there is more to the faith than that.

If someone has been formally excommunicated, that changes things. But being an unrepentant sinner (while certainly dangerous to one's soul!) does not result in an automatic excommunication.

There is much danger is sifting out the chaff from the wheat for God - that's his job! Being prideful and judgemental is a lot more likely to get us in trouble, so that while appearing to be 'good' Catholics, we are nothing of the sort.


That being said, the Church teaches these things, many faithful believe and live them, and in the areas that Americans commonly dissent, we have work to do.

Edited May 12, 2009 by MithLuin

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1864538' date='May 11 2009, 08:06 PM']Hm... quick and relevant question: Is somebody who has been excommunicated still considered a Catholic?[/quote]
Here's what Canon Law says about the penalty of excommunication:

[quote]Can. 1331 §1 An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1° to have any ministerial part in the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist or in any other ceremonies of public worship;

2° to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments ;

3° to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, functions or acts of governance.

§2 If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender:

1° proposing to act in defiance of the provision of §1, n. 1 is to be removed, or else the liturgical action is to be suspended, unless there is a grave reason to the contrary

2° invalidly exercises any acts of governance which, in accordance with §1, n.3, are unlawful;

3° is forbidden to benefit from privileges already granted;

4° cannot validly assume any dignity, office or other function in the Church

5° loses the title to the benefits of any dignity, office, function or pension held in the Church.

Can. 1332 One who is under interdict is obliged by the prohibition of Can. 1331 §1, nn. 1 and 2- if the interdict was imposed or declared, the provision of Can. 1331 §2, n. 1 is to be observed.

Can. 1333 §1 Suspension, which can affect only clerics, prohibits:

1° all or some of the acts of the power of order

2° all or some of the acts of the power of governance;

3° the exercise of all or some of the rights or functions attaching to an office.

§2 In a law or a precept it may be prescribed that, after a judgment which imposes or declares the penalty, a suspended person cannot validly perform acts of the power of governance.

§3 The prohibition never affects:

1° any offices or power of governance which are not within the control of the Superior who establishes the penalty;

2° a right of residence which the offender may have by virtue of office;

3° the right to administer goods which may belong to an office held by the person suspended, if the penalty is latae sententiae.

§4 A suspension prohibiting the receipt of benefits, stipends, pensions or other such things, carries with it the obligation of restitution of whatever has been unlawfully received, even though this was in good faith.

Can. 1334 §1 The extent of a suspension, within the limits laid down in the preceding canon, is defined either by the law or precept, or by the judgement or decree whereby the penalty is imposed.

§2 A law, but not a precept, can establish a latae sententiae suspension without an added determination or limitation; such a penalty has all the effects enumerated in Can. 1333 §1.

Can. 1335 If a censure prohibits the celebration of the sacraments or sacramentals or the exercise of a power of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever this is necessary to provide for the faithful who are in danger of death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever one of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of the power of governance; for any just reason it is lawful to make such a request.[/quote]

I think they are still considered Catholics. We don't re-baptize someone who has an excommunication lifted. They are like people who fall away from the faith, and basically excommunicate themselves. I don't mean excommunicate in legal terms, but in that they have removed themselves from communion with the Church.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1864516' date='May 11 2009, 08:40 PM']Sadly, most baptized "Catholics" nowadays either deliberately reject doctrines of the faith, or have not bothered to learn their Faith, or have been misinformed by bad catechesis. Many calling themselves "Catholic" on opinion polls in fact are simply those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church, yet have rarely or never set foot in church since confirmation.

No, politically-incorrect as it is to say so, such people's opinion doesn't "count" when one is looking for what the Catholic Church believes.

These folks are to be distinguished from those honestly making their best effort to learn and follow what the Magisterium teaches. Everyone sins, even the Pope. But someone who rejects or pays no attention to the teaching of the Magisterium is not Catholic in the full sense of the word.

You need to get over this idea that the Catholic beliefs are determined by some sort of democratic consensus.
The Church is not, never was, and never will be a democracy. Amen.[/quote]


My understanding was that anyone baptised in the catholic church is considered a catholic, period.

I never said or thought the catholic beliefs are a democratic process. Never once even came off that way.

[havok579257]

Part of the problem I think, about the gay issue is the catholic church(the hardcore followers anyways) are not consistant on issues. Like we protest about gay marriage and about gay adoption and about gay civil unions but it seems we turn a blind eye when it comes to things such as non-married adult couple adoptions, non-married adults living together, non-married adults having sex. I think if we fought just as hard against non-married couple things as we ddi against gay topics, it would come off better to people. Instead we turn a blind eye to somethings and protests others. Yes, we agnology un-married couple sex stuf and adoption is bad, but do we protest it? We only protests gay stuff. Makes us come off kind of hypocritical. I think be who fall away, lay people and the media would not be looking at catholics in such a bad light if we were consistant on issues across the board.

[Socrates]

[quote name='southern california guy' post='1864601' date='May 11 2009, 08:56 PM']But try visiting San Francisco, or Seattle and listen to the priests sermons. I think that you'll find that they're supportive of the homosexuals and "progressive theology". Isn't that because there are so many homosexuals in those areas and parishes -- and they influence what is taught by the Priests?

It seems like the Vatican isn't doing a very good job of controlling the church, and "beliefs" around the US are sort of being determined by democratic consensus -- or by whoever yells the loudest. [/quote]
Such priests are not teaching in accord with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, but directly defying it.

Maybe you need to try your hand at being Pope before being so quick to condemn him.
While personally, I wish the Vatican were more quick in punishing errant clergy myself, we need to keep in mind that the Pope has [i]the entire Church around the world[/i] to take care of, and probably cannot afford to micromanage in every place there is a problem.
Yes, there's a lot of chaffe grown up among the wheat in some places, and this is a scandal.
But rather than focus on forcibly removing bad bishops and priests (and perhaps risk creating open schism), the focus has been more on clearly teaching the truth. If you read the official Church documents, it's quite clear where the Vatican stands. Pope Benedict has made some very good recent appointments with new bishops, and also has been working very hard to bring the Pius X Society back into communion with Rome, and restore the old Latin Mass, moves which has been very unpopular with liberals. Whatever else might be said about them, such nonsense as you describe is basically never found among "Trads."

And are traditional orthodox parishes such as my own any less "the Church" than "progressive" left-coast parishes?

While I definitely sympathize with you regarding the liberal homo clergy, I keep getting the impression you're trying to use their sins to justify your leaving the Church.

[Socrates]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1864844' date='May 12 2009, 12:29 AM']My understanding was that anyone baptised in the catholic church is considered a catholic, period.

I never said or thought the catholic beliefs are a democratic process. Never once even came off that way.[/quote]
Everyone validly baptized is a member of the Church as Christ's Mystical Body, and can be considered members of the Church in that sense, but if they have rejected, or never learned, the Church's teachings, their beliefs cannot be considered those of the Church.

My second remark was directed more at SoCal Guy. He seems to keep implying that the Church's beliefs have changed regarding homosexuality, etc., based on errant local clergy.

[quote name='havok579257' post='1864853' date='May 12 2009, 12:35 AM']Part of the problem I think, about the gay issue is the catholic church(the hardcore followers anyways) are not consistant on issues. Like we protest about gay marriage and about gay adoption and about gay civil unions but it seems we turn a blind eye when it comes to things such as non-married adult couple adoptions, non-married adults living together, non-married adults having sex. I think if we fought just as hard against non-married couple things as we ddi against gay topics, it would come off better to people. Instead we turn a blind eye to somethings and protests others. Yes, we agnology un-married couple sex stuf and adoption is bad, but do we protest it? We only protests gay stuff. Makes us come off kind of hypocritical. I think be who fall away, lay people and the media would not be looking at catholics in such a bad light if we were consistant on issues across the board.[/quote]
I disagree.

The fact is that most of those orthodox Catholics who oppose homosexuality also oppose other sexual immorality (fornication, porn, contraception, etc.), while those liberals who are okay with homosexuality, generally have basically a lax "anything goes" attitude toward sex in general.
At my parish (generally orthodox and "conservative") the priests are all against homosexuality, yet preach more frequently against contraception and other sexual sins (these being more prevalent).
And yes, the Church has gotten plenty of flack over the past several decades over its "repressive" and "unenlightened" views on sexual matters like contraception.
Homosexuality is simply the latest battle.

The homosexual issues are just more prominent, with the current political push for homosexual "marriages," "unions" etc., and with homosexuals actively protesting the Church.
I don't think it's the Church, but the homosexual movement, that's the true aggressor here. Homosexuals are now actively and aggressively fighting to have their perversion seen as legitimate, and the Church is merely standing firm on what She has always taught.

Of course, there would not be so much acceptance of homosexuality among "liberal Catholics" and society at large, if there was not first so much acceptance of "heterosexual immorality" and the contraceptive mentality.
The truth is that it's the same theological liberals who support other sexual immorality that are now supporting homosexuality.

[telcom_girl]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1855701' date='May 2 2009, 06:07 PM']It seems like more in the older, and younger generation. My generation is hit and miss. It's one of the reasons I started an apologetics course for our Catholic Women's League. Part of the problem is inadequate catechism.[/quote]

I agree with you 100% on the catechism. A good catechist is a treasure.