Posted on 04/17/2005 1:53:52 PM PDT by madprof98
ALBANY -- Elaine Ranc attends Mass every week and describes herself as a faithful disciple of the Catholic Church.
But she also believes in a woman's reproductive rights. She thinks gays should be able to marry. And she has no problem with using contraception.
"The church has helped me with some decisions in life," said Ranc, 36, of Voorheesville. "But I don't always agree with everything they say. I think women have the right to become priests, and that priests have the right to get married."
Ranc is among a number of Catholics in the Capital Region who believe the church is out of touch with its flock on a number of moral and social issues.
A Times Union/NewsChannel 13 poll conducted Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday by the Siena Research Institute found about 88 percent of local Catholics support the use of contraceptives by married couples, 34 percent support gay marriage, and 79 percent say abortion should be allowed in at least some situations.
The random sample phone survey, conducted as the church's cardinals prepare to select a new pope in the wake of Pope John Paul II's death, polled 622 people, including 284 Catholics, in Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga and Schenectady counties. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.
The findings, sociologists and religious scholars say, are nothing new and reflect the results of other surveys conducted nationally. Kevin Christiano, sociology professor at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind., said the large gap between personal opinions and church teachings goes back at least to Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, which firmly established the church's opposition to any type of artificial birth control.
"In the '60s, there was some sense that the church was going to turn a corner on that issue," Christiano said. "And when that didn't happen, a lot of people tuned out."
A sort of selectivity arose even among the most faithful, another expert said.
"I don't know that you could find any Catholic anywhere who would agree 100 percent with the church," said Michele Dillon, an associate professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire. "One of the reasons Catholics stay faithful is that they put more emphasis on the liturgy and Mass (than on doctrinal matters). And many of those who disagree with the church on contraception or abortion may be strongly in favor of the church's opposition to war or the death penalty."
In many instances, local Catholics' viewpoints mirror that of the general population. The Siena survey found 41 percent of all of those polled say gays should be allowed to marry, 82 percent believe abortion should be allowed in some instances and 89 percent support the use of contraception by married couples.
Among Catholics, contraception remains the area of greatest dissension between the laity and official church doctrine.
"Family choices change as development increases," said Mark Gray, research associate in the center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University. "And it's very expensive to raise a child in a developed country."
Ranc said she began taking birth control pills to combat painful ovulation as a teenager, but said she feels contraception should be available to anyone.
"I think condoms should be used by young people," she said. "And who wants the spread of AIDS to continue?"
Local Catholics who participated in the survey also disagreed with the church's stance on allowing women to be ordained and priests to marry. While Pope John Paul II refused to budge on those issues, 70 percent of those surveyed said they would have no problem with priests marrying, and 63 percent said the church should allow women into the priesthood.
"People are more aware of the so-called priest shortage," Christiano said. "There are about 20,000 parishes in the United States, and about 3,000 do not have a parish priest. About 50 years ago, many would have had more than one resident priest. Outlying missions would have been the only ones that wouldn't have had a priest."
Capital Region Catholics are more in line with the Vatican when it comes to abortion, with only 17 percent saying it should be allowed under all circumstances, though 62 percent thought it should be accepted under some circumstances.
Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard said teachings must evolve "in continuity with core doctrine and in light of careful study and examination of new knowledge and insights."
"It is the responsibility of church leaders to present faithfully the teachings of the Scriptures and the tradition of the church," he said in a written statement Friday. "While church teaching can change, it cannot simply be reactive to the fads and fashions of the moment or to the ebbs and flows of public opinion polls."
Despite the contention over social issues, many Catholics in the area said they had a favorable view of Pope John Paul II as a person. Millions of the faithful from around the world flocked to Rome after he died April 2.
"I liked the man," Jean Horgan of Niskayuna said. "I liked the way he spoke, and he created a lot of energy among the young people. But I would like to see somebody a bit more liberal, a bit younger, a bit more open-minded take over."
Horgan was among the 12 percent of area Catholics who said they would like to see a liberal selected as the next pontiff. About 16 percent of local Catholics said they would like to have a conservative pope. Thirty-five percent said they would like to see a moderate pontiff, while 34 percent said it wouldn't matter to them.
Ideological and political differences aside, many say emotional bonds keep them close to the church. The 36-year-old Horgan said she quit teaching Catholic school about a year ago because she found herself disagreeing on so many points, especially when it came to abortion and birth control. But she said she attends Mass every couple of weeks.
"I was brought up really strict Irish Catholic," she said. "It's really the only faith I know."
"Sect" would apply to small groups interpreting Scripture for themselves, often in bizarre ways, apart from the Magisterium.
That is a great response. But I am sure you know that many Christians see the Roman Church as doing exactly that.
Is that so?
That would be a neat trick, since the Magisterium is in Rome.
Also, wouldn't you say that a Church made up of 1.1 billion people is just a tad large to be considered a "sect?"
most people in the church will stay, even if they don't understand/agree with particular teachings at the time. they gather to celebrate the teachings and sacrifice of jesus. i don't know of anyone who left because of the church's position on the death penalty, or JPII's condemnation of the iraq war... on the balance, the fundamental faith in jesus overrides any misgivings on particular issues.
andrew greely discovered over 30 years ago that most married catholic couples ignored the church's stance on birth control. my great-aunt was mother superior of the regional dominican order and had once declared that "being against birth control is promoting abortion!" !! women used to come to church wearing veils, it used to be mandatory to fast before receiving communion. if one wants to go back further, the official church's stance was to burn people (mostly women) at the stake for suspected witchcraft! so the pronouncements of the church do change over time. what doesn't are the commandments to "do unto others..." and "love thine neighbor (and thine enemy!) as thyself". that is more than enough moral charge to work on for a lifetime!
Point is that most of this doctrinal gloss the Roman Church has added to God's Word was invented prior to the time believers had access to their own copy of the Bible; most believers' couldn't even read; throughtful analysis of the Word was not only not encouraged, the Roman Church fastened many believers to a tree with a fire at their feet for engaging in it.
" Also, wouldn't you say that a Church made up of 1.1 billion people is just a tad large to be considered a 'sect?'" No. And I don't mean the word "sect" in a pejorative sense--Roman doctrine has just added a lot of non scriptural aberational interpretations to God's Word. I think there are a number of Mormon's who are also saved Christians. Is it your position that the Roman add on beliefs are superior to the Mormans because there are more Romans? It is kind of like a vote?
For the most part, the distinguishing features of almost all of the denominations is the institutional advocacy of substantive beliefs that are, at best, not set forth in God's Word.
Some of this stuff may be harmless. But some of it interferes with the believer's development of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Further, as to the Roman Church, it is not a postive Christian Witness to the World to have many of its adherants in open dissent on these important contemporary issues on the grounds that the Roman position is simply more made up doctrine hung on its organizational structure.
How many of these people do you really count in your 1.1 billion number?
What you really need to be able to say to people like Mary Ranc is this: The only "priest" described in New Testiment is Jesus Christ who in Hebrews 5-7 is set forth as a "high priest" of a new covenant. The professional pastorate is nowhere to be found in this new covenant--Roman priests are a fiction developed by Constantine as part of a political compromise to obtain the consent of the pagens to a new Roman religion.
Regulation of priestly marriage is another fiction--that dates from an eleventh century decree of the Roman Church. Sure, you can point to biblical figures who may or may not have been married but no where is there any scriptural direction about the practice. And the consequence of the non-scriptural direction of the Roman Church has put it in the ackward position of defending perverted sexual practices by the professional pastorial class.
Marriage by homosexuals is viewed as offensive by believers because the bible clearly states that sodomy by men is an abomination to the Lord and civil approval of such marriages is viewed as another offense by our Christian nation against God (properly so). On the other hand, however, we also need to be clear that sinful though homosexuality may be, it is no more or less sinful than other sexual relationships outside of marriage in which many belivers are also tempted or worse.
Roman doctrine on birth control is also a pure invention. And when you can't point to any sound biblical doctrine in support of the Roman position, it is very difficult to defend other beliefs which are founded on the scripture.
Furthermore, there are married priests in the Latin Rite.
As for birth control, if what is happening in Europe doesn't convince you of the truth contained within Humanae Vitae, which obviously bases its conclusions on Scripture, I don't know what will.
Regarding the priesthood: Did Jesus Give Priests to the Church?
Bishop, Priest, and Deacon
As far as Mormonism goes, that's an issue unto itself, as Mormons don't accept the traditional Christian Trinitarian formula (nor do Unitarians, certain "Oneness" Pentecostals and various other groups).
You disagree with Church teaching. Fine. I don't. But you came into a thread dealing with Catholicism, and basically bashed the Church. I suppose, however, replying to you is largely a waste of time.
Blessings to you and your family. Hopefully we are all encouraged to seek the truth in God's Word.
This article quotes atleast 3 "sociologists". What do they care about Catholic doctrine? This is the same old hog-wash. These people are not faithful to the Church. Contraception is against the moral order, period. Homosexuality is pure lust. I wish one of those pollsters would give me a ring -- I'd give them a mouthful -- of which for sure they would not quote. Contraception demeans women, it takes away their natural god-given gift of life. Married couples who use chemical contraception (even Catholics) are 50% more likely to get a divorce within 5 years. Whereas, married couples who use natural family planning have a marriage success rate of 99%. Pope John Paul the Great (I hope it's o.k. to use that term) knew what he was talking about in his "Theology of the Body" which should be required reading at all universities especially Notre Dame, but don't count on it! It's unfortunate when priests/pastors mislead their congregation. When are they going to learn? If Catholics were so against the Pope's teachings, why did they flock to Rome in the hundreds of thousands for his funeral? We know as Catholics that God knits each child with it's own soul, and upon conception that one zygote is it's own unique person already, with distinct characteristics and 46 chromosomes. How could anyone in their right Catholic mind believe that killing this baby is o.k.? If there are priests out there thinking this is o.k., they're heretics pure and simple. Jesus warns us of those people in the bible. Don't believe them their wolves in sheep's clothing.
"I beleive 100% with the teachings of the Catholic Church."
Make that two of us.
Agree with the first part of your statement but the second part where you mention the death penalty and the Iraq war... those are part of the Magisterium that are subject to an informed conscience and circumstances - and wars, according to the catechism, are in the final step, subject to the discretion of the secular ruler of the country. In other words, there are mitigating circumstances where, in both of those cases, they can be eithe right or wrong whereas birth control or abortion are always wrong, no matter the circumstances - according to the Magisterium and as documented in the catechism.
andrew greely discovered over 30 years ago that most married catholic couples ignored the church's stance on birth control. my great-aunt was mother superior of the regional dominican order and had once declared that "being against birth control is promoting abortion!" !!
You mean the Andrew Greeley of the bodice ripping soft core porn novels? In this case I am sure he's right, most people do ignore the Church's teaching... but that doesn't make them right and the Church wrong. So, we have one or two kids, a killer large screen tv, nice cars, a nice vacation every year and houses big enough for ten kids. That's materialism. Killing Europe, btw. The population in Catholic countries over there is shrinking (they don't even reproduce themselves) and that is why the Muslim communities will be taking over... as they are in many parts of Europe. Have to fill those jobs and pay the taxes in order to maintain the socialist government handouts... and there aren't enough native born Europeans to do that in a lot of countries. As far as your great aunt... I know priests who say there isn't a hell. doesn't mean they're right.
women used to come to church wearing veils, it used to be mandatory to fast before receiving communion.
And it's a bad thing to wear a veil? Some women still do. I am sure you know that it is still mandatory to fast before receiving Holy Communion?
if one wants to go back further, the official church's stance was to burn people (mostly women) at the stake for suspected witchcraft! so the pronouncements of the church do change over time.
so the pronouncements of the church do change over time. what doesn't are the commandments to "do unto others..." and "love thine neighbor (and thine enemy!) as thyself". that is more than enough moral charge to work on for a lifetime!
Doctrine and Dogma do not change... in the matter of birth control, every single Protestant denomination condemned it up until 1930. Can you honestly say that birth control has been a plus for our present society? Can't you see what has happened to us because of widespread birth control? Aside of the rampant sexual diseases, depression and divorce rate, just tune into MTV and watch one of their reality shows to see how fine sex with no commitments and no downsides (pregnancy) really is. A bunch of self absorbed men and women looking to get laid and then go home til they can get laid the next time.
Agree with you about the Commandments, it's sure sometimes is hard to live according to them. But if the commandments were all we needed, we'd be Jewish... and Jesus left us a Church - gave Peter the Keys and everything, told Him that what he bound on earth would be bound in heaven. Didn't say anything about popular vote being the deciding factor in what the Church bound. In fact, popular vote would change from generation to generation, resulting in the ECUSA we see today.
Celibacy in the Latin ChurchThe Council of Elvira (Spain) is of particular significance for the legislative history of celibacy. Held at the beginning of the fourth century (circa 305 AD), the purpose of its eighty-one canons was to renew the life of the Church in the western part of the Roman empire, to reaffirm ancient disciplines and to sanction new norms. Canon 33 contained the first known written law about celibacy, applicable to bishops, priests, and deacons, (that is 'for all clerics dedicated to the service of the altar'), which proclaimed that they ought to keep complete continence in relation to their wives, and that anyone who had broken this rule should be excluded from the clerical state. [6] Canon 27 of the same Council prohibited women living with ecclesiastics, except for a sister or a daughter who was a consecrated virgin.
From these primitive and important legal texts, it can be deduced that most of the ecclesiastics in the Spanish church were viri probati, that is, men who were married before becoming ordained deacons, priests or bishops. All, however, were obliged, after receiving Holy Orders, to renounce completely the use of marriage, that is to live in total continence. Consequently Stickler can say that, in the light of the aims of the Council of Elvira, and of the history of law in the Roman empire, in no way can one see in canon 33 a statement of a new law. It was, on the contrary, a reaction to the extended lack of observance of a traditional and well-known obligation, to which at this time the Council added a sanction: either the delinquent ecclesiastics accepted the obligation of the lex continentiae, or gave up the clerical state. The fact that the legislation of Elvira was pacifically accepted confirms that no juridical novelty was being introduced, but that it was concerned primarily with maintaining an already existing normative discipline. This is what Pius XI meant when, in his encyclical on the priesthood, he affirms that this written law implied previous praxis. [7] To suggest, therefore, that Elvira is the origin of the law of celibacy in the Church, and that there is, consequiently, a discontinuity in discipline between its introduction and what was the praxis beforehand, is, for the reasons already given, a fundamentally erroneous conclusion.
You might disagree that the celibate life is the best way but the practice itself and the reasons for it plus the admonitions were present from the earliest times. That is fact.
Thank you, and the same to you.
FYI:
It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the "contraceptive mentality"-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro-abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion are specifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment "You shall not kill".
I don't know if this has been definitivly proven?... I think the stats orginated somewhere as a guesstimate and the number now is kind of like snopes... urban folklore.
I would think that married couples who do not use artificial birth control are more likely to stay married (because they live their faith) than those marrieds who do use birth control but I've never been able to find definitive sourced information on the stats. I'd love to be proven wrong though.
That really sums it up. And worse, they, these reformers who seek their idea of reform, wish to impose it on all of us, whether we like it or not or want it or not. Or even if we have a different idea of what 'reform' should include. Only their type of reform, often disagreeing with everything 'Rome' (said derisively around here) defines as Roman Catholic, will suffice. Those who disagree with their reforms are labelled by them as 'afraid of change' and unable to understand.
Sounds like I missed a good one today. ;-)
Well, Tom, THAT'S a war that's been fought way too long. I reckon if Protestants are so sadly apostate, they'll answer to a higher authority come Judgement Day. Until then, I'll live and let live.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.