I was very surprised tonight to see a segment on Channel 6 news about a group of young Catholics, aptly naming themselves, Young Catholics for Choice, announcing that they had partnered with Wisconsin based Family Planning Health Services to make commercials stating their belief that they can be Catholic and use Emergency Contraception.
These commercials will start airing in the Milwaukee area any day. Fox 6 even had an interview with soon-to-be Milwaukee Archbishop Listecki, who stated the incompatibility of abortion with Catholic thought. He did not mention the views of Augustine and Aquinas about the soul not entering the embryo until weeks after conception. Although aborting the fetus immediately after conception was not viewed as a positive, it was not viewed as murder.
It will be interesting to see these commercials. It is also great to know that young Catholics that disagree with the Church's teaching on birth control and abortion are not simply leaving the Church or giving up religion. They are obviously passionate about their faith. I'm very proud to call these young people fellow Catholics.
A Faithful Catholic
35 comments:
They have at least "temporarily" separated themselves from the Church by their actions. They are engaging in promotion of what the Church calls an intrinsic evil and what has been declared evil since the very beginnings of the Church. One only needs to go as far as the "Didache" to see that the earliest Church Fathers equated Abortion with Murder.
While St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas (your not addressing them as Saint speaks volumes) may have had debates about when the ensoulment took place, they certainly did not endorse as moral the taking of the live prior to that ensoulment. It is a perfect example of the distortions "progressive Catholics" will go to to support their positions that they attempt to twist the ensoulment discussion into an endorsement of their own heretical views.
You had the intellectual honesty to articulate that while they debated on the ensoulment, they still viewed the taking of life as wrong. For that I will applaud you.
And Archbishop-designate Listecki has pointed out that these self-professed "Catholics" are manifestly wrong. They can claim they are faithful all they want, just as Representative Kennedy can, but that does not make it sense.
It is also great to know that young Catholics that disagree with the Church's teaching on birth control and abortion are not simply leaving the Church
As a matter of fact, they excommunicate themselves with this move.
Birth control,abortion, masturbation, pornagraphy, sexual thoughts---all big sins to the hierarchy of a group that wants to hide its anti-sex attitude. And why do they call these rhings a barrier to knowing God, including even marriage? The answer is clear: to maintain their dominance over normal people.
Some people can be fooled all the time.
Arch. Weakland would be proud.
Mark,
Have you ever read Theology of the Body? Have you ever read Love and Responsibility. One cannot read either of those works and construe that the Church is anti-sex. The Church is fundamentally pro-sex, when it is properly exercised as part of the marriage covenant.
CS, yes I have read "Theology of the Body" and other church documents on sex. Can't you see what they say?
"You inferiors to me that HAVE to have sex, I understand. Not being able to reach the highest level of holiness, here are some tips for you that may make your shortcomings not as bad as they could be."
This is obviously true for the hierarchy, because in the final analysis celibacy is almost a sine quo non for the truly holy. How many married saints have there been compared to celibate saints. Why does the Church praise those saints who leave their spouses or, even married,refrain from sexual behavior with their spouse.
Here recently, seeing that people are catching on to the hierarchy ploy, they have made a couple of saints from the married folks.
Kind of clever on the hierarchy's part. Its certainly fooled you.
If sex is so great why to people who engage in this have absolutely no say in the Church?
Mark,
You obviously possess a keen gnostic wisdom that allows you to gain the real meaning behind those documents. I am obviously not as blessed as you to detect that. (sarcasm)
What makes you Catholic? What about Catholicism do you actually believe?
The only person who has been fooled is you. You are so foolish you actually think you are within the Church. I would direct you to 2 John 1: "Anyone who is so 'progressive' as not to remain in the teachings of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son".
You worship sex, sex is your end all and be all. It is readily apparent from your comments and your blog that sex is all you think. You are suffering from projection as you project what you want onto another.
Hey, CS, from what you say I must assume you are 'sexless' as the Church wants you to be.
Mark,
Actually I am quite happily in the married state of life. That is my vocation. Funny, you are wrong again.
CS, I believe the Church does not regard being married a "vocation."
Do you believe all married people have been called by God to be married? Is the married "vocation" equal to the priestly vocation?
Mark,
Have you ever read St. Paul?
He refers to people being given different spiritual gifts and missions. We are not all called to be Prophets. We are not all called to speak in tongues. We are not all called to be missionaries. Yet, we are all in Christ.
The Church does regard marriage as a Vocation. I would reference the Catechism 1603, 1604, 1607, 1656; Gaudiem et Spes, Humanae Vitae, and John Paul II's Theology of the Body.
You may not be familiar with it, but the Church actually has a Sacrament built around it. A Sacrament that is performed not by an ordained Priest or Deacon, but by the couple themselves.
That is a good question, have all people who are married been called to that? I don't think we can know. Ultimately it is God who knows who He has called to various vocations. Are there people who are clergy who perhaps should not be and perhaps misread God's call? -- Probably. The same can likely be said of married couples.
CS, word play again. When a church has a vocation day/week are they asking people to get married? Is the married state (vocation)equal to the priestly state? It is quite clear that the priesthood is superior to the married state.If not why are married persons not allowed to have any say in the Church?
Again crumbs from the table. Sure we marrieds can say we have a vocation provided we recognize it as inferior to the priestly vocation. Certainly you agree the priestly vocation is superior to the married vocation. The Church clearly teaches so.
Mark,
Again, ignoring the basic point and dismissing it. You really are quite predictable. So apparently Church Teaching doesn't matter.
Perhaps the reason why when the Church talks about Vocation week and such, is that the Church needs priests for its sacramental survival. Priests do give us the Sacraments, which is very important.
But, not all are called to be Priests. We are called to be saints in our particularly vocation. Your desire to see everything as a competition is not of Christ.
Who is to say we have no say in the Church? Who is to say even the clergy have a say in the Church. Ultimately the Church is the teachings of Christ as handed down to the Apostles. The Magisterium of the Church is timeless. Yet the laity have the ability to teach and spread the Gospel. Look at the work of Catholic Apologists who are overwhelmingly lay. Look at the brilliance of Scott Hahn and what he has down for scholarship within the Church.
The Truth of the matter is this. You want the Catholic Church to teach something it cannot teach. You want it to endorse your sex-focused libertine desires. You want it to be something that Christ did not found it to be.
CS, you're feeding the troll...charitably and with patience, I must say!
Best of luck.
CS, I believe some bishops (including Milwaukee) have made it clear that a lay theologians opinions have no standing if they differ from a bishop's pronouncements. BTW Hahn has no standing as a theologian;he is nothing but an apologists.
I have asked you some specific questions, and still waiting for an answer.
Also, great to see "dad" is still alive and kicking.
Mark,
Yes, the Bishop in union with the Bishop of Rome has authority. That is how Christ intended it to be. That does not make them more holy or more powerful. You are thinking as the world thinks, not as God thinks.
I've asked questions to, and you always ignore them. If a lay theologian's opinions differ from a Bishops, they are outside of the Church because the Bishop speaks from the Magisterium. The Teachings of the Church are timeless. Bishop Dolan made it clear that a certain professor at Marquette (a professed theologian) was wrong. It wasn't because that individual disagreed with Dolan, it was because that individual disagreed with the Church.
The Bishop is a slave to the Church. The Church was established by Christ until the End of the Age. The Bishop is a servant of Christ, serving Christ's Church and spreading Christ's Gospel. It would appear you have an issue with Christ, not with the Bishops.
Dad,
It is always fun (though at times frustrating) to joust with heretics.
Mark,
And I forgot, what do you make of the Journal Sentinel's recent story about your hero, the disgraced former Archbishop, Archbishop Rembert Weakland?
Link if you are curious: http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/78431087.html
Mark,
And about Scott Hahn. You may not be aware, but he does teach Theology at Franciscan Steubenville University. In fact he teaches not only Theology but Scripture. He's also the appointed Benedict XVI Chair of Biblical Theology at a Pennsylvania Seminary.
He is quite published as you might be aware and his books generally bear an imprimatur.
He also seems to have impressed more than a few Bishops: http://www.scotthahn.com/episcopal-endorsements.html
You might want to disparage Scott Hahn, but I doubt you can even hold a 1st grade conversation with the man.
CS, you were doing good until your last sentence.
So let me summarize what you seem to believe:
The Church for over 2000 years has not made a mistake? Well, you clearly believe such.
No human being has the right to disagree with a bishop?
Theologians are just wasting their time. The bishops know everything and cannot be disagreed with.
BTW, I do notice that Hahn only cites bishops, not other theologians, on his site. Well, of course, all bishoops are always right---even those that condone child abuse; and people like you think a bishop cannot be wrong.
Your love of authority in the Church is amazing. Every bishop would love the subservience you show.
Mark,
LOL, again, the way you twist words. You should be proud, Arian and the Gnostics would be proud.
The Church for 2000 years has not made an error on dogma because it is protected by the Holy Spirit. We have had horrible Popes and Bishops and Laymen and women, but the Church has endured because it isn't of this world, it is of Christ.
Human beings can disagree with a Bishop on issues that aren't settled matters of Catholic Dogma. If you want to disagree with Rembert Weakland's handling of the sex abuse crisis you are free to do so. You however aren't free to preach something as Catholic when it isn't. It goes to the first point that the Catholic Faith was given to the Apostles by Christ.
Theologians are not wasting their time as they can help us find new ways of understanding and looking at Truth. They aren't changing Truth, but finding ways to make it more accessible to the Church. Scott Hahn has done a terrific job placing the Church doctrines in the fullness of Scripture and helping lay people come to a greater understanding of their faith.
The authority of the Bishop, Apostolic Succession, is what ties our Church to Christ.
I Believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and APOSTOLIC Church. Apostolic refers to Bishops and their succession from the Apostles.
I didn't realize we would have to do Catholicism 101. If you let me know what city you live in, I'm sure we could find some good Catholicism 101 courses to help you learn the basics of the Catholic Faith.
CS,I am stunned that you have no conscience. That any human would totally turn over their thinking to other men and to say that you have no conscience is shocking. It is unbelievable. Your argument hass never been made by any Catholic or human I have ever met. Your position is dangerous. You desire to give up your mind and , like a robot,tuen yourself over to other men without question---well I've never heard such from anyone I know.
Seeing that you have surrendered your conscience you will damn Newman for saying (in a toast)'To the pope yes; but to my conscience first.
I am not twisting your words. You have clearly said "I do anything the Church says, no matter what."
Your position outdoes even the hate filled fanatics of the past. You would have been the first to say "To the stake".
I read about people like you in abnormal psychology.
I don't believe you really are that inhuman.
Mark,
Again, you really enjoy twisting one's words. We have a RESPONSIBILITY TO PROPERLY FORM OUR CONSCIENCE. Yes we must follow the dictates of our conscience, but we must follow the dictates of our conscience in that it is properly formed in light of Christ.
You can say you want to follow your conscience. Cardinal Newman articulated the primacy of conscience, but it presupposed an individual who informed his/her conscience in light of Christ and the Teachings of His Church.
You twist Newman by ignoring the latter and embracing only the former. Thus you shout primacy of conscience without any thought to the need to educate, inform and develop a proper moral conscience.
CS, how can you have a conscience when you give to other men the absolute right to dictate "correct" thought to you.
Mark,
Because then you begin to trend into Ethics. Ethics are distinct from morals, yet you will always make the wrong choice, if your moral compass, your conscience, is not properly formed.
"Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings." CCC 1783
"In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teachings of the Church." CCC 1785
Thus you can have a conscience, but abortion and birth control (since this whole post is about those issues) aren't left to conscience, since they are definitive moral judgments.
You desire to make all things fluid and up to your own dictates of conscience, without regard to Natural Law and the Decalogue.
CS, you're digging your hole deeper. You are the man without a conscience. You admit as such.
Mark,
I admit no such thing. Again you twist people's words to suit your own beliefs. It really is a negative trait, but highlights, just how misinformed your conscience really is. It speaks volumes about you.
To recap what we know about you:
1. You reject Apostolic Succession (therefor you reject the Mission of the Church)
2. You reject Natural Law and the Church's Moral Teachings (the latter of which she received from Christ)
Why do you claim to be Catholic?
If Conscience is precisely what you argue it is, then you cannot condemn Hitler, for he was just following his conscience. (CHECKMATE)
CS, let see what you say. The Church tells you when you can use your conscience and when you can't. Absolutely incredible, and NOT the teaching of the Church.
Mark,
No, the Church doesn't tell you when you can use your conscience. Again, I didn't say that. But the Church does give us definitive moral truths. We then take those truths and use it to inform our consciences. You are right that there will be times when there isn't really a choice (i.e. Artificial Birth Control).
As much as you want to imagine it, your "conscience" may "allow" you to abort or contracept, but your "conscience" doesn't make it correct or morally acceptable. You have a badly formed conscience and have chosen to ignore and reject moral and natural truths. You are not ignorant of the Truth, rather you choose to IGNORE the Truth. Your conscience doesn't free you from the RESPONSIBILITY of your actions.
You want to have a conscience, without the requirement to actually inform it (as articulated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church). You want the Freedom, but you don't want the responsibility that is inherent in Freedom. You are quite frankly, a libertine.
But CS, you did say the Church can tell you when you can use your conscience. Now, come on and be honest.
I don't want to call you a heretic but you are not following Catholic teaching on this matter.
See you tomorrow.
Mark,
Again you are wrong. I made the distinction between Morals and Ethics. Yes, one can say their conscience told them Abortion is ok. If an individual such as yourself says that, then yes, I suppose that was their conscience. But then we fall into the second rule of conscience. The need to inform it properly in light of Truth. One with a well formed conscience would NEVER choose abortion, as such, the decision, has already been made, in this case, by God's Truth.
Pretend you are the President (frightening I know) and you have to determine the need for military action. As a Catholic you would examine it (by definition your conscience) in light of Church Teaching (Just War Theory and your responsibilities as a Civic Leader) and based on that, make your decision. That is a true exercise of conscience. People can certainly disagree on whether or not it was a proper use, but if you viewed it in light of a well-formed conscience, you have properly used your conscience. You still must face God (Responsibility) for the actions, but you have acted under the guidance of a well formed conscience.
I'll pray for you at Mass tomorrow. God's grace will have the power to open your eyes to the Truth and Glory of His Church.
CS,I am stunned that you have no conscience. That any human would totally turn over their thinking to other men and to say that you have no conscience is shocking. It is unbelievable
Antinomianism lives!!
CS, you dug your hole and can't get out of it.
With respect to the article:
With an increase in scientific knowledge comes an increase in theological knowledge. When using St. Augustine's and St. Aquinas' logic in combination with today's scientific knowledge, it is understandable for ensoulment to take place at conception. Take a look at an essay I've written on the subject in an attempt to explain: http://veintospain.blogspot.com/2009/10/conceptual-metaphysics.html
They would be rolling in their graves to hear you twist their words against the Church in that way.
Post a Comment