Catholic church distancing from uncomfortable teachings?

vorbis

I'd consider myself a catholic. I do have sex before marriage so realise the contradiction.

The unpleasant side of church teachings would be imo no sex before marriage, contraception and the existence of hell.

Now in the past 5 years of going to Mass, I'm struggling to remember any readings or sermons in reference to the above topics. The over riding message in sermons was rightly about living a good life, worshipping God and helping people less fortunate than you.

I realise hell, contraception etc is church teachings but its not actually taught anymore. Anyone else notice this?

Zombrex

vorbis wrote:

The over riding message in sermons was rightly about living a good life, worshipping God and helping people less fortunate than you.

I realise hell, contraception etc is church teachings but its not actually taught anymore. Anyone else notice this?

Where you not taught that hell was for people who didn't lead a good life, didn't worship God and didn't help people less fortunate that them?

vorbis

sermons are typically about how worshipping the lord will lead to going to heaven. The flip side of that coin is never verbalised. I'm going by my local church and by masses I've been to in Boston. Actual use of the word hell and talk about it is very rare.

As I said, i'm struggling to think of the last time a sermon was about it. The same regards contraception and homosexuality. I vauguely remember a sermon about the importance of chastity but again it focused on chastity and didn't criticise the idea of pre marital sex.

BrianCalgary

I really can't comment on the Catholic sermon record. In our church you do hear very little regarding sin and Hell. More of an emphasis is put on expository teaching of the word.

The sermon usually culminates in some sort of application of th eword in yoru own life.

kelly1

vorbis wrote:

I'd consider myself a catholic. I do have sex before marriage so realise the contradiction.

The unpleasant side of church teachings would be imo no sex before marriage, contraception and the existence of hell.

Now in the past 5 years of going to Mass, I'm struggling to remember any readings or sermons in reference to the above topics. The over riding message in sermons was rightly about living a good life, worshipping God and helping people less fortunate than you.

I realise hell, contraception etc is church teachings but its not actually taught anymore. Anyone else notice this?

Hello Vorbis, you are right to be concerned. The Church's teaching on these matters hasn't changed at all. But I think this is a case of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater, particularly in Ireland. In the 1940/50/60s priests were for ever condeming sins of the flesh from the pulpit. I wasn't there so I don't know what it was like but I suspect there was too much emphasis on sin and damnation.

Now the pendulum has swing completely over to the other side and sin is hardly ever mentioned. It seems to be a side-effect of Vatican II. The message you get now days is that every thing's rosy in the garden and that we're all going straight to Heaven (bypassing Purgatory) usless you are an axe-murderer. Let's remember what Our Lady said in Fatima:

"More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason."

Like you, I can't remember when I last heard a sermon that included Church teachings on things such as fornication, adultery, Hell, Purgatory, contraception and sacramental confession. I don't believe for a minute that the Church is trying to control anyone but rather she is concerned with preaching the Truth which is necessary is necessary for the salvation of souls. The primary goal of the Church should be the salvation of souls!

There is a weakness within the clergy that prevents them preaching about matters of personal morality. I think they're afraid of a backlash from guilty parties and that they don't want to loose Church members. The other problem
is a lack of good catechesis. The majority of catholics don't really understand their faith.

On the other hand I think there is an arrogance among the faithful in that they don't want to be told how to live their lives. They only want to hear the good news because the bad news involves changing personal behaviour which is often "inconvenient" and rooted in selfishness. People don't want to submit to the God-given teaching authority of the Church.

Re your own situation, I don't mean to be judgemental, but receiving Holy Communion is a state of mortal sin is a grave sacrilege. In a private revelation to St. Brigid, Our Lord supposedly said:

"There does not exist on earth a punishment which is great enough to punish it sufficently!"

This is what St. Paul had to say about it:

27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

But remember that our Lord always welcomes and is ready to forgive the humble and contrite sinner (e.g. me).

God bless,
Noel.

robindch

kelly1 wrote:

The Church's teaching on these matters hasn't changed at all.

This has come up before and few posters (myself included) took the trouble to show you where the catholic church's message has changed and changed substantially over the years in areas like abortion, priestly marriage, dogma and so on. You are welcome to ignore the fact that these changes have taken place, but you would be less than honest in doing so.

kelly1

robindch wrote:

This has come up before and few posters (myself included) took the trouble to show you where the catholic church's message has changed and changed substantially over the years in areas like abortion, priestly marriage, dogma and so on. You are welcome to ignore the fact that these changes have taken place, but you would be less than honest in doing so.

Robindch, I've already addressed your accusations re celibaby and dogma and I don't recall you disputing these points. On the point of abortion, I don't believe there is any dogma concerning when the soul enters the human body. Way back in the dark ages I think they used to believe it was 40 days after conception but this later changed to the time of conception. If they really believed that the body was soul-less until 40 days after conception, then this would alter the abortion debate dramatically.

Thanks for the fly in the ointment!

God bless,
Noel.

robindch

kelly1 wrote:

Way back in the dark ages I think they used to believe it was 40 days after conception but this later changed to the time of conception. If they really believed that the body was soul-less until 40 days after conception, then this would alter the abortion debate dramatically.

Depends on your definition of "dark ages" -- the Vatican started shifting from the Aristotelian 40/80 day position, AFAIR, in the 16th century, before finally settling on the current date-of-conception idea around 140 years ago, so the current position is a relatively recent change.

I believe you're correct in saying that this isn't an item of dogma, though I'm not altogether sure that I understand the difference between the ideas of creed, doctrine, dogma, dogmata, catechism and teachings, all of which seem to be used interchangeably, when they perhaps shouldn't be. It's certainly not in the Nicene creed which constitutes the dogma of many religious organizations, including the catholic church.

kelly1 wrote:

Thanks for the fly in the ointment!

We aim to please

bonkey

robindch wrote:

I believe you're correct in saying that this isn't an item of dogma, though I'm not altogether sure that I understand the difference between the ideas of creed, doctrine, dogma, dogmata, catechism and teachings, all of which seem to be used interchangeably, when they perhaps shouldn't be.

Maybe its "just a theory"