Mad Dawg wrote: “Isn’t it kind of flying false colors ..., to make the declarations involved in baptizing one’s children in any “denomination” while not believing the teaching of that denomination? That seems like it might be a serious spiritual problem to me.”
P.S. I’m appalled that you would imply we should not have baptized our children Catholic because I have asked questions. First, questioning is not the same as “not believing in anything.” Second, as parents, when we baptize our children we vow to bring them up Catholic...and have done so in every way including expanding their faith fully by sending them to Catholic school. We, and every other Catholic school parent, have devoted time and treasure to insure their spiritual upbringing is reinforced daily in the classroom ...the public schools here are excellent so we had choices. We have a christian household, discuss faith and morality regularly, and we pray....not that this is any of your business. They have received their sacraments and in their confirmation it is our children’s choice to continue Catholic faith for themself. And if you think my questions disqualify me from going to mass or working in a Catholic school, then rather than lecturing me about my spiritual problem, I would recommend you go speak to a priest about your thoughts and whose compass needs recalibration.
Maybe the catechists were really confused for my 13 years.
That could be the case. I am currently involved with an RCIA class and the lifelong Catholic wife of a candidate is also his sponsor. She said that all she got when she was coming up was social teaching and some morality. She loves what we're doing. We're talking about the Trinity, the Son, His Body the Church, and the Church's teachings.
Or maybe I always had trouble believing that my friend was going to hell because she wasn’t a Catholic.
Well, SOMEBODY was poorly catechized, maybe two somebodies.
Touch the host to the teeth and forever be damned. How many holy, good people lived and died in agony because the host touched their teeth?
As long as you're clear that that wasn't doctrine, that was just outrageously awful teaching by some renegades to the right. And one aspect of its being doctrine was a Catholic who was motivated could have spent a little time learning that what s/he was being taught was nonsense.
When the laity leave the religion to the priests, bad stuff happens. When we work with our clergy, good stuff happens. I nearly always have one or two theological questions simmering between one of our priests and me. This doesn't mean that I end up in trouble, it means I end up being asked to teach classes and write papers.
how about my letter in my desk drawer from our bishop telling me that it is ok to vote for pro-abortion candidates as long as the candidate does not make it a political platform?
That's interesting. It is, theoretically, okay to vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion if your carefully derived opinion is that the other candidate would do something even worse. It is NOT okay to vote for a pro-abortion candidate BECAUSE s/he's pro-abortion.
More generally, and touching your post about our hypocrisy, I'm wondering what you think of the sacrament of reconciliation and of the idea that the life of a Christian is one of continual repentance -- sometimes joyful, sometimes tearful, but always repenting and converting.
Failing to conform to Church teaching is endemic. Claiming that those failures are virtues is at least disobedience.
The point I’m raising is that they need to look at some of the teachings...they are not all from the Word of God, some were written by men.
Do you mean "take a look at" or "change"? It is incredible to think that they do not review the teachings often in the face of opposition like yours. It is also almost incredible to find the "Word of God v. word of man" opposition put forth by a catechized Catholic. There are gradations in there, Word of God, Dogma, Pious Opinion, Discipline, Custom .... The Church has the authority and the responsibility which the Apostles received from Christ to establish discipline.
Should married Catholics all just be rabbits, abstain, or leave the church?
Or none of the above? Have you looked into Natural Family Planning programs? Do you know, have you taken the trouble to meet some of the happy and fulfilled couples who practice NFP? The problem is that these days we hold up coupling like rabbits, that is like impulsive animals instead of like reasonable creatures made in the image of God, as a kind of right and sign of sexual health. With that attitude toward the marital act, there's no wonder that artificially preventing conception or implantation of the conceptus is seen as attractive. Your proposing only the choices of "be like rabbits" or "abstain" is an indication of the problem. You're suggesting that outside the church they could couple like rabbits but avoid the natural sequel to doing so. Sub-human or eschatological abstention are the choices you present. There's a third choice.
Catholic priests must be men. Single men. God said so, right?
Catholic priests must be men. God said so, right?
Substantially
Single men. God said so, right?
Wrong. And the Church does not teach that. She DOES in the Latin Rite have that discipline that in the vast majority of cases married men cannot be ordained. Ordained men cannot marry. This discipline is far more than 1,000 years old.
I’m appalled that you would imply we should not have baptized our children Catholic because I have asked questions.
Well, I'm appalled that you describe emphatic statements of disagreement with Church dogma as innocent questions and then pretend that my QUESTION (NOT implication, but a leading question) about reconciling your stated disobedience with making implicit professions of conformity at Baptisms was about your "questions." "Questions" like: Or maybe I always had trouble believing that my friend was going to hell because she wasn’t a Catholic.
You have called us hypocrites and described us as judgmental. You have misstated Catholic teaching and taken the Church to task for what she does not teach. And then you are "appalled" because I respond to what were most definitely NOT questions.
As and for being appalled, that's neither here nor there. This is not about feeling. This is about understanding and reprehending what happens when a man comes to a parish as a representative of his bishop and then leads the people entrusted to his care astray. This is about a man who when he has what we may hope is a conscientious (though wrong) disagreement with the Church doesn't have the integrity to ask to be taken out of the game while he makes up his mind but instead abuses the trust of his bishop and of his flock.
You work for a priest. What should he do if you decide not to do as he asks but do only what you think should be done? What should you do if you think you can no longer do as he asks? Would it be right for you to present your self to him as his employee?
What should be done in that case, of course, is that you should discuss the issues with him, and if you cannot reach an accommodation you should resign. This priest has despoiled the Bishop's flock and led them a way after himself. It is a grave sin. We should pray for him and for them.
If you think your statements should be treated as questions and my questions should be treated as statements, then I think more than one compass may need recalibration.