Amos

Do as you please but the basis for this is Catholic indoctrination. Catholicism is not a rational religion and its theology is indoctrinated only because it bears witness to truth and therefore seeks to find understanding or it will remain a liability (no bible studies are needed for such indoctrination; just on hour a week until grade six is enough).

To be exposed to their teachings, fellowship of believers and communion with the saints will be followed by a need for understanding and so it is much better never to be part of the game then to quit if life deals you a bad hand because there is a whole lot more of indoctrination to be dealth with.

What makes this more complicated is that the faith of our parents is incarnate upon us and that is why mixed marriages are also shunned.

Biff the unclean

Actually Amos I played that game for two decades. I played it in Ireland (where they play for keeps) and I played it here in the States.
What I learned about the Catholic game is one simple fact...

The house always wins.

Amos

Good point and your daughter did well. She will return if ever she thinks it could be good for her.

Was Catholicism not just a way of life in Ireland while in the US it is much more of a religion? In Holland 40 years ago (I am 58), it was the norm for everybody and never a question or part of the daily conversation. I mean, in that way there was nothing to win or lose (except nickles and dimes).

Biff the unclean

There are them which think that the person who single handedly did the most damage to dear old Ireland was Oliver Cromwell. There are those who make a good case for sweet little old Queen Victoria and her enforced famine being the worst.

But, this being Saint Paddy's day, I'll have to cast my vote with him.

the_cave

I'm saying there's a lot of debate about what that authority is. People are aware that authority can be abused (as, for example, it clearly has been by the American bishops in certain areas, at least). "Ultra-traditionals" are willing to follow that authority, and generally assume the authority has rarely been abused in matters of doctrine. Others are more skeptical. This doesn't mean there's no authority, just that there might not be quite as much as is claimed.


Well, how did the original Protestants do it so easily? They found reasons to mistrust the church's authority--or, to put it another way, they decided that the holiest writings of the church didn't provide them with enough evidence that the authority handed down was as the church said it was. So with modern Catholics--and I suppose they could have other reasons as well. Modern Catholics, perhaps, also have a heightened sense of their participation in the church, since Vatican II empowered the laity somewhat more than past councils.


What I'm saying is that there are numerous sins listed in the Catechism (published in 1994) as "grave". If you commit one of these with a) full knowledge that the sin is grave, and b) did it of your own free will, it's a mortal sin. As you can see, a) and b) can be subject to some debate. Now, it's true that the priest should be the guide--but it's also true that he could be technically wrong (but there I go getting subversive again.) Also, the sins listed are generally categories--whether a specific action can be classified as a "grave" sin could also, I suppose, be subject to some debate. So there's some authority--with some room for interpretation.


Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying this because I suppose it's conceptually possible to live a live without willfuly and knowingly commiting a grave sin.


Why don't I go more often? Well, without getting too personal, I suppose it's because I'm not sure I want to commit to the system right now. Maybe I'm not ready. I'm sure god would rather have me as a sincere follower, rather than an intimidated one. In the meantime, I'm repentant for the things I've done wrong, and the existence of the sacrament helps me to work through the notion of forgiveness. It's there when I decide I'm ready for it. I wasn't taught that I really needed to go at all; now that I understand it better, I'll try and go at least once a year. If I decide, based on studying church teachings and my own conscience, that I need it more often, I'll go more often.

If you're looking for an objective good, outside of religion, well, it could have a psychological value in helping you to a) forgive yourself for the things you've done wrong, and b) help you in understanding the nature of forgiveness. If you're looking for a subjective good, well, it helps you to feel forgiven by god, perhaps, but it doesn't seem like this is the reason you're looking for. (The Catechism is online somewhere, if you want to read the church's reasons!) But it's up to you to decide if that's helpful. If it's not, I'm not sure what I can offer. These are the things I find good about confession. If you disagree, ok.

And I really have never seen it "imposed" on anyone. Parents decide whether their children receive the sacrament. Catholics believe parents have an obligation to teach the faith to their children, but again, there's no tar-and-feathering involved if you want to let your children decide for their own someday. I suppose there could be some modest pressure from the priest, but I can't see anyone trying to make you do something you don't want to do. I myself am not sure it's needed (or even good) for children to go too often, but that's my opinion. A traditionalist might give you a different answer! Again, in my experience, most children really don't go very often.



But I'm saying people don't believe that some of the rules are valid. Some rules aren't taught as strongly as others. Before 1994, there was no universal catechism. Most people still probably haven't read it. People are less likely to believe that the church's teachings must be followed to the letter. The hierarchy might have its "rules"; the people have some of their own. The people have a better sense of being participants in the church nowadays. To be a Catholic nowadays, I would say, is often to be a critic as well as a believer. They want their church, and their freedom, too. As long as the hierarchy tolerates it (which they do, begrudgingly), why should they go anywhere else? Their faith is that they can understand god, too. So the "rules" are not agreed upon, if they're understood at all. That's why they're sometimes "ignored".



Maybe so, maybe not...you'd make a good traditional Catholic



Well there you go! The folks in the pews are no different. For their own reasons, it doesn't drive them away from the church--maybe they like the tradition, maybe they like other teachings of the church, who knows...

openeyes

I was raised Catholic, but started to acknowledge before adulthood that religion didn't provide many answers (just stating for perspective.)

I have many siblings who are still religious. It seems to be meaningful to them. Since "First Confession" is not usually a community event, I didn't witness any of those, but I have been to some "First Communions" of my brother's children.

I've been struck at how the participants in first communion seem only to parrot what they've been taught in class and have no comprehension of what's going on. Looking nice is something they can understand and they (especially the girls) are very conscious of their finery. I didn't necessarily see the likelihood that good personality characteristics would emerge from having the opportunity to receive this "sacrament."

I would echo what others have said about getting romantically involved with someone who cherishes these rituals. He probably couldn't believe or understand that it's possible to raise decent human beings without this indoctrination. You are already aware of your discomfort in convincing children of ideas you find questionable. This discomfort is bound to get worse.

And wouldn't this feeling of lightness that you mentioned (it might have been in your introduction) dissipate to some extent if your significant other didn't share your views (or if you found yourself weighing children down)?

Amos

Hope you had a good one. We never knew St. Patrick's day and never even heard of it.

cunegund

Thanks for the info Dave Good to know.

My limited personal experience has been that most everyone I meet or date is religious to varying degrees.

I've never really contemplated the possible hangups of dating a believer... I suppose it *could* be an issue.

One more thing I have to figure out for myself

cunegund

What gave you the idea that I don't think that?


[QUOTE]When faced with Catholics, or most any flavor Xian for that matter, their priest consider your religious opinions completely valueless. They will insist that any children you have be raised in their belief system, and not in yours. [QUOTE]

Yeah, they sort of have to think that don't they?

[QUOTE]My married daughter was taking some classes at St John's U and was confronted with her having been raised as an Atheist by her Prof/priest in front of the class. He announced that anyone raised without God would grow up insane (cross my heart he actually had the balls to say that) My daughter (the twig has not fallen far from the tree) replied (also in front of the class) "I find that a highly insulting remark for an asexual man in a dress to make."[QUOTE]

Awesome comeback

I agree Thanks!

cunegund

I’m gonna continue to play the devils advocate here...if that's okay. I have never understood the position of modern/liberal Catholics and their disregard for certain Church Teachings...Maybe you can help.

There is? Really? The authenticity of the Magesterium is debated? By whom? Why? On what grounds? The Church claims to have 2000+ years of *perfect* and infallible authority on issues of faith and morals. Don't they? The infallibility of those teachings are based on the protection by the Holy Spirit . The teachings cannot be wrong. The Church has sufficiently covered their bases haven’t they?

Tell me where debate comes in here? I don’t see it.

I see... We're talking about two different definitions of "authority". I'm talking about the Church's Authority (Magesterium) to teach on Faith and Morals. I'm not talking about the "authority" that comes personally to priest or bishop based on their position within the church. That personal authority is abused often if you ask me, fair enough. But how does that abuse reflect or diminish The Magesterium?

I hope that makes sense.

I've read a lot of Vatican II ... which part are you talking about.

I’ll throw in one of the most ignored aspects from Vatican II…more specifically from the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church
“…This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra…”

Read LUMEN GENTIUM #25 from the full context…

As for the Protestants... ummm...They Left the Church didn't they?

These so called "modern" Catholics are not leaving. I wonder why not?


Here's the Catechism

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."


I'm not seeing what's subject to debate...pretty straightforward if you ask me. Are you suggesting that it's debatable whether or not you have "full knowledge" that an action is a sin? That sort of answers the question doesn't it?

There's something called vincible (or intentional) ignorance and invincible (or unintentional) ignorance when looking at this stuff. Vincible ignorance is not an excuse.

From the Catechism:
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

I guess I'd need an example of what you're talking about. As I said, it's very straightforward to me.

Also, I thought the Catechism was published to clear up all the misconceptions about the Teachings etc. It's all cross referenced with either infallible teachings...scripture or writings of the Church Fathers. It was supposed to remove the debate around these issues...but you're saying it's the source of the debate?

Secondly, there was the Baltimore Catechism and the Roman Catechism long before this version came out. The contents of the Catechism are hardly a new invention…the current hierarchy are not the authors of the catechism…they just assembled it.


I think an example would be the best way to make your point...cuz I ain't getting it.

If a parish priest is knowingly teaching something different or opposite from The Church's defined teaching, well can't you see a problem there?

Most people know that the Church prohibits the use of birth control. If a priest tells someone: "No No...you MAY use BC if you choose to and your conscience is clean"... Or something along those lines; wouldn't you think the parishioner receiving the advice would understand this priest is deviating from the defined teaching? As article 1860 says above – nobody is ignorant of moral law.

Vincible vs. Invincible ignorance. You can't make the priest the fall guy if you know better…and you’re supposed to know better.

I’m not sure I can think of a grave sin that someone would be purely ignorant of.



So that person doesn't need Jesus? This conflicts with the Theology in a big way.

If one person can be invincibly ignorant of the sinfulness of certain immoral actions...well I dunno. The Theology would be wrong if that were the case.

But what kind of person is this? They certainly don't take their faith very seriously. I mean they aren't learning about it and its teachings are they?

The Teachings of the Church are supposed to be your framework for morals...but you're saying someone can be "Catholic" and not figure out what is moral and what is not? I dunno…1860 applies here too.

That’s pretty unorthodox for any sect of Christianity if you ask me

Here’s another article from the catechism...we’re all sinners...this is pretty elementary stuff isn’t it?:

1992. "Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:[Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1529.] But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.[Rom 3:21-26 .] "



Fair enough. I don’t want to get too personal if it’s not okay with you.

Interesting. What are you intimidated by? Only if you want to answer…

Again, I don’t want to get too personal if you don’t want to…but if you’re conscious of Grave Sins and You don’t formally confess them you shouldn’t be taking communion…you are in trouble in the eyes of God and the Church. Why on earth wouldn’t you participate in your faiths mechanism for reconciliation? I don’t get that part.

More CCC:

1457 According to the Church's command, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year." Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession. Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time.

ok

I’m very familiar with the Catechism:

And it’s searchable

http://www.christusrex.org/www2/kery...searchcat.html

I agree with you I spoze. But if you’re a Catholic Parent and you send your child to a Catholic School, I would think there would be a huge amount of pressure to go along with the program. Do you want little Johnny being the only kid not getting the sacraments on the school’s timeline? Why bother with Catholic School then.

If you child isn’t going to Catholic school but instead attending CCD classes, you still will have pressure to adhere to the timeline for the sacraments. Otherwise, why bother with CCD?

Why bother with the label “Catholic” if you’re gonna disregard the defined rules? “Catholic” loses its bite and power if you remove or diminish the “authority”…



I think it would be more correct to say *some* people believe that *some* rules are invalid. I have a feeling there are a lot of Catholics that agree with *all* the Churches teachings.


I’d ask for examples again. Which teachings aren’t taught as strongly as others? Where are these things “taught” anyway?

Why hasn’t every catholic read the catechism?

Here’s what it *is* taken right from the Catechism:

11. "This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the LITURGY, and the Church's Magesterium. It is intended to serve 'as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries'.[Extraordinary Synod of Bishops 1985, Final Report II B a, 4.]"

Again, I think it’s pretty darn straightforward if you ask me.


I * think * there can only be one kind of Catholic, but what I think isn’t very important

To restate, I'm playing the hardline devils advocate because I'm really trying to understand how Catholics disagree with defined teachings and morals.

I mean no offense to anyone...and I look forward to any replies.