Donating To A Protestant Church?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1876116' date='May 26 2009, 09:33 PM']Bl. Teresa wasn't a theologian. She may have been mistaken in what the correct course of action was in certain circumstances.[/quote]

You're absolutely right. She wasn't a theologian, just a saint, who lived every day for Christ by worrying about people first.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Spence06' post='1876167' date='May 26 2009, 10:55 PM']So are you saying its a grave sin to be protestant ?[/quote]

Are you saying that heresy isn't gravely sinful?

[Brother Vinny]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1876208' date='May 26 2009, 11:10 PM']You're absolutely right. She wasn't a theologian, just a saint, who lived every day for Christ by worrying about people first.[/quote]

I'm going to play a little here:

Are you saying well-intended-but-poorly-informed acts of love are enough? Why bother to educate any theologians, then?

Edited May 27, 2009 by Brother Vinny

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1876275' date='May 26 2009, 11:56 PM']Are you saying that heresy isn't gravely sinful?[/quote]

If an individual was born into a Protestant household and was raised with this faith, would you call that person a heretic?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1875787' date='May 26 2009, 05:00 PM']I'm just glad you know more than a priest with a doctorate in Canon Law whose book is basically a summary of St. Alphonsus' magnum opus, [i]Theologia Moralis[/i]. [/quote]

Since you know so much, how about answering my question:

What's it mean that a heresy has been practiced unmolested?

[Spence06]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1876275' date='May 27 2009, 12:56 AM']Are you saying that heresy isn't gravely sinful?[/quote]

I believe that a person, who seeks Christ to the best of his ability in faith, and finds they remain a non-Catholic, that person does not commits a grave sin.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Brother Vinny' post='1876284' date='May 26 2009, 11:04 PM']I'm going to play a little here:

Are you saying well-intended-but-poorly-informed acts of love are enough? Why bother to educate any theologians, then?[/quote]

Some people have time to delve into the minutia of 500 year old documents. Me for example, I have nothing better to do with my time, so I hang out at the seminary trying to force my addled brain to learn. Some people don't have that leisure. They worry about the 10 commandments, the Nicene Creed, and place themselves under a spiritual adviser who can correct them when they take a bad turn. Christ was kind of bad about not following the rules too, especially when it came to helping the wounded.

[Brother Vinny]

As sympathetic as I can be with Resurrexi's stance, it doesn't look like he's offered any [i]dogma[/i] on this point. As schooled as a doctor of canon law might be, he isn't infallible. Even those saints who have been proclaimed Doctors of the Church erred in some details (St. Thomas Aquinas, IIRC, argued against the Immaculate Conception; St. Jerome didn't originally regard the Deuterocanon to be inspired, etc.).

Perhaps it's best to use our intellects on this and, if we err, err on the side of love. (Personally I think it more loving to tell the dying Hindu of Jesus' love and sacrifice, but I say that from the relative safety and comfort of my American home.)

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1876286' date='May 27 2009, 12:04 AM']If an individual was born into a Protestant household and was raised with this faith, would you call that person a heretic?[/quote]

If someone continues adhering to Protestantism in spite of having been shown arguments for the truth of Catholicism, then that person, in my understanding, would be guilty of "obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith."

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1876290' date='May 27 2009, 12:07 AM']Since you know so much, how about answering my question:

What's it mean that a heresy has been practiced unmolested?[/quote]

I would take it to mean that the civil authorities have allowed the sect to exist in the place and the that faithful in that place have co-existed peacefully with the members of the sect.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1876308' date='May 27 2009, 12:19 AM']Some people have time to delve into the minutia of 500 year old documents. Me for example, I have nothing better to do with my time, so I hang out at the seminary trying to force my addled brain to learn. Some people don't have that leisure. They worry about the 10 commandments, the Nicene Creed, and place themselves under a spiritual adviser who can correct them when they take a bad turn. Christ was kind of bad about not following the rules too, especially when it came to helping the wounded.[/quote]

If 500-year-old documents aren't important to you, then I have no idea what you'd be doing worrying about the Nicene Creed!

[OraProMe]

bttt

I wouldn't donate to any protestant church. I'd feel strange about it, especially if my money is going to be used to "reach out to the unchurched". I don't neccesarily think a protestant church is any better than no religion at all.

As to the Mother Theresa controversy, I think she would be in the right. I can't imagine the Church commanding that a catholic nurse must deny a dying man the comfort of his religion, however false it is.

Imagine if you were in an Episcopalian hospital and they refused to allow a catholic priest in but let you have a woman priest, it'd be horrible.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1876477' date='May 27 2009, 04:30 AM']As to the Mother Theresa controversy, I think she would be in the right. I can't imagine the Church commanding that a catholic nurse must deny a dying man the comfort of his religion, however false it is.[/quote]

[i]Moral Theology[/i] never said that the nurse had to refuse entry to the minister of the non-Catholic religion. It said that she couldn't summon him or partake in preparations for the rite. Additionally, for a very weighty reason, she could inform the minister that the sick person wanted to see him.

[OraProMe]

ah okay, thanks.
But she may summon him for a weighty reason? Why must it be weighty? And what qualifies.
If a dying man asked me to see his pastor the first thing I'd do is pick up the phone and summon him. In charity, I couldn't deny him this comfort. No matter how superficial it is.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1876482' date='May 27 2009, 04:47 AM']ah okay, thanks.
But she may summon him for a weighty reason? Why must it be weighty? And what qualifies.[/quote]

An example for a "very weighty" reason was public welfare.

As to why it must be weighty, go to post number seven and read the paragraph that beings "material co-operation," as well as the following paragraph.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Resurrexi

[OraProMe]

Is calling in a protestant minister to comfort a dying man really "co-operation in sin"?
I'd say it may be indifferent, like the paragraph you provided mentions. Mortal sin requires culpability and knowing what we do is wrong, I don't see how a protestant who sincerely believes he is right (even if he is wrong) sins by seeking comfort from his pastor before death.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1876492' date='May 27 2009, 05:29 AM']Is calling in a protestant minister to comfort a dying man really "co-operation in sin"?
I'd say it may be indifferent, like the paragraph you provided mentions. Mortal sin requires culpability and knowing what we do is wrong, I don't see how a protestant who sincerely believes he is right (even if he is wrong) sins by seeking comfort from his pastor before death.[/quote]

Yes, calling a Protestant minister to inform him about a patient who wants to see him is cooperation with sin, specifically material cooperation (as opposed to formal cooperation, which is always wrong).

Regardless of the ignorance of the minister or patient (who may or may not truly be invincibly ignorant), false worship is a morally evil action.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Resurrexi

[OraProMe]

Ignoring a dying mans request seems so uncharitable. I don't think I could do that, it just seems so unethical and evil. So opposed to "love thy neighbour". I'd be furious if my public hospital refused to call a priest.

Sorry, but to me, leaving a man to die without the comfort of his religion seems far more morally evil than co-operating in false worship. I wouldn't say calling a minister in qualifies as co-operating in the worship either.

Your view on this issue is so contrary to the most basic commandments about loving our neighbour. Despite all your academic knowledge, Resurrexi, I think you still have a lot to learn about what it means to be a Christian.

[OraProMe]

Also, wouldn't inhibiting a man from receiving his religions version of the last rites be contrary to each mans right to religious freedom and worship that Vatican II speaks of?

Freedom to exercise conscience, even if it is wrong etc.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1876498' date='May 27 2009, 05:47 AM']Ignoring a dying mans request seems so uncharitable. I don't think I could do that, it just seems so unethical and evil. So opposed to "love thy neighbour". I'd be furious if my public hospital refused to call a priest.

Sorry, but to me, leaving a man to die without the comfort of his religion seems far more morally evil than co-operating in false worship. I wouldn't say calling a minister in qualifies as co-operating in the worship either.

Your view on this issue is so contrary to the most basic commandments about loving our neighbour. Despite all your academic knowledge, Resurrexi, I think you still have a lot to learn about what it means to be a Christian.[/quote]

If you think that it is very charitable to formally cooperate with someone possibly condemning himself to hell (or further therein) by the grave sin of offering false worship to God, then you and I have very different notions of what charity is!

Edited May 27, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1876500' date='May 27 2009, 05:49 AM']Also, wouldn't inhibiting a man from receiving his religions version of the last rites be contrary to each mans right to religious freedom and worship that Vatican II speaks of?

Freedom to exercise conscience, even if it is wrong etc.[/quote]

"This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits." (Dignitatis Humanae, 2)

As far as I am aware, a nurse refusing to get a Protestant minister is not the same as her forcing a patient not to receive the Protestant equivalent of last rites.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Resurrexi