The one-on-one work of charity is not fruitless if it is motivated and accompanied by grace. But that is not the "pro-life movement," in fact it's the opposite. A couple of decades ago when I graduated from college I went to Washington DC to interview with National Right to Life. The entire interview consisted primarily of finding out if I were one of those radical types who did things like sit-ins. When he found out I did sidewalk counseling, he had no interest.
The movement does its best to keep at arms' length anyone who is truly committed to the cause of life. That's because they have compromised with the forces of death. For example, just recently NRTL testified AGAINST a bill in South Dakota which would have made abortion illegal. They do not want abortion to be a crime. They support exceptions, as though the direct taking of the life of an innocent human being could be justified by the circumstances.
So while you have good being done by one-on-one Christian charity, you have to compare that tp the evil being done by the political movement which has achieved zero success and which has sold out the basic principles at every opportunity.
What kind of person are you?
First of all, I'm the kind of person who tries to accept an intellectual challenge head-on, rather than use the diversionary tactics of changing the subject and attacking the other person.
Don't you agree that God is responsible for the ultimate victory, but we are all personally responsible for doing the small task God gives us individually? God's work in human history is achieved by thousands of people doing their own small part in His work.
Yes, and my small part is first of all to do my best in my own family. If I fail at that, then nothing else I can possibly do could ever compensate for my failure at that primary obligation. I have a responsibility to provide a good example for my children and to raise them so that they are living lives of sanctifying grace.
My other small part is to analyze the root causes of our current crisis. If tens of millions of Catholics are living in a state of mortal sin, if they are using birth control, and living together without marriage, and getting divorced, and failing to attend Mass every Sunday, and not going to regular confession, there has to be some explanation for such a massive societal movement from a state of grace to a state of mortal sin. There must be underlying causes that result in the same destinations for millions upon millions of Catholics, and anyone who doesn't figure out what those underlying causes are will find themselves in the same situation as all the rest.
What specifically has JPII written which will lead to failed marriages?
My previous post mentioned 2 specific examples.
1) JPII does not support the hierarchical nature of the relationship between husbands and wives. "The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church." JPII does everything he can to undermine this teaching.
2)JPII does not support generosity in accepting children from God and reliance upon divine providence. Instead he promotes "responsible parenthood" and family limitation through natural means.
This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome?
Of course it has been entrusted to them, but the unfortunate fact is that they have failed in fulfilling their trust. Your bishop is Pilla. Do you adhere to his interpretation of the Catholic faith? You should do a search for posts here on FreeRepublic by Diago, a fellow Clevelander. Pilla is trying to destroy the Catholic faith in Cleveland. You have an obligation to oppose his efforts, and to defend the Catholic faith from his attempts to destroy it.
From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to "obey and submit" to the Church's leaders, holding them in respect and affection?
This is no different from our obligation to obey and respect our parents, or a wife's obligation to obey and respect her husband. Of course we have an obligation to do so. But what happens when a parent or a husband counsels something immoral? Then we have a more primary obligation to obey and respect God. One hopes that these duties are never in conflict. In normal circumstances, superiors like parents, husbands and church leaders are all defending and promoting the laws of God. But that is not always the case.
We know that today there are many parents and husbands who encourage women to have abortions. This is evil, and must be resisted. There can be no obedience or even respect in that case. An even more common situation is for people in positions of respect and obedience to counsel the use of birth control. Many parents and husbands and church authorities will counsel couples not to get carried away with accepting children from God. "Don't put yourself on the fringe of society by having a large family," they say. This too is evil advice and must be rejected.
So the point is that while God has placed certain people in positions of authority, and our normal obligation is obedience and respect towards them, we cannot obey when they counsel something opposed to the law of God. St. Peter said, "God forbid that we should obey the laws of men rather than the laws of God." He was speaking to religious authorities to whom he had an obligation of respect and obedience. But not when they told him to do something wrong.
St. Paul teaches us that the civil authorities are likewise established by God for our welfare and that we have an obligation to obey and respect them. But when those civil authorities ordered the martyrs to offer worship to idols, they refused, even under excruciating torture and death.
We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church?
The authoritative teaching of the Church cannot change. The Catholic Church was not founded in 1962, there are 2000 years of authoritative teachings. Anything which is said today which contradicts what has been taught for 2000 years must be ignored. As Catholics, we have an obligation to familiarize ourselves with the tradition and magisterium of the Church as it has been taught over the entire 2000 years, not just in the last 40 years, especially when there is any apparent conflict.
Are loyal to the current magisterium? Are you happily married? Are you a baptized, or practicing Catholic?
Yes I am a baptized and practising Catholic, and yes I am happily married and the father of a quite large family. I am loyal to the magisterium of the Church. The teaching authority of the Church is not something which can ever be called "current." I oppose every novelty which is not part of Catholic tradition, no matter who may propose it, from the pope on down.
You might, in fact be very interested in challanging Catholic authorities who disagree with the official Church teaching. I always have.
I might indeed be interested in doing so. But in order to know who are these "Catholic authorities who disagree with the official Church teaching," I first have to know what the official Church teaching is. Then I can know who is disagreeing with it, whether it is my local pastor, my bishop, or the pope. Here is the best document to start with:
Thanks!
You wrote: "This is no different from our obligation to obey and respect our parents, or a wife's obligation to obey and respect her husband. Of course we have an obligation to do so." Based on your comments, is it accurate to assume that you are confidently disagree with our Pope's teaching regarding rights and obligations of spouses? He interprets "Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Eph. 5: 21) differently than you do, in his teaching Dignitatem (The Dignity of Women) and his Theology of the Body.
Eight-hundred years ago, there was likely no teaching condemning slavery. Bishops, Priests, and Catholics may all have owned slaves.
"But if his master gives him [the slave] a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall remain the master's property and the man shall leave alone. ... "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do." (Exodus 31:4,7 )
"But what does the scripture say? "Drive out the slave woman and her son! For the son of the slave woman shall not share the inheritance with the son" of the freeborn." (Gal. 4:30)
Slaves had the obligation to obey and respect their owners. How do you reconcile that church teaching can't change, when even the bible condoned slavery while church teaching from the last 200 years condemn it. What changed? These apparent inconsistencies never concerned me because I trust God guided the Magisterium in 1930 as much as he does in 1988. Truth doesn't contradict itself.
If you are one of those husbands who believes wives are obligated to obey their husbands in all things but sin, without recongnizing that the husband has equal dignity with his wife and she has equal authority over him, then you appear to be contradictng the magisterium. Just as the culture and the church recognized that slavery was a grave offense against nature, immoral, and a gross disregard for the dignity of the human person, one sided domination of a husband over his wife is equally offensive.
I recognize that this is a tangent from the purpose of this weblog, but evidently there is also a need to defend marriage against distortions of Church teaching which lead to wife abuse. If I am misinterpreting what you mean, please advise me.