'Fortnight for Freedom': One more reason to be an ex-Catholic

Baltimore Sun ^ | 29 June 2012 | Sandy Covahey

[Cronos]

I want to thank Archbishop William E. Lori for reminding me once again why I'm an ex-Catholic ("Fight for freedom," June 27). With the so-called "Fortnight for Freedom," the church leadership is deliberately and cynically using a mixture of patriotism and religion in a blatant and manipulative attempt to influence the outcome of the upcoming elections.

I can't seem to recall any recent news about Catholic churches being bombed in the United States or attempts to bar American Catholics from attending mass. I do know that the Catholic Church has been using its "religious freedom" for decades to aid and abet child abusers, to recently attack nuns in the United States who are at the forefront of what used to be one of the church's primary missions to aid and comfort the poor and needy, and that the American church has over the past few decades formed an alliance with some of the most strident and politically active right-wing religious groups in the U.S. Archbishop Lori even received an award in May from a coalition of some of those groups.

I am proud to be an American, and I am a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights. I support freedom of religion, and I support freedom from religion. And, at this moment in time, I am also very proud and happy to be an ex-Catholic.

Sandy Covahey, Baltimore

[metmom]

but in Ca and NY pres. O. won the Catholic vote

Which certainly fits with all the Catholics I know in NY. They're as liberal as they come.

And with the sizeable Catholic population in NY, if the Catholics voted conservatively, it most certainly could swing the elections both at the state and national levels.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

Which certainly fits with all the Catholics I know in NY. They’re as liberal as they come.

And with the sizeable Catholic population in NY, if the Catholics voted conservatively, it most certainly could swing the elections both at the state and national levels.

Metmom, i agree with the above statement 10000%!!! it is a scandal the way a majority of so called “catholics” vote in ths country.

[stfassisi]

What you post does nothing to change the core teachings of the Catholic/Orthodox church and the concrete teachings.

Basically, all you do is try and create a web of confusion that only panders to those who hate the Catholic Church.It’s very cunning and manipulative because you use examples that lack clarity to the subject of the Catholic Faith.

For instance, I used an example of “latae sententiae” and you post what was said by Cardinal Dolan

What you seemingly fail to realize is that abortion politicians and others who know the Faith and teach against it have excommunicated themselves consciously.

What you also seemingly don’t seem to understand is that it could be possible that someone like Pelosi, Coumo and others living in grave sin could have gone to confession,repented and became worthy to receive Eucharist.

This is why you hear someone like Bishop Dolan say what he did because it is possible, and it would be wrong to refuse them if they repented . Their confession could have taken place any day of the week in any Catholic or Orthodox church anywhere in the world, so to use an example of Bishop Dolan as if he is not in line with Catholic teaching is not truthful

Those who receive Eucharist in grave sin and have not repented bring condemnation upon themselves and are guilty of Sacrilege.

[metmom]

The problem is the CCC lacks clarity as does all the other bulls,
pronouncements, and other declarations the RCC makes.

It’s not the fault of the messenger.

Catholics can rant all they want about those liberal Catholics having ex-communicated themselves, but it in no way absolves the Church from its own responsibility to take action against those who claim the name of Catholic and fail to adhere to Catholic teachings.

The Catholic church has abdicated its responsibility and betrayed those faithful Catholics who still trust it and in it.

[stfassisi]

The problem is the CCC lacks clarity as does all the other bulls, pronouncements, and other declarations the RCC makes.

There is no problem with clarity,I can explain what the church teaches and back it up with historical writings and Scripture to help another Catholic who might not know and is searching for answers. Explaining the Catholic faith is as easy as drinking water. Trying to explaining solo Scripture from a protestant viewpoint,it's impossible, since everyone has a different opinion with no dogma. It's like trying to nail Jello to the wall

The Catholic church has abdicated its responsibility and betrayed those faithful Catholics who still trust it and in it.

I see beautiful people living out the Catholic faith who love unconditionally and live Christlike lives that would willingly give up their very lives for others out of love for Christ

Perhaps this bothers you?If so, it ought to make you realize the spirit within you is not of Our Blessed Lord ,Jesus Christ

[wintertime]

The following is from the Catholic News Agency:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/churchgoing_catholics_chose_mccain_over_obama/

” Exit polls are reporting that more weekly churchgoing Catholics voted for John McCain than for President-elect Barack Obama, slightly favoring McCain by 50 percent to 49 percent.”

“Those who attend Mass on a weekly basis comprised 46 percent of the overall Catholic vote, while 54 percent of Catholics surveyed said they attend less than weekly. Among infrequent Mass goers, Obama was favored 58 to 40 percent.”

[Mrs. Don-o]

That, too, is true across denominations. That is, the more church-going a person is (more or less regardless of denomnation) and the more they say that God is "important in their life," the more they voted (R).

Thr nominal, or marginal believer --- again, of whatrever denomination ---- tended to vote (D).

That's not to say "God is Republican". Not by a long shot. But people connected to their faith community tend to be more morally and culturally conservative.

And of course,a lot of non-church-goers reflexively identify as "Catholic" for ethnic reasons entirely unconnected to faith and morals ("Of course I'm Catholic! The name's Stanislaus Sienkiewicz! Je-zoo Buffing Cripes, what else would I be??!")

[daniel1212]

Basically, all you do is try and create a web of confusion that only panders to those who hate the Catholic Church.It’s very cunning and manipulative because you use examples that lack clarity to the subject of the Catholic Faith.

What you also seemingly don’t seem to understand is that it could be possible that someone like Pelosi, Coumo and others living in grave sin could have gone to confession,repented and became worthy to receive Eucharist.

Actually, it is RCs like you who promote an idea of unity and surety of doctrine in Catholicism that is deceptive, and your attempt at damage control does not refute the evidence against it. And the differences do not lack clarity, of which i can provide much more if needed.

Meanwhile until Pelosi, Coumo and others like them manifest repentance, or Rome formally excommunicates them, then it remains that you are stuck with such multitudes whom Rome treats as members in life and in death, unless you want to join one of the Catholic sects, who, paradoxically, are more conservative, like as the evangelical churches whom many Catholics join.

[daniel1212]

True.

[Natural Law]

"Meanwhile until Pelosi, Coumo and others like them manifest repentance, or Rome formally excommunicates them,..."

When I read your posts I get the impression of someone peeking in a window trying desperately to describe something they don't recognize and can't see clearly. The real problem is when you then try to argue with the homeowners about what is actually inside their house.

Do us all a favor and take some actual classes conducted by a certified catechist so that you can accurately portray Catholic teachings. I'm not expecting you to accept Catholic teachings, but at least you won't look so foolish trying establish the premise to any of your future arguments against her.

Until then, peace be with you

[boatbums]

When I read your posts I get the impression of someone peeking in a window trying desperately to describe something they don't recognize and can't see clearly. The real problem is when you then try to argue with the homeowners about what is actually inside their house.

When I read your posts criticizing a Christian who is a former Catholic, I get the impression that no matter what they may say, no matter how well their statements are sourced and backed up by direct quotes to prove their point, that it will ALWAYS be rejected out of hand simply due to their comments hitting TOO close to home. Rather than presume that someone is peeking through the greasy window to see what is happening on the inside, low and behold, they HAVE been on the inside and know quite well what gets said and done out of the view of the nosy neighbors. Maybe you forget sometimes that most of us WERE Roman Catholics for a big part of our lives and some retain relationships with those still inside the "house". And perhaps contrary to your thinking, we even actually READ the documents and articles that get posted here daily as well as knowing exactly what is taught in the Catechism and the various writings of the Catholic theologians. Some of us even WERE catechists!

It may make such criticism easier to deal with if ones opponent can be thought of as simply ignorant of the teachings or out to "get you" with no genuine care for facts or authenticating information, but for those who are able to step back and view these exchanges objectively, it is easy to recognize smokescreens when we see them. You advise us to:

Do us all a favor and take some actual classes conducted by a certified catechist so that you can accurately portray Catholic teachings. I'm not expecting you to accept Catholic teachings, but at least you won't look so foolish trying establish the premise to any of your future arguments against her.

Maybe you could do US all a favor and dispute the arguments - if you can - and hold off on the insults and accusations of ignorance. It would make YOU look less foolish.

As to Daniel1212's assertion about Pelosi, Cuomo, et al, and the reluctance of the Catholic Church hierarchy to ever do anything more than just tsk, tsk at them, why aren't ALL faithful American Catholics DEMANDING that these public politicians that CAN and DO influence many aspects of all our lives be held to account? I agree that it sure looks like all bark and no bite and we know how effective such policies are. Your church has a long and sordid history of worse sins than this current bunch is guilty of in the upper echelons of power. I really do believe that is why liberal Catholics show no real remorse or reluctance for their actions - nothing's ever happened to them before, why should they worry now?

[HarleyD]

When I read your posts I get the impression of someone peeking in a window trying desperately to describe something they don't recognize and can't see clearly. The real problem is when you then try to argue with the homeowners about what is actually inside their house.

That sounds like an argument made by a cult member.

Do us all a favor and take some actual classes conducted by a certified catechist so that you can accurately portray Catholic teachings.

And I've seen this many times before. It's a weak argument used by Catholics who seem incapable or unwilling to articulate the dogma of the Church. I suspect that it's simply because Catholic doctrine has become so muddled that no one really knows what it is today. There are gobs and gobs of writings from which one can pick and choose that it's just too confusing. So Catholics simply just go along and try to convince everyone that the emperor really is wearing clothes.

[Hacksaw]

That sounds like an argument made by a cult member.

Naw, it sounds like an accurate observation. You people don't know what you are talking about, and then try to tell us what we believe. It's like trying to convince me that I am driving a Honda when I am driving a Toyota - and your response is "Well they are both made in Japan, so there!". After a while it gets silly.

[HarleyD]

Sorry. I have been out here enough to know that Catholics will NEVER say what the Church's position is on anything. Whenever anyone (including myself) post something from a Catholic website we get the tried and tired answer that 1) “This is only one person's opinion.”, 2) “That may be what that website believes but they are not speaking for the Church.”, or 3) “You need to know the catechism and you don't so until you do you don't know what you're talking about.”

I have quoted the catechisms many times on this site only to be told I don't know what I'm talking about. Well Catholics should be “enlightening” us. Not telling us to go look at something they'll say we're reading wrong.

[wintertime]

” Exit polls are reporting that more weekly churchgoing Catholics voted for John McCain than for President-elect Barack Obama, slightly favoring McCain by 50 percent to 49 percent.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There is a difference between Mass attending Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants in their voting patterns. Those actively practicing Protestants in fundamentalist denomination far exceeded the Mass-attending Catholics in voting for Mc Cain.

Personally...I see it as a failure on the level of the Catholic bishops. They are failing to properly catechize their flock. For example:

My daughter taught at a Catholic K-8 high school in Texas during the 2008 election. ALL of the teachers, pricbipal, and overseeing priest voted for Obama (except my daughter) and they took every opportunity to tell this to the students. Obama is a man who voted three times to deny medical treatment to infants who survived an abortion. UNBELIEVALBE!

I have great respect for Catholicism. It would please me very much if every Catholic fully practiced their religion **ALL** of it! Imagine how much stronger, healthier, and wealthier would be our nation. I would be especially pleased if **all** of the Catholic bishops, leaders, and educators fully kept the First Commandment and fully worshiped God instead of the state.

[wintertime]

Please read my post #55. I can only report what I see. Something is **seriously** wrong here that needs fixing.

“My daughter taught at a Catholic K-8 high school in Texas during the 2008 election. ALL of the teachers, pricbipal, and overseeing priest voted for Obama (except my daughter) and they took every opportunity to tell this to the students. Obama is a man who voted three times to deny medical treatment to infants who survived an abortion. UNBELIEVALBE!”

[daniel1212]

When I read your posts criticizing a Christian who is a former Catholic, I get the impression that no matter what they may say, no matter how well their statements are sourced and backed up by direct quotes to prove their point, that it will ALWAYS be rejected out of hand simply due to their comments hitting TOO close to home.

I think that is an all too typical reaction, by one who has himself exampled a tendency to reject and even falsely charge with falsehood even substantiated Catholic material which exposes the nature of claims of Rome, to an interpretation thereof. As well as the difference sometimes btwn what is officially taught - the interpretation of which Catholics sometimes differ on - and what is effectually conveyed.

I actually have invited RCs to show me where i have misrepresented what is taught in Catholicism, not simply according to their interpretation of it, while it is often the Catholic who is shown to be in ignorance of such, or in disagreement with such, as recently seen on a another thread.

HarleyD; said,

"And I've seen this many times before. It's a weak argument used by Catholics who seem incapable or unwilling to articulate the dogma of the Church..,I suspect that it's simply because Catholic doctrine has become so muddled that no one really knows what it is today."

Some will articulate dogma of the Roman Church in some things, which often must be distinguished from other sola ecclesia churches, and i while i would say that the second statement is too broad, yet the reality is that in many things, both in official statements (and on how much has been infallibly defined) as well as officially sanctioned teaching (and on the assurance that provides), and also in arguing to support each, there are differences on each level and btwn each level that can be hard to reconcile. Among other things, in particular is extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, in which different views are seen even here,

And it not without reason that in Catholicism (not only in Protestantism) there are different kinds of believers, each claiming the other is in error, and even actual Catholic schisms, who earnestly desire a pure Catholic church, based upon their interpretation of Tradition and Catholic teaching, Scripture and history.

And from which comes some of the strongest criticisms of modern Rome, which (as has been shown) illustrates the uncertain sound which her trumpet can make:

Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics who object to the drastic changes call them "abuses" that result from the "misinterpretation" of Conciliar teachings. They point to many fine and orthodox statements in support of their contention. Those on the other hand who are on the forefront of the Revolution - the Liberal post-Conciliar Catholic - can justify almost anything they wish by recourse to the same documents...The much debated issue as to whether the Council is only an "excuse" or in fact the "source" of the "autodemolition" of the Church is entirely beside the point. Whatever the case may be, as the Abbe of Nantes has pointed out, "there is not a heresiarch today, not a single apostate who does not now appeal to the Council in carrying out his action in broad daylight with full impunity as recognized pastor and master."

“The definitive texts are for the most part compromise texts. On far too many occasions they juxtapose opposing viewpoints without establishing any genuine internal link between them.”

“It is then the ambiguity of the Conciliar statements which allows for any interpretation one wishes.” — http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html

[stfassisi]

“”As to Daniel1212’s assertion about Pelosi, Cuomo, et al, and the reluctance of the Catholic Church hierarchy to ever do anything more than just tsk, tsk at them,””

Pope Benedict explained those who support abortion have excommunicated themselves automatically and should not receive Communion

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/09/us-pope-abortion-idUSL0956318820070509?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&pageNumber=1

Excerpts..
“Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon (church) law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ,” he said.

Under Church law, someone who knowingly does or backs something which the Church considers a grave sin, such as abortion, inflicts what is known as “automatic excommunication” on themselves.

FWIW, I have explained automatic excommunication to daniell1212 ,but he keeps posting things that have no effect about what the Church dogmatically teaches as if they do. It’s dishonest and cunning!

[Mrs. Don-o]

I agree 100%.

[HarleyD]

There is good reason there are only small few who have ever REALLY written a complete and detailed systematic theology. The more believers seek to understand, the narrower their interpretation.