How Many Catholics Actually Believe Like We Do?

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='AdAltareDei' post='1856288' date='May 3 2009, 12:53 AM']haha, thats a little naive.
You go to the EF Mass which usually attracts serious Catholics.
Most OF Masses attract "Cultural Catholics". I'm not meaning to generalize, but surveys show that most Catholics, even those that attend Mass regularly, don't accept all the teachings of the Church.[/quote]


Personally, i find your generalization about EF and OF Mass goers to be a little naive. Are not EF Mass goers just as capable of/prone to/(fill in your verb) pride and dissent as those who prefer the ordinary prayers of the Church?

[Socrates]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858161' date='May 4 2009, 11:47 PM']Just because you think differently on issues that the church states is wrong does not make you any less of a devout catholic that someone who agrees with everything the church says. As long as you are following the churchs teachings and not trying to convert people to your way of thinking instead of the churchs, then your fine.

like i don't agree with the church's teaching about a man always having to end, we shall say the proper way, when it specifically(and only) deals with your wife already being pregnant with a child. It makes absolutly no sense other than the fact to say, a man must end a certain way no matter what. Not because the church teachs you to be open to life, since its an oxymoron, since your already open to life. no matter if your wife is pregnant and your obviously open to life since she's pregnant and its not possible to be 6 months pregnant and get pregnant during pregnancy. I think the open to life aspect should apply to absolutly every case between a couple unless they are already pregnant since it makes no sense in this case. I see it as just a general rule they have fitted to everyone in the church. Its a rule they put on all sex as a broad as can be rule. Although even though i don't agree with it, i follow the rule. Even though i think it makes no sense, i follow it. which does not make me any less of a devout catholic than someone who 100% agree's with the rule.[/quote]
I think a distinction should be made that while we may not personally understand the reason for every moral command of the Church, we must submit ourselves humbly, rather than say the Church is wrong. As faithful Catholics, we should trust that Christ's Church is a lot smarter than any of us.
If the Church is actually wrong in her moral teachings, this means either
a) Jesus Christ (who gave the Church her teaching authority) is wrong.
or
b) The Church is not really the Church instituted by Christ, in which case she has no authority over us to begin with (of course, you can't believe this and consider yourself Catholic.)

It's not really clear what you're talking about there, but the best I can figure you're referring to either coitus interruptus or oral or anal sodomy, etc. when your wife's pregnant or otherwise can't conceive.
The Church teaches such acts are intrinsically wrong because they in themselves do not fulfill either the unitive nor procreative purpose of the marital act, but are essentially forms of masturbation.
Such things aren't wrong because of some sort of moral imperative to try to get your wife pregnant at every possible opportunity, but because the Church regards the sexual act itself as sacred, and such things abuse the sexual facility.
Look at it this way, if it's okay to commit sodomy so long as no one would otherwise be getting pregnant, then there would be nothing at all wrong with homosexual acts, as there's no chance of a man getting another man pregnant to begin with.

[Guest]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1860153' date='May 6 2009, 09:07 PM']I think a distinction should be made that while we may not personally understand the reason for every moral command of the Church, we must submit ourselves humbly, rather than say the Church is wrong. As faithful Catholics, we should trust that Christ's Church is a lot smarter than any of us.
If the Church is actually wrong in her moral teachings, this means either
a) Jesus Christ (who gave the Church her teaching authority) is wrong.
or
b) The Church is not really the Church instituted by Christ, in which case she has no authority over us to begin with (of course, you can't believe this and consider yourself Catholic.)

It's not really clear what you're talking about there, but the best I can figure you're referring to either coitus interruptus or oral or anal sodomy, etc. when your wife's pregnant or otherwise can't conceive.
The Church teaches such acts are intrinsically wrong because they in themselves do not fulfill either the unitive nor procreative purpose of the marital act, but are essentially forms of masturbation.
Such things aren't wrong because of some sort of moral imperative to try to get your wife pregnant at every possible opportunity, but because the Church regards the sexual act itself as sacred, and such things abuse the sexual facility.
Look at it this way, if it's okay to commit sodomy so long as no one would otherwise be getting pregnant, then there would be nothing at all wrong with homosexual acts, as there's no chance of a man getting another man pregnant to begin with.[/quote]

are these teachings infallible ? the ones you just desciribed ?

[Socrates]

[quote name='southern california guy' post='1859146' date='May 5 2009, 09:45 PM']I agree with you. I find it discouraging. It makes me look at the religion and wonder why it doesn't influence the members beliefs more.

I admit that I've dropped out of the Catholic church in the past because I didn't agree with beliefs of the other Catholics I knew -- or even the local Priest. I lived up in Washington state from 1975-1986. During that period of time Archbishop Hunthausen started holding "Dignity Masses" for the homosexuals. And our local priest said that homosexuals were another type of "family".

Hunthausen began holding what he called "Listening sessions" where he would listen to criticism and suggestions for change in the Catholic church. I went to one of his listening sessions that was held in a Catholic school (Perhaps in 1985?). There were a group of women who wanted to become Priests. Hunthausen listened first to the women -- who didn't say anything too wild. Then he listened to the people for and against.

The first bunch that Hunthausen listened to were upset about "alter girls", and putting the host into the hand instead of on the tongue -- which were issues that I honestly wasn't all that concerned about at the time.

The second bunch almost weren't given a chance to speak, and there were some very vocal people who didn't want them to. But to Hunthausen's credit he let them speak and the "Listening Session" ran a little overtime. They were much different than the first bunch. They said that they weren't overly concerned about the way the host was handled or whether alter girls were allowed. They said that what really concerned them was what was taught from the pulpit. And they said that there main gripe with these women who wanted to become Priests was that they were lesbians -- who had their own agenda and wanted to teach beliefs that were counter the those of the Catholic church.

I was standing at the back of the room with some of the teachers from the school and they did NOT like the last group of speakers. They wanted to teach the more "progressive" theology.

It was shortly after this that I gave in to the encouragement of a couple of friends in Seattle and joined their protestant college group. It was a huge group called "The In" held at University Prebyterian in Seattle. And I have to say that I was very impressed by what the "Christians" (Protestants) were teaching compared to the Catholics. Of course I was also impressed by how many women there were there It was a much more social atmosphere, but I felt that the morals they taught were much better too.

I've been to Catholic churches locally that had good Priests and for a while I started attending a Catholic church north of me in Oceanside called "Saint Mary Star of the Sea". Father Mike there was an outstanding Priest. He was a young Priest but he seemed to be a really positive guy and he was a strong prolifer. Of course the Masses he gave were often packed with people.

There's a Catholic school along with Saint Mary Star of the Sea and one day a homosexual couple (One of the guys dressed in drag) came into the school with a child to enroll in the school. Father Mike refused to talk with them -- but was later punished for it and transfered to the Catholic church in Bonita (I found out because my girlfriend, at that time, lived in Bonita and she told me about a new Priest that her parents really liked. She also told me the story of why he got transfered).

Now doesn't the word Magisterium mean "The teaching authority of the Catholic church"? And isn't it made up of the Bishops and led by the Pope in Rome? Are we really supposed to go along with the church when the Bishop, or archbishop, starts teaching beliefs counter to the Pope? I don't understand the argument about the Magisterium. I know that the other parishioners beliefs aren't the same as the beliefs that the Magisterium holds -- but it's some sort of a reflection of the way the Catholic church is changing, and heading, isn't it?

One of my younger brothers refuses to have anything to do with the Catholic church anymore, and he and wife have been talking about going to a local Lutheran church instead. He argues that he isn't going to support a religion that defends pedophile Priests -- and secretly sends some of them down to churches in Mexico to hush up certain situations. I believe that this is going on.

I'm troubled by this and much of what I read in the newspaper "The Wanderer" (I know.. some people view "The Wanderer" as an evil publication, but that's the sort of Catholic that I am.) I suppose the real question I have is: "Is there anything we can do to improve the Catholic church? Or am I supposed to keep quiet and support the church no matter what?"

But I do very much like the bunch of seemingly old-fashioned Catholics who have rebelliously set up these "National Catholic Singles Conferences" and now "Catholic Thrive singles conferences." These conferences seem to get many seemingly genuine conservative Catholic speakers. But maybe much of that should really be credited to Anastasia North and Dave Sloane as well as the others who've pushed to set these up? And they aren't really a reflection of the Catholic church down here in Southern California?[/quote]
The Magisterium is the teaching authority given to the Pope and the bishops in [i]communion with him[/i] (key phrase there). Personal teaching infallibility belongs only to the Pope, so when in doubt go with Rome. Read the Catechism - it's pretty clear. Read the papal encyclicals.

Any bishops or priests who disagree with the Church's clearly stated teachings regarding homosexuality, etc. are acting against the Church.
It's a bloody shame you have to deal with those clergy - who are modern-day Judases. I hear enough horror stories about the west coast. Just remember, SoCal is not the whole Church, and things are not like that everywhere.
Our parish out here is quite orthodox and "conservative," with good solid priests, large families, and no visible homosexual movement. Realize it's not like that everywhere, but neither do the dissident liberal west-coast diocese represent the Church as a whole.
In fact it's the orthodox "conservative" Catholics that truly represent the Church and what She teaches, not the liberal dissenters who go against Rome and Catholic teaching.

In regards to your question, we are required to stand up for what the Church [i]really[/i] teaches, and to fight error and immorality when we can. Supporting the actions of dissident and immoral clergymen is [i]not[/i] truly supporting the Church. Sometimes, there's only so much we can do as laymen, and the Church often moves slower than we like, but the Pope is working to turn things around.
Just remember, whenever a priest or bishop teaches or does something [i]in direct contradiction to Church teaching[/i] he is not acting on behalf of the Church, and such actions must never be supported by the Catholic faithful, and their evil actions must not be confused with "the Church."

Look I know there's a lot of scumbag clergy in California, and that really smells of elderberries, but keep up the good fight and don't let the b*******s get you down.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1860160' date='May 6 2009, 09:13 PM']are these teachings infallible ? the ones you just desciribed ?[/quote]
Yes they are, as are all the Church's teachings regarding morals.

[Guest]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1860185' date='May 6 2009, 09:31 PM']Yes they are, as are all the Church's teachings regarding morals.[/quote]

Cool. Would the teaching havoc brought up be found in the catacism. (im to lazy to find out how to spell it if i spelled it wrong)

[Bubblicious]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1860191' date='May 6 2009, 10:35 PM']Cool. Would the teaching havoc brought up be found in the catacism. (im to lazy to find out how to spell it if i spelled it wrong)[/quote]


Start at Article Six, The Sixth Commandment. . . page 560 of the green catechism.

For direct reference to masturbation see 2352.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Bubblicious

[Guest]

[quote name='Bubblicious' post='1860235' date='May 6 2009, 11:03 PM']Start at Article Six, The Sixth Commandment. . . page 560 of the green catechism.

For direct reference to masturbation see 2352.[/quote]

cool thank you.

[Bubblicious]

Our pleasure. Glad to see you're still around.

[Guest]

[quote name='Bubblicious' post='1860255' date='May 6 2009, 11:15 PM']Our pleasure. Glad to see you're still around.[/quote]

i'm not going nowhere lol

[Guest]

im not sure why you brought up the masturbation part as i didnt ask about that ?? lol

[southern california guy]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1859532' date='May 6 2009, 09:06 AM']I had to laugh at the thought of the NCSC as "rebellious"!

BTW, Anastasia's last name is Northrup.[/quote]

Maybe I should have qualified that.

They called the event the "National Catholic Singles Conference". They didn't call it the "National Catholic Young Adults Conference" or the "National Catholic Alumni Club Conference". I've noticed that the Catholic hierarchy avoids the word "singles". Have you ever tried suggesting a "singles" ministry or event to a priest? Or have you ever tried to post a calendar of local Catholic Singles events on a bulletin board at the local Catholic church? I have and let's just say the reaction was NOT positive.

It almost seems that the Catholic church has become the religion of the "underdogs" -- homosexuals, divorcees, , illegal immigrant "rights", "Social Justice". The Catholic church up in Logan Utah (Supposedly a very "conservative" state) had both a "Gay and Lesbian" and a "Divorced" support group. That was the church where I tried to post the "Utah Catholic Singles Club" calendar...


Another thing about the "National Catholic Singles Conference" is that it wasn't age segregated. Now that wasn't such a big deal in the Catholic church in other areas I've lived, but it's become a big deal down here. It seems that the "Young Adults" have replaced the "Catholic Alumni Club". My parents met at the Catholic Alumni Club, down here in San Diego. But I don't think that there is one anymore.

It's not easy to put together an event like a singles conference. There are a lot of details, and it takes time and resources. Not only that, you probably will run into friction from the Catholic church. Of course there are ways of dealing with that friction. I initiated and helped push through a "Life Chain" in Davis Ca. But people at every church I visited told me it was impossible. However the way you do it is by finding people in every church or group -- who support the idea. You get together with them, and then as a group you start plugging the idea. It's interesting, right at first few people will want to get involved, but once you get a little group growing it seems to gain momentum and pretty soon you find that you have a lot of people who want to get involved. In Davis we got over one thousand. It's generally at this point when the Pastors and Priests start becoming receptive.

I imagine that this is the sort of thing Anastasia experienced with the first conference in Colorado. And that was something like three or four years ago (I can't remember the exact details). These haven't been around long.

Dave Sloane's "Singles Serving Orphans" has only been around a little over a year. He said that the Catholic hierarchy were not supportive of ANY singles event he suggested -- until he tried combining a charitable event with a "singles" one. He says now even some priests have expressed interest in joining the group to go down to Mexico to work on the orphanage.

A lot that is taken for granted wasn't always approved of at the beginning. In fact I think that they may still be holding "Life Chains" each year in Davis. But I don't know that for sure. A realtor, named Royce Dunn, up in Yuba City north of Sacramento California is the guy who started the whole thing.

[Socrates]

[quote name='southern california guy' post='1861236' date='May 7 2009, 09:06 PM']Maybe I should have qualified that.

They called the event the "National Catholic Singles Conference". They didn't call it the "National Catholic Young Adults Conference" or the "National Catholic Alumni Club Conference". I've noticed that the Catholic hierarchy avoids the word "singles". Have you ever tried suggesting a "singles" ministry or event to a priest? Or have you ever tried to post a calendar of local Catholic Singles events on a bulletin board at the local Catholic church? I have and let's just say the reaction was NOT positive.

It almost seems that the Catholic church has become the religion of the "underdogs" -- homosexuals, divorcees, , illegal immigrant "rights", "Social Justice". The Catholic church up in Logan Utah (Supposedly a very "conservative" state) had both a "Gay and Lesbian" and a "Divorced" support group. That was the church where I tried to post the "Utah Catholic Singles Club" calendar...[/quote]
If you want to know what the Catholic Church really teaches concerning "Gay and Lesbian Groups" go here: CDF Document [url="http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df86ho.htm"]On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons[/url] by Cardinal Ratzinger (now the Pope)
[quote]14. [b]With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one's conscience. Its specific authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word "Catholic" to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the Bishops in any way.[/b]

We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses.[b] No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral.[/b] A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.

We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided.[b] But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral.[/b] The neglect of the Church's position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.[/quote]

"Catholic" groups which promote homosexuality are [b]not [/b]truly Catholic and have been explicitly condemned by the Church.

Bishops and priests who promote them are acting in direct defiance of Rome.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Socrates

[dairygirl4u2c]

i remember hearing some stats. 10% of catholics follow the no contraception rule. and only a third believe in the real prescence. so least common denominator, 10%. how many of them have faults that cause them to not count? hard to say. probably most if they are willing to follow those rules, follow other rules. so it's at least a good 5-10% and i'd say prob approaching 10

[Paladin D]

With the alarming numbers, it kind of makes you wonder if practically all of us are going to hell.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1861595' date='May 8 2009, 12:29 AM']With the alarming numbers, it kind of makes you wonder if practically all of us are going to hell. [/quote]
Ach! Don't say that. (Please.)

[AdAltareDei]

[quote name='fides quarens intellectum' post='1859543' date='May 6 2009, 10:29 AM']Personally, i find your generalization about EF and OF Mass goers to be a little naive. Are not EF Mass goers just as capable of/prone to/(fill in your verb) pride and dissent as those who prefer the ordinary prayers of the Church?[/quote]

Yeah, we all suffer from the affects of original sin. But the reality is that a lot of the people at the EF Mass ended up there because they were fed up with the liberalism thats found in many territorial parishes and because they believe the EF Mass is a more comprehensive expression of the entire Catholic faith (including some doctrines liberals would rather forget). I haven't met many "traditional" Catholics who go to the EF Mass just because they like latin or incense.

Where it's available, it has an almost magnet like affect in attracting orthodox catholics who are fed up with pseudo-catholicism. So, if Resurrexi attends a TLM, then chances are most of them were already more predisposed to traditional catholic doctrine than their Novus Ordo counterparts.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1861388' date='May 7 2009, 11:04 PM']i remember hearing some stats. 10% of catholics follow the no contraception rule. and only a third believe in the real prescence. so least common denominator, 10%. how many of them have faults that cause them to not count? hard to say. probably most if they are willing to follow those rules, follow other rules. so it's at least a good 5-10% and i'd say prob approaching 10[/quote]

and with that said, assuming these numbers are accurate. that's prob assuming 'catholic' means anyone so baptized. i heard a quarter of christians (or americans? don't remember) are catholic. obviously many don't count.

so hypothetically, if half of them don't count then the percentage of catholics who are good is probably higher, who actually go to church etc. so maybe 20% or more.

and if they go to church every week i bet it's closer to fifty percent? that seems more reconcilable with my sense of people going either way in terms of being good catholics. thinking about it though, if you include those ignorant of it all, it's probably less some, cause i doubt most have a clue about most of it all.

more stats would be interesting.

Edited May 8, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[southern california guy]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1861844' date='May 8 2009, 12:06 PM']and with that said, assuming these numbers are accurate. that's prob assuming 'catholic' means anyone so baptized. i heard a quarter of christians (or americans? don't remember) are catholic. obviously many don't count.[/quote]

If they're not "good" Catholic's than they don't count??

[havok579257]

[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]


exactly

Yeah, who is a good catholic? Someone who fails at trying to be a catholic? Then none of us are good catholics.