I don't know if you saw my response to your other post above, but you are certainly free to respond to any post.
I know the letter in question, and it has been a strong point in many discussions on abuse. It certainly was misinterpreted by many bishops. I don't think the shuffling of abusers was ever the intention, but whatever the case, this is certainly not authentic teaching---it is clearly very bad administration. And the whole secrecy aspect was because the Church was claiming to handle any problems internally. Obviously another serious admin defect.
My point it that you can't throw out the Catechism because of bad bishops or mishandling of abusers & shufflers.
You've read and studied Benedict's latest remarks on the flight. Have you heard or read any more? Do you think there may be some light at the end of the tunnel?
SuZ
Suz
Benedict went a a tirade of sorts about same-sex marriage a day later at the Fatima shrine. Probably because of this news alert from the AP today: LISBON, Portugal — Portugal's president says he is ratifying a bill allowing gay marriage.
He could have chosen a spiritual topic but chose a political one instead.
I have never said that anyone has committed a mortal sin, or that they would go to hell, regardless of what they have done. This is between the person and God. I reference Catholic teaching, just as a person of any Religion would reference the teaching of that Religion when speaking of what it means to profess that manner of belief...
I know you didn't say that, I just used the birth control as an example of a teaching that condemns so many people (most Catholics practice or have practiced birth control) can't be right.
I don't know if you saw my response to your other post above, but you are certainly free to respond to any post.
I know the letter in question, and it has been a strong point in many discussions on abuse. It certainly was misinterpreted by many bishops. I don't think the shuffling of abusers was ever the intention, but whatever the case, this is certainly not authentic teaching---it is clearly very bad administration. And the whole secrecy aspect was because the Church was claiming to handle any problems internally. Obviously another serious admin defect.
My point it that you can't throw out the Catechism because of bad bishops or mishandling of abusers & shufflers.
You've read and studied Benedict's latest remarks on the flight. Have you heard or read any more? Do you think there may be some light at the end of the tunnel?
I guess first I must clarify disagreeing, and disrespecting, and stress that my remarks are definitely not responding to your posts I feel it is not only what is said, but also how it is said. I know I am beating a dead horse, but I keep remembering how I was ridiculed and disrespected because I followed Catholic instruction in performing a Catholic ministry.
Yes, there are some bishops who need a stern reprimand or removal for what they have said. It is hard to believe that any person of normal intelligence could think as they do. I have never heard authentic Catholic teaching documenting what they have said.
I have said many times that if a Catholic has a problem with a Catholic teaching, they need a good Catholic spiritual director, and work through the problem. Some feel that a non-Catholic spiritual director is better, and this could be true for a non-Catholic , but for a Catholic, this is not best.
I have never said that anyone has committed a mortal sin, or that they would go to hell, regardless of what they have done. This is between the person and God. I reference Catholic teaching, just as a person of any Religion would reference the teaching of that Religion when speaking of what it means to profess that manner of belief.
SuZ
This was not directed to me, but as to the boldened part, much of this documentation came straight from the Vatican as in a document from Ratzinger to keep almost all under wraps. We are reading now that this was not his personal decision--see Schonburn vs Sodano. It did come, however, directly from the Vatican and it was not new thinking.
I guess first I must clarify disagreeing, and disrespecting, and stress that my remarks are definitely not responding to your posts I feel it is not only what is said, but also how it is said. I know I am beating a dead horse, but I keep remembering how I was ridiculed and disrespected because I followed Catholic instruction in performing a Catholic ministry.
Yes, there are some bishops who need a stern reprimand or removal for what they have said. It is hard to believe that any person of normal intelligence could think as they do. I have never heard authentic Catholic teaching documenting what they have said.
I have said many times that if a Catholic has a problem with a Catholic teaching, they need a good Catholic spiritual director, and work through the problem. Some feel that a non-Catholic spiritual director is better, and this could be true for a non-Catholic , but for a Catholic, this is not best.
I have never said that anyone has committed a mortal sin, or that they would go to hell, regardless of what they have done. This is between the person and God. I reference Catholic teaching, just as a person of any Religion would reference the teaching of that Religion when speaking of what it means to profess that manner of belief.
Thanks for the clarification, I did feel that perhaps (I wasn't sure) you were directing your comments at me; I accept most of the Catholic teachings and I'm sure that even those teaching where we have agreement, we might not interpret them the same way.
There are some teachings open to personal interpretation, and others which are not. Aparitions are open to personal belief. If we struggle privately with a teaching, or say we would like to see change, it is a personal issue, but I believe it is wrong to publicly bash the Church or her members for following Authentic teaching.
Agreed. I do believe it is not only appropriate but our Christian duty to "bash" the bishops when they are wrong. I also believe it is our duty to speak out when a teaching is wrong. I don't consider the latter two as bashing the church.
But it is not up to an individual to decide a teaching is wrong. IF THAT WERE SO, WE WOULD BE JUST ANOTHE PROTESTANT SECT. (sorry for the caps)
And we owe our Bishops respect even when we disagree (I know most disagree with that)
So: back to your original question about the Pope's resignation. As before, I rather see some changes that will inhibit such scandals and from the news coming out it seems that there isn't consensus among bishops, some want to retreat, others deny there is or ever was a coverup or sexual abuse, others call for change, and most simply remain silent.
Hopefully the Bishops will be open to the Holy Spirit, and not let pride stand in the way of the changes that seem to be indicated.
SuZ
Let us pray that it be so.....there seems to be more than one faction, those in the heirarchy that deny the wrong and those that accept that the church did not act in accordance with its own teachings.
Suz,
And we owe our Bishops respect even when we disagree (I know most disagree with that)
For the most part yes, I can respect the office of the bishop while disrespecting and disagreeing with what they say, this is not bashing the church or disrespecting the office of bishop. Do you really respect what Bishop such as Hoyos, Dadeus Grings, and others say? Are we to accept and give these bishops the honor of apostles when they preach sexual abuse by priests should be covered up because it really isn’t covering up the abuse but protecting the sons of the church? Do we accept that society at large is pedophile and adolescents are "spontaneously homosexual" and notions that sexual exploitation of children isn’t breaking celibacy vows? Is celibacy only applicable to sex with women? Sorry Suz, these guys are nuts and while I respect the office I find these leaders sick, very sick, and I can’t respect them and saying they are sick is not disrespecting authority but pointing out these guys need healing.
But it is not up to an individual to decide a teaching is wrong. IF THAT WERE SO, WE WOULD BE JUST ANOTHE PROTESTANT SECT. (sorry for the caps)
Suz,
Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately since God didn’t create as all alike, life is not simply a black and white proposition, sometimes a teaching may generally be applicable but individual circumstances may require violation of the particular teaching, sometimes the teaching is simply wrong or a violation of another teaching. Excluding the primacy of conscience which the church also teaches, a few examples of teachings that contradict other teachings or are simply wrong when applied universally without considering the impact on individuals include:
- The Catholic doctrine of deception (Mental Reservation) – note that the Catechism section on Truth contradicts this teaching) as well as what Christ said about oaths and simply saying Yes or No instead of BSing around. So I reject the doctrine of lying while accepting the teachings related to truth.
- HIV and Condoms: There is the official teaching from Rome and there is the teaching from many bishops and priests that are actually working with those suffering. Who is right? And if the latter group of bishops are wrong, why aren’t they excommunicated for publicly teaching something different than Rome? Some bishops in the latter group and what they say can be found here:
- Birth Control: While I find much beauty in the teaching and general applicability, in the end there are individual circumstances that compassion requires this decision be left up to the couple and their spiritual advisor.
Note: most Catholics do practice birth control so one either accepts the notion that all these Catholics are living in mortal sin, condemned, or that the teaching that condemns so many people cannot be right. To appreciate the dilemna and better understand the problem here, you need to understad the theology behind The Reception of Doctrine (two different models have been dominant at different points in history), and the notion of sensus fidelium.
So: no, questioning and not accepting a particular doctrine is not always simple disobedience but may be obedience to higher precepts and our understanding of the Gospel and the disobedience consistent with other Catholic teachings. We can further discuss this, if you like, it is particularly important today when we have a new crop of bishops such as Morlino; many accept his redefinition of the Good News while I find it obscene and misleading. I see both of us as Catholic yet with a fundamentally different view of God, Christ, and the Good New.
On the other hand, perhaps discussing this would be a waste of time, recently I discussed this with two other Catholics (debate board) and I was told I was simply unable to ever get the theological meanings, another said it in more negative terms, but to be fair, I feel the same way about the two ladies so perhaps some things are so fundamental to faith and when the basis of faith is different discussion is futile and it is simply best to follows one’s conscience. It boils down to our view of Christ and the Cross, I see the Good News teaching us the way of finding the Kingdom here and elsewhere, and if we must reduce this to its simplest form there are two opposing views:
Christ came to heal the world and lead us to the Kingdom, the act of the Cross is an act of Healing stemming from God’s unconditional love. The function of bishops is that of healers, to nurture the body of worshippers, uphold the truth, and help us in the process towards communion with God and others. This is the Catholic view I accept, the primary difference with the other view is that latter view reduces act of the cross is mere obedience and the function of bishops is being gatekeepers of the heavenly gates. Two different starting points that lead to different views of faith and one’s relationship with God and others. I can’t prove my faith has the right or wrong premise but that is the basis for my faith and thus impossible for me to “get it” when it comes to the other views.
