Catholics - Why do you do that? (Page 2)

He's right handed but left eye dominant, so I have have him shooting breaking clays left handed. Feels very natural for him. Pretty sure my youngest is right handed / left eye dominant as well.

(I probably need to go to confession now that I've brought up this subject on this thread )

I am the same......man, if you can get him shooting left  handed that would be the DEAL!

I have tried without success to explain this before.  Next time it comes up - I will try your approach.  Thank you.

Done deal. He happily bust clays, hits paper targets with a long fire stick, and smacks replica animals with a sharp pointy thingy launched by a string under tension from a bow like thingamabob, all left handed.

If he makes the sign of the cross first, he usually has better scores. Of course he does that right handed.

That is EXCELLENT!!!  Nice work, dad!

Someone already in this thread posted an example of it happening in a different denomination, but by all means, go on thinking it only happens in the Catholic Church.

That's not what she said.

True, True, and True.... well said..

Uh, no, it doesn't happen at the same level it does/did in the Catholic Church.  That post specifically discussed that difference, and addressed the ability to hire and fire at the individual church level.

I'll concede that point.  However, the intent of my original post was to point out that this conversation derails the point of this thread.  I realize adding the last sentence in my post only perpetuated the derailing conversation, which I'll claim fault for. 

Ok, I was not interested in breaking confidentiality, just whether you were speaking from your own personal experience of being abused.  I take exception to your statement(even with the caveat rare exceptions-I don't think it's rare at all to heal):

>>I understand now that with rare exceptions, survivors of childhood sexual abuse can never really fully recover from their wounds.  They are too deep and they happen at a time when brain development can be organically affected.  The best strategy I believe now is for survivors to learn to manage their very real disability.<<

A good read on this subject is "Losing my religion" by William Lobdell.  He was the religion editor for the LA Times and an Ironman triathlete.

If you want something more historical, "The swerve" by Stephen Greenblatt is very enlightening as to the church and the "dark ages".  

Inscriptions on the catacombs of the earliest Christians from the first few centuries show that they prayed for the dead.

Why would those early Christians pray for the dead if at the same time they believed that in Christ those they prayed for were saved?  If saved, no one would be in need of prayer.

When we die, we are judged instantly and forever; we will either go to heaven or to hell.  We also know from scripture that there is at least one more state apart from that of heaven and hell. In 1 Peter 3:19, Jesus said:

in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,

So we know from scripture that there is at least one other state aside from the states of heaven and hell. We know from history that the early Christians prayed for the dead, knowing at the same time that those dead were saved.

What else.

Paul tells us that a righteous man who fails the test can still be saved, but only through fire. In teaching about the foundations upon which one is to build, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 3:15:

If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss;
but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Think of it this way by analogy.  Let's say someone lives a life in which for years they abuse their body with drugs and alcohol.  Then one day they hit bottom. They resolve to amend their life and are successful in doing so. They begin to live clean and sober.

In this sense, they are saved.

Still, they lived all those years abusing themselves.  Their bodies are not as fit and healthy as they might have been had they avoided the abuse.  They're saved from further harm, but their bodies show some signs of the wear and tear that all of those years of abuse have inflicted on their bodies.

The same is true of our souls.

Yes, we are saved. Yet sin has a temporal effect on our souls.  

We know from scripture that nothing unclean can enter heaven. From Revelation 21:27:

and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life

When we die we are judged instantly and forever; we will either go to heaven or to hell. Still, nothing unclean can enter heaven.  Even if we are righteous, the temporal remnants of sin may remain on our souls.  Therefore, our souls need to be purged of every remaining impurity.  We're going to heaven,  but we need to put on our best before arriving.

In explaining purgatory to my youngest, he came up with this analogy, "Oh, it's like a car wash for the soul!"

The teaching on birth control is a defined teaching of the Church. It won't change.

It was defined by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae.

Marriage as understood and taught by the Church is a covenant. It is a communion of persons from which may come new life.  In the sacrament of marriage, a husband and wife vow to give totally of themselves to the other and to receive the other totally as gift.  Nothing may willfully be withheld. 

That includes fertility.

You cannot say: "I love you totally and will give you everything I am and posses,  save one thing. I will not give you my fertility".

Contraception breaks the meaning of the covenant that is marriage.

For Catholics struggling with this teaching, I recommend John Paul II's work The Theology of the Body, either in its primary form or one of several excellent secondary books on the work.

With The Theology of the Body, John Paul II builds on Humanae Vitae and shows the beauty of the Catholic understanding of human sexuality.  He shows what we ought rightly to strive toward.

Pope Paul VI warned of what a contraceptive culture would bring forth. His general warnings were:

• A lowering of moral standards in society and a rise in infidelity
• A lowering of respect for women by men, an increase in predatory men
• The rise of the thought that we as humans have unlimited dominion
• The use of coercive reproductive technologies by governments

All of these have proven to be true.

It is a sad fact that many Catholics in the US do not follow this teaching. There are many reasons, the primary one being the lack of clear teaching going back forty years.  Regardless, a Catholic who does not follow this teaching is not in full communion with the Church.  That's a serious issue.

The Catholic Church's teaching on human sexuality is one of her most beautiful teachings.  Difficult perhaps, but triathletes if anyone know that things that are worthwhile can often be difficult at times. Married Catholics who do not use birth control have one of the lowest divorce rates of any group and report the highest levels of both frequency of sex and sexual satisfaction.

Take a look at an earlier post I put about about the institution of authority. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and with this the authority to bind and loose doctrine.

The early Church understood that this authority passed down to the successor to the chair of Peter.  The chair rested in Rome, since this is where Peter died.

Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built his Church.  We know now that Peter's bones rest directly under the main altar at St. Peter's in Rome.  Pope Francis is the successor to Peter and retains the same authority as Peter.

The role of the Pope is clearly spelled out in scripture. The early Church recognized the authority of bishop of Rome as the first among equals.

Papal infallibility does not mean that the Pope is sinless or that he can make a judgement about any old thing which then must be followed.  It is solely for final definition of doctrine concerning faith and morals, and then only if needed. 

Think of it this way by analogy. Life for Catholics is like a baseball game; we all know the rules or ought to. We go about life playing the game. Once in a while there is a dispute; there's a question about what a rule is or whether a call went profoundly bad.  

Enter the head umpire. He makes the final ruling after which everyone goes back to playing the game.

In the case of papal infallibility,  the Pope is more like a head umpire who is needed in these special situations to make a final determination, rather than like a CEO of a company whose decisions must be followed no matter what.

Don, I know I've asked you questions about this before, so I apologize in advance if this has been asked and answered.  Are defined teachings immutable?  That is, if the teaching did not exist prior to being defined by Pope Paul VI, can a later Pope reverse the prior decision, so to speak.

Also, do defined teachings go through some sort of committee/group approval process?  Or, could a single Pope set forth a defined teaching that could forever alter the Catholic Church without the ability to be overturned?  

As others have stated, thanks for your willingness to share.

OK, I just learned about papal infallibility.  But this quote from Wiki (sorry), seems to leave some wiggle room, "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

Could a later Pope find that a prior Pope was not acting consistently with the qualifications in that quote?

Since I read a bit, what do you think about Pope Benedict XVI going from infallible one day to fallible the next?

In a real sense, the doctrine did exist before it was defined, even if there was no need to define it.

Think of it in this regard: take the dogma of the Trinity.

The dogma of the Trinity is no where to be found in scripture. Yet if one is Christian of any sort, you probably believe that the Trinity always existed.

The existence of the Trinity was understood by the early Church. Still there was no need to define it until the heresy of Arianism - the idea that Jesus was a creature - and was finally defined at the Council of Nicaea in 325.  Most Christians assent to the Nicene Creed that comes from that council.

There always was a Trinity. The confusion that resulted from the rise of Arianism required definition of the dogma.  The council provided that authoritative definition.

It's the same with the teaching on contraception. It's always been true. It's always been understood that marriage contains within it's matrix an aspect of fecundity.  Scientific development then brought about confusion about the nature of human sexuality and particularly the nature of the relationship between husband and wife.  So a definition on the teaching was needed. Paul VI provided that authoritatively in Humanae Vitae.

I understand why you feel this way and I have had my own personal struggles with this very issue. Especially as my son approaches the age to make his first reconciliation next school year. The reality of our situation is that my children are both adopted, both through Catholic Social Services and we have made commitments to their birth families to raise the children Catholic. I take that commitment seriously. So I have had to find a way to reconcile my disappointments with the hierarchy of the church and honor my faith with my family.

Here is the thing about it, when I look around me at church on Sunday, I do not see pedophiles. I see farmers, teachers, nurses, police officers, moms and dads coming together to share their faith, help the poor and do good in our community. When I think of my own history with the Catholic Church my life has been blessed in many ways through my faith and 2 of those blessings are playing outside in my yard right now . And now I'm getting emotional but the church has done some really good things. Helping a young birth mother who feels lost and alone, who has taken 2 trips to the abortion clinic already, counseling her, helping her match with a loving family and baptizing a beautiful baby. These are the powerfully good things that the church can do and that is where I've decided to focus my energy: looking for good in the church, instead of harboring hate for the bad.

I don't have a problem with the people of the Church, and I agree with what you wrote.  I have a problem with the Institution, which I feel should be dismantled. 

Just so you know, I don't hate anything, it takes too much energy.....but there are things in my life I want no part of...the Catholic Church is one of them.

Back to the questions...

These are a couple that got me in trouble going to church school:

1. What day did god create the dinosaurs?

2. If you are happily and faithfully married and your spouse dies,  you go onto remarry and are faithful.  Who do you spend eternity with?

3. How do you keep women silent in church?  (This didn't go over too well when you tell a nun she's not supposed to be talking in church.)

Jurrasic or Cretaceous?

You have used up your one paddling for the semester, feel free to move about the plane.