The Church's real enemies

[toledo_jesus]

it's a really poorly written book...she uses the word 'enraged' or some variant every couple sentences. It really makes me wonder why, if Anger is a sin, people listen to these 'enraged' "sweater sisters" as I like to call them. It seems to me that their apoplectic ranting would be against the tone of their notion of what the Church should be.
Fie on them.

[dspen2005]

[QUOTE]
IT's full of erroneous theology and colored information. Even more disturbing is the fact that there are so many religous people who seem to be backing these feminist ideas. One of the sisters actually said this about the church taking sides on political issues: "The church should guide us in faith, but trust the lay people to work out the details"


[b]THe problem with this rationale is that the Church -- in its mystical sense is heaven on Earth and as such is perfect, free from error, is indefectibly holy. Man because of original sin, falls short of this standard. And so, Holy Mother Church is there to guide and help us in this world of relativism, syncretism, and deceit. If lay people could work out the details, would Christ had to have been "conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified, died and buried"?[B]

[QUOTE]
The author also touch on the issue that apparently you can be pro-choice and anti-abortion. This is what the founder of CFFC explains. She says that while she is against abortion she belives people should have a choice as to whether or not they want to have an abortion and the Church should never condem anyone that has had one. By this logic if i wanted to shoot my dog I should be allowed to..it's my right; I highly doubt PETA would see it that way. If i marched down the street in front of their building with a sign saying "I shot my dog" I'm certian the friendly norfolk cops would come escourt me elsewhere.


[/b]uhm, can one be in the KKK and not be a bigot?[/B]

[/QUOTE]
In the chapter about homosexuality again she uses the term condem; which i think is harsh. I used to be southern baptist, I've seen condemnation; i've heard all about fire and brimstone. Never have i ever heard any of the priests i know or orthodox catholics using that word when refering to women who have had abortions or homosexuals. ONLY FROM THESE LIBERALS when they disparage tthe church for not being more "accepting."

[b]I dont see the condemnation either. Maybe, craftygrl can give us any examples from the book -- if any -- of the Church's condemnation of homosexuality. I doubt that there are any authentic examples b/c the Church does not condemn homosexuality [i]per se[/i] but declares, infallibly, that the homosexual acts are inherently disordered, violating Natural Law, ergo God's Law. This is not an outright condemnation, but a declaration made for the good of the souls of the faithful. Morality is there to prevent the lower inclinations of man from surfacing, or to guide man in leading a life pleasing to the sight of God.[B]

[QUOTE]
On contraception of course the CFFC paints the church to be heartless when they deal with women in Africa with AIDS. "The bishops should support condoms; for the sake of the people; to prevent the spread of this terrible disease." There is no doubt that AIDS is terrible but we are dealing with a much larger epidemic: the increase of causal sex with more than one partner. I understand that many of these African tribes have differing morals HOWEVER maybe we should start treating the problem rather than just the symptom. In the same breathe teh author declares that if the church would just support contraception than fewer babies would have to die from abortion. This idea is UNFOUNDED and completely false. I submit that if contraceptioon was made even more accessible and the last strong hold, the church, backed down that there would be MORE abbortions. For the past 20 years contraception has been refined and become the norm and i wonder what's happened to the rate of abbortions. Not to mention that many oral contraceptives are abortifacitants themselves.

[/b]In the late 90s, or even in as early as 2-3 years ago, when the pandemic of HIV/AIDS in Africa came to the international stage, many journalists and groups called upon the Holy Father, JOhn Paul II, to reevaluate the Church's stance on contraception in light of the AIDS crisis in Africa. These individuals, failing to realize that the Holy Father cannot alter/change Church doctrine, were sorely disappointed when he did not budge on the Church's stance. Immediately, though, the media pounced on him declaring that John Paul II was killing people and causing more to die from AIDS (paraphrasing here). The problem with these reporters is that they did not take into account the totality of the Holy Father's statement. Yes, he did retract/change the Church's position on contraception (well, because he can't); but he did say that moral clarity is required of the people in there sexual activity. He recognized and emphasized the dire need of responsible and healthy sexuality, w/in the context of monogamous marriage. What is even more intriguing is that Nigeria, I believe, (and do correct me if I am wrong) implemented an abstinence program, with the adamant support of the Catholic bishops there, and HIV/AIDS has dropped significantly as a result. so I would say, "TAKE THAT SISTER!"[/B]

[QUOTE]
There was a quote from sister jeanine garmick "the Church ideas should reflect the voice of the people." NO sister it should not. It never has and it never will. When Jesus was alive did he reflect the voice of his people, the Jews?? OF COURSE NOT! His message was unpopular and so is the Church's with many people. This is not a democracy.

[B]Sister is giving a serious misrepresentation of a famous quote, -- vox populi, vox Dei--this only holds true when the people, aka faithful, are in communion with God's Church. There is a concept of the infallibility of the faithful but it rests on the aforementioned caveat. the faithful must in full communion with the orthodox teaching of Holy Mother Church. Sister Garmick, has been silenced by the church, and so she is feeling a bit bitter, I would assume.[B]


***craftygrl06, when u are done give me the title again so I can see if the library has it..... i wouldn't mind reading it -- for a reaffirmation of what I don't want to see become of the Church.....****

Edited May 30, 2005 by dspen2005

[dspen2005]

ok, guys... i apologize for my last post.... i have yet to master the use of how to bold, quote certain passages and respond, etc... please pardon my ignorance.... mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa....

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='May 30 2005, 02:19 PM'] uhm, can one be in the KKK and not be a bigot?[/B]
[/quote]
only if you are trying to bring it down from the inside...

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 27 2005, 10:11 PM'] Intelligent dissent, the worst enemy of any Church. [/quote]
How is this dissent "intelligent"?

Are you anti-Catholic now?

[Qoheleth]

Intellectual would have been a better word. On average, the intelligentsia has only disdain for Christianity, much more so traditional Catholicism. And the intelligentsia within the Church is with few exceptions not excluded from this.

[journeyman]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='May 30 2005, 01:19 PM']
[QUOTE]
There was a quote from sister jeanine garmick "the Church ideas should reflect the voice of the people." NO sister it should not. It never has and it never will. When Jesus was alive did he reflect the voice of his people, the Jews?? OF COURSE NOT! His message was unpopular and so is the Church's with many people. This is not a democracy.

[B]Sister is giving a serious misrepresentation of a famous quote, -- vox populi, vox Dei--this only holds true when the people, aka faithful, are in communion with God's Church. There is a concept of the infallibility of the faithful but it rests on the aforementioned caveat. the faithful must in full communion with the orthodox teaching of Holy Mother Church. Sister Garmick, has been silenced by the church, and so she is feeling a bit bitter, I would assume.[B]


[/quote]
or the concept of sensus fidei . . . perhaps failing to realize that "all" the people are not yet in agreement

91 All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them[53] and guides them into all truth.[54]
92 "The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals."[55]
93 "By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),. . . receives. . . the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. . . The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life."[56]

Cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27.
Cf. Jn 16:13.
LG 12; cf. St. Augustine, De praed. sanct. 14, 27: PL 44, 980.
LG 12; cf. Jude 3.

[Mikhail]

Book burnings? Yea, that will really solve the problem. Solve it like blowing up an abortion clinic would. You don't have to read these books. In order to burn it you'd have to buy it which would only give them more money to print more. Ignoring it would be much more effective.

[Qoheleth]

But book burnings are much more fun than ignoring it.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='journeyman' date='May 30 2005, 05:20 PM'] or the concept of sensus fidei . . . perhaps failing to realize that "all" the people are not yet in agreement

91 All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them[53] and guides them into all truth.[54]
92 "The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals."[55]
93 "By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),. . . receives. . . the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. . . The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life."[56]

Cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27.
Cf. Jn 16:13.
LG 12; cf. St. Augustine, De praed. sanct. 14, 27: PL 44, 980.
LG 12; cf. Jude 3. [/quote]
what are you saying? that only applies if the people are in communion with the Church...and anyone with these views is not.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Mikhail']Book burnings? Yea, that will really solve the problem. Solve it like blowing up an abortion clinic would. You don't have to read these books. In order to burn it you'd have to buy it which would only give them more money to print more. Ignoring it would be much more effective.[/quote]

Good to hear a voice of reason, I was starting to get scared among these burning books here.

Societies that burn books usually end up burning people, you know. (And I base that on absolutely nothing.)

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 30 2005, 06:26 PM'] [quote name='Mikhail']Book burnings? Yea, that will really solve the problem. Solve it like blowing up an abortion clinic would. You don't have to read these books. In order to burn it you'd have to buy it which would only give them more money to print more. Ignoring it would be much more effective.[/quote]

Good to hear a voice of reason, I was starting to get scared among these burning books here.

Societies that burn books usually end up burning people, you know. (And I base that on absolutely nothing.) [/quote]
Hahahaha

Like I said earlier - ignorance is never the solution

[journeyman]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='May 30 2005, 06:14 PM'] what are you saying? that only applies if the people are in communion with the Church...and anyone with these views is not. [/quote]
if everyone in the Sister's community feels the way she does, then perhaps she thinks her point of view has more validity . . . and that she is in communion

she may think that she represents the sensus fidei

hence my point that perhaps she was unaware that "all" the people of the church were not in agreement

[Qoheleth]

[quote name='journeyman' date='May 30 2005, 07:53 PM'] if everyone in the Sister's community feels the way she does, then perhaps she thinks her point of view has more validity . . . and that she is in communion

she may think that she represents the sensus fidei [/quote]
Or worse, she may feel like she has some need to "enlighten" the Church to a new level of permissiveness.

[journeyman]

which gets back to the question that if she knows she's in the minority and that church teaching says to the contrary, why does she want to retain the Catholic identity . . . many priests and nuns left the church (or at least their place in it) when their personal desires ran contrary to the church teachings . . .

what is it she wants to keep? what are the shared values?