Forget Vatican II as a barometer of right thinking, it is misunderstood by any who wish to considers themselves opposed to the direction of the Holy Father.

Who considers themselves opposed to the direction from and obedience to the Holy Father?

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), November 08, 2003

Answers

As Pope and as a person this man is far from infallible. I am not talking any ex-cathedra stuff or any long taught dogma... But most thinking people know that it has been his choice to have more or less a hands-off method of Church management, or perhaps it would be better to say that he tends not to meddle in other Bishop's affairs or to micromanage on an "away" basis, when it come to injustice, particularly against marriage. But he even seems to extend this to other aspects. For example, I read he was very unhappy with the handling of the American clerical child abuse situation long ago but took no real action, at least VISIBLE action, to bring justice in a clearly criminal bunch of situations.

I also have not heard much regarding the attempt to bring Catholic Universities and Colleges into authentic Catholic practice and I thought this was an important effort to him.

I realize he is long in the tooth and one man cannot do everthing but his personal holiness/discipline, which I find quite impressive and admirable, is not enough for me to be a big fan of him, as Pope. He does not engender my respect when his Papal Marriage Tribunal, the Rota, issues decision after decision recognizing the validity of marriages decimated by required divorce and shabby jurisprudence(by so called expert canon lawyers who apparently cannot read/understand/follow Rotal guidance)but as Pope he fails to attempt to stem the clearly unjust situation among catholics, especially in America regarding unjust divorces, through Canonical legislation in support of marriage and in defense of innocent spouses and their children. After twenty five years of the American Bishops open defiance, and public inaction beyond any question, in the aftermath of at least a million ordinary process annulments(not including defect of form annulments) most of which are validly questionable, of Magisterial decisions from the Rota, his example is one which clearly shows he does not care whether or not his own brother Bishops take his own Papal court seriously enough to change their own day to day operations or attitudes towards the marriage crisis in this country. This in and of itself seems to me to be a glaring indication of an almost self-destructive attitude towards the legitimacy of Papal magisterial authority/credibility. I believe John Paul II should be taken to task for it but there is no such method available under Canon Law so we are stuck with a Pope who seems to not respect his own hand-picked Court, their jurisprudence, or the consequences such a policy has on the lives of American Catholics in terribly vulnerable lives under attack from the civil/criminal authorites in the US, under attack by the pastoral practice of the American Catholic Bishops, by and large, and under attack by their very spouses, whose attacks continue EVEN AFTER Catholic Tribunal decisons have ruled in favor of the violated sacraments and who are supported in their unjust continued destruction by the aforementioned institutions/people.

But, in spite of this glaring failure in his Papacy, which he is completely aware of as evidenced in his yearly addresses to the Rota, he is still the Pope and as the Vicar of Christ he is to be obeyed when he speaks as head of the Catholic Church Universal in agreement with the historical teachings of his predecessors.

May our next Pope come to us soon and may he, with both mercy and justice, exercize the charity of Christ and help those of us suffering so much injustice for so long to know that our efforts at fidelity to our vows will cease being the object of the scorn of the Catholic Church, through its clerics and laity and their draconian pastoral practices/beliefs, and to experience restitution/restoration and healing and to be fully in unity with the Catholic Church which now embraces, without a thought toward justice and equity, our tormentors but which, God willing, may through Christ-like true charity bring all their sacrilage to an accounting, bringing them to repentance along with their supporters/co-conspirators.

May God bless this Pope and his successors!

karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003.

Not me Pat, even if I struggle wth some teachings on sin, evil and sexuality.

Thanks Karl, I once called Jake the most unhappy man alive, Id forgotten about you. As ever youre really onto something, namely a drug free cure for insomnia. Keep up the good work.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003.

kiwi,

-what cross do you bear? -Of what benefit to the Church or to Karl is ridicule? -YOU and others who humourously, sarcasticly and or sadistically spit in the face of Karl actually harm our Church...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 08, 2003.

You are so right, Kiwi. Ol' Karl Marx could put lots of readers to sleep. (If he had a brain, he'd be dangerous. He might join Al-Qaeda.)

But more importantly, Mr. Marx had no right to post on this thread. The topic is "Pro-Magisterium Catholics." He is no longer even a Catholic at all. He doesn't attend Mass. He is a protestant, though in a different denomination from the Pseudo-Trads (to which gang Daniel Dingleberry seems to want to attach himself).

Replying to the opening question ... I am NOT "opposed to the direction from and obedience to the Holy Father?"

However, the question needs to be re-written because, in the Church, we don't speak of taking "direction from" the pope. The question should be:
"Who considers himself opposed to any of the teachings of the pope and/or to obedience to the Holy Father?"

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003.

Opposed to what teachings of John Paul II?

Could you name just one teaching specific to John Paul II that Catholics must lend their assent to, that was no already requiring assent before John Paul II become the Roman Pontiff?

"One specific teaching of John Paul II is _____________"

What goes there?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 08, 2003.

To Pat in particular:

"Forget Vatican II as a barometer of right thinking, it is misunderstood by any who wish to considers themselves opposed to the direction of the Holy Father."

You indicate that the Holy Father is going in a direction.

Can you describe as best you can, what this direction is?

Can you tell me what the destination of this direction is?

The best you can do will be fine with me; don't try too hard... just a rough idea would be alright.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 08, 2003.

Hello Emerald,

Very good question! I had left it open in my initial inquiry so that others would be free to fill in their own blanks.

Quite simply, the Pope is charged with leading the Catholic church, taken as a whole, toward union with God. This requires him to follow a path that will not please all the individual members. This will always be the case.

The Pope cannot address the individual instances of injustice that Karl points out. He has not the time and resources, and that degree of involvement with other Bishops would eventually lead to schism or open rebellion. Lets not pick on Karl though. His idealism is laudatory, although he stings from his unfortunate life experiences.

The Pope also does not teach toward adopting experimental approaches toward for instance, administration of the Sacraments. This would be imprudent. But at the same time, he does not condone the outright rejection canonically approved changes.

It is my personal opinion that our Holy Father John Paul II has a fuller and more complete understanding of Vatican II, and its role and objective for the Catholic church, than any person now living. But he has taken the very long view as to its implementation, as he should.

As to his teachings? His legacy is so incredibly Great, that it will take a couple generations before the faithful as a whole can really begin to appreciate how well this man has served the Church.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), November 09, 2003.

"Opposed to what teachings of John Paul II?"

[Attorney:] "Objection, your Honor! Asked and answered. I request that the court reporter read that answer, previously given ..."

[Reporter:] "... ANY of the teachings of the pope ..."

[Attorney:] "Correct. The question is 'Who is opposed to ANY one or more of his teachings?' The opening question, as amended, has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 'new teachings' or with teachings 'already requiring assent before John Paul II become the Roman Pontiff.' The question was just this -- nothing more and nothing less: 'Who considers himself opposed to any of the teachings of the pope and/or to obedience to the Holy Father?' Clearly, anyone who will not immediately answer that question with a simple 'I' or 'Not I' is either guilty of a crime or doesn't qualify as a sane human being. I ask, your Honor, that those who refuse so to reply be incarcerated for contempt of court or remanded to a psychiatric facility."

[Judge:] "So ordered."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 09, 2003.

John,

Very good something or other legal impersonation. But I would not be so quick to pass judgment on those with opposing views. Freedom of speech is big reason people are here on this board. And for that matter, its why this board even exists in the first place.

Also, evangelism is an important part of the spiritual life of any complete Catholic. That won't be possible if we just ban anyone with an opposing view.

In starting this thread, I just thought it would be interesting to pose the question of Vatican II in terms of Magisterial obedience. In my mind, thats the really critical issue regarding how Vatican II is perceived and implemented.

Don't you agree?

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), November 09, 2003.

Pat:

"Quite simply, the Pope is charged with leading the Catholic church, taken as a whole, toward union with God. This requires him to follow a path that will not please all the individual members."

I agree completely, except I would say "the path" instead of "a path", since the latter might give someone the impression that there are other ways, and the whole idea is to lead them in the one same way which Christ instituted. But overall, yeah, I agree with this statement.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 09, 2003.

Jmj

Pat, you wrote: "In starting this thread, I just thought it would be interesting to pose the question of Vatican II in terms of Magisterial obedience. In my mind, that's the really critical issue regarding how Vatican II is perceived and implemented. Don't you agree?"

I can't answer that, because I can't understand your terminology -- specifically "magisterial obedience." Please paraphrase or define what you are talking about. The dilemma is this:
"magisterial" refers to the teaching authority of the Church's bishops -- the "office" by which they impart and explain doctrines;
"obedience," however, refers to the disciplinary authority of the Church's bishops -- which is related to changeable laws, not to unchangeable doctrines.
Now perhaps you can see why I restated your opener by having it refer clearly both to believing doctrine and to obeying disciplines. The Council is related to both.

You also wrote: "But I would not be so quick to pass judgment on those with opposing views. Freedom of speech is big reason people are here on this board. And for that matter, its why this board even exists in the first place."

You are completely wrong! You're a relative newcomer, and you have posted little, but you are going to tell us what this board is for? No way, Jose!

First, I don't "pass judgment on those with opposing views." Rather, I pass judgment on their views. Some of the views contain errors, which I try to refute, even more than once, if necessary. Sometimes, circumstances warrant that views eventually be stopped from being posted.

Second, you are wrong to use the words "so quick." I am not overly "quick" at all. I give a person plenty of time to show whether or not he and his position deserve to have a place here. When he repeatedly breaks rules over a period of time, he shows himself unworthy. Only then do I call for people to be banned.

Third, this board doesn't exist because of "freedom of speech," and it is not a place for the full exercise of "freedom of speech"! While there is no registration here, making the forum seem as though it is on "public ground" (and subject to the Bill of Rights), in reality this is a private site, governed by its own rules, and people do not have full "free-speech rights" here. (If they did, there could be all kinds of obscenity, no limitation whatsoever on the subject matter, etc..)

You wrote: "Also, evangelism is an important part of the spiritual life of any complete Catholic. That won't be possible if we just ban anyone with an opposing view."

I'm not sure what you mean by "evangelism." Did you intend to say "evangelization"? My dictionary says that "evangelism" means:
1. the winning, or revival, of personal commitments to Christ.
2. militant or crusading zeal.
Well, whatever you had in mind, I'll address the second part ... The forum does NOT "just ban anyone with an opposing view." The moderator is supposed to ban people who repeatedly violate the letter or spirit of the rules. Through the years, every trouble-maker has gotten at least one second chance -- usually several, sometimes many. The problem is that now, most rules-breakers (especially those who claim to be Catholic) don't seem to get two chances, but rather two thousand chances, because the moderation has become grossly imprudent.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

John said......First, I don't "pass judgment on those with opposing views." Rather, I pass judgment on their views. Some of the views contain errors, which I try to refute, even more than once, if necessary. Sometimes, circumstances warrant that views eventually be stopped from being posted.

I think we all need to be very careful when passing judgement on other peoples views. NONE of us are experts in any of this...we are just here to discuss and hopefully learn together.

martina

-- martina (tinanorks@yahoo.com), November 10, 2003.

Two dozen handkerchiefs fo Gecik's Christmas gift.

-- Baby cry (booboo @baw.com), November 11, 2003.

Jmj

Martina, you wrote: "I think we all need to be very careful when passing judgement on other peoples views. NONE of us are experts in any of this ... we are just here to discuss and hopefully learn together."

You are mistaken. It is not necessary to be some kind of "topnotch expert" in order to recognize when someone is repeatedly trying to fool people into believing errors (things contrary to the Catechism, the documents of Vatican II, or the teachings of the pope) -- and/or repeatedly approving of disobedience to the pope. When people do things of this kind -- again and again and again -- they MUST be sent packing by the moderator. [And "Baby cry" can take his little 31 IQ, along with the offenders, out the door.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 12, 2003.

The Pope is in serious error--followng the progression of the Church for the past 50-60 years. Error or no, he IS the Pope, and we are bound to love and pray for him.

For those among you who like experiments, go a Protestant service, then go to a "Catholic" service (those are NOT the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass). Decide for yourself.

-- true catholic (truecatholic@anonymous.net), February 09, 2005.

YOU are the one in serious error. Bad-mouthing the Vicar of Christ on earth. Your argument is totally specious and false.

''you who like experiments, go a Protestant service, then go to a "Catholic" service.''

''There is our HOLY MASS; what's that got to do with a protestant service?

On whose authority have you announced, ''(those are NOT the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.)''. Not the Church's authority, but Satan's??????

And, kindly never come here to say, "Catholic" service, with quotation marks. The Mass is absolutely Catholic in our Church-- the Holy Sacrifice of Our Lord on the cross, commemorated. We have nothing but disgust for those ''scare quotes'' you place around the Holy Mass; It's no protestant ''service.''

Judge for yourself???? That's your problem, ''true so-called catholic'': You think you can judge for yourself. You couldn't judge yourself out of a dark closet.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2005.