Sedevacantism
#61
(11-13-2019, 02:06 AM)yablabo Wrote: You can't control if any priest or bishop puts some portion of this money he receives into a further payment to the USCCB, and it is not your responsibility to police things as such.... Lay persons are not culpable for the way a bishop or priest spends his own money.

Not to belabor the point any further, but what is the specific support for these claims in particular?  Not the notion of tithing, but the notion that we should not be concerned about where our money is going and that we're absolved of all moral responsibility?  Is there something specific you're referencing, because this seems to me an extraordinary claim - that we are morally obligated to put on blinders and not question funding streams up to and including donations to Planned Parenthood.  I mean I think you should be able to understand why I would want a very clear and direct citation for this, right?  Again, not anything about tithing obligations generally, but the idea of the abrogation of responsibility.
Reply
#62
(11-13-2019, 03:19 AM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote:
(11-13-2019, 02:06 AM)yablabo Wrote: You can't control if any priest or bishop puts some portion of this money he receives into a further payment to the USCCB, and it is not your responsibility to police things as such.... Lay persons are not culpable for the way a bishop or priest spends his own money.

Not to belabor the point any further, but what is the specific support for these claims in particular?  Not the notion of tithing, but the notion that we should not be concerned about where our money is going and that we're absolved of all moral responsibility?  Is there something specific you're referencing, because this seems to me an extraordinary claim - that we are morally obligated to put on blinders and not question funding streams up to and including donations to Planned Parenthood.  I mean I think you should be able to understand why I would want a very clear and direct citation for this, right?  Again, not anything about tithing obligations generally, but the idea of the abrogation of responsibility.

It’s solely a natural law consideration.  

Another example is in paying taxes.  You are not responsible for the portion of your federal income tax payment that goes to fund Planned Parenthood or other illicit program.

Another example is in paying for vegetables at the farmer’s market.  You’re not responsible for the seller’s earnings going to a prostitute.

In the same fashion, once you pay the local priest, Bishop, and the Pope what they are due, you have no say how they spend their money.

It’s not an abrogation of responsibility, it’s about a change in ownership.  You no longer own the value you paid, therefore, you have no say on title, possession, or disposal.  It stands to reason, therefore, that you can bear no culpability in the matter.
Reply
#63
This sub-discussion on contributions to the Church is exactly what I'm referring to when I ask how people can say "X is the Pope, Y is my bishop and Z is my parish" and then refuse to have anything to do with anything. There's a point of law being argued that is just... stupid. We as lay Catholics are capable of determining that heresy is being preached/taught and then we pretend that it's being taught by people who aren't heretics? Apostasy is committed by people who aren't apostates and idolatry is practiced by people who aren't idolaters? 

Here's something that should keep us awake at night: "Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not."


How's that observe and do whatsoever they say thing going?
Reply
#64
Clearly, there is a lot of talking past each other going on here and also lack of distinctions.

The issue isn't a change of ownership. If it were that simple, one could donate to any immoral organization. Once the money is theirs, it's no longer my responsibility what they do with it, and it's not my responsibility to police them. 

No, the issue is material cooperation in supporting evil organizations or activities. This gets to the very reason why a person cannot donate money to immoral organizations like Planned Parenthood. Otherwise one could hold the absurd view that a pro-lifer could donate to Planned Parenthood with the hopes that the "good" activities of the organization are supported while still disapproving of the bad. It is a clear contradiction on many levels.

If bishops or bishops' conference tell me that they are going to distribute tithed money in a certain way, they are telling me their intentions, and their intentions are entirely relevant to what I give my money to since my tithed money is owed to them only to support them, not to support whatever organization they think is important to support.

The example of a farmer's market seller using his earnings to go to a prostitute is completely irrelevant to this discussion since you couldn't know what his intentions were unless he had a big sign in front of his stand saying "All proceeds go to support my fornication." The issue of federal taxes is also irrelevant since we don't have a choice in the matter except insofar as we attempt to support politicians or policies.

While there is a requirement to support the Church, there is no specification as to how we do that. A bulk of the history of tithing deals precisely with how exactly do we offer support. If you're a farmer, do you offer your chickens' eggs? Maybe not in the 21st century. Here we're talking about programs that openly describe what they do with our money, so we enter the realm of material cooperation, which requires a modicum of consideration for how our money is used.

No one is talking about policing that money. Neither is anyone discussing withholding it entirely. But to pretend that the distribution of our tithed money is to be conducted without any accountability, in light of all the scandals, especially financial, that have gone on within the Church, is ridiculous. Parishioners have the right to demand financial accountability, at least in their weekly bulletin or on a page of their parish's or diocese's website. The clergy have the obligation to fulfill their duties. The point of giving them financial support is so that they can do their duties. It's not policing to ask for simple reassurance that our money given to support their livelihood is doing precisely that. What business or organization could survive without such basic procedures?

As Jovan rightly pointed out, the Church does not tell us exactly how we must offer material support. In fact, you could go to a Novus Ordo parish, not put anything in the collection, and send your financial support to those parts of the Church you do approve of, such as good seminaries. When I was a seminarian, my Knights of Columbus council and local Serra Club sponsored portions of my tuition. These are concrete ways of providing material support with full transparency.
[-] The following 1 user Likes piscis's post:
  • Imperator Caesar Trump
Reply
#65
(11-13-2019, 10:16 AM)boredoftheworld Wrote: There's a point of law being argued that is just... stupid. We as lay Catholics are capable of determining that heresy is being preached/taught and then we pretend that it's being taught by people who aren't heretics? Apostasy is committed by people who aren't apostates and idolatry is practiced by people who aren't idolaters?

You can judge external actions and guess at their probably culpability.

You and I both don't get to play judge, jury and executioner in determining if a crime is committed by someone. Only the authorities who have that power can make that call.

Is the Pope a heretic and apostate? Certainly looks like he committed scandalous sins and actions that a heretic or apostate would do, so in all likelihood, yes he's guilty of a slew of terrible sins.

Is the Pope guilty of the crime of heresy or apostasy, by which he would lose his office? Not my call.

(11-13-2019, 10:16 AM)boredoftheworld Wrote: Here's something that should keep us awake at night: "Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not."

How's that observe and do whatsoever they say thing going?

Our Lord was certainly no recommending that one go along with what is sinful. That's a principle of moral law, that the authority must be obeyed in what concerns his authority unless what is commanded is sinful or gravely injurious to the common good. It's the Nuremburg problem : "I was just following orders" doesn't absolve one of guilt. But even when an authority who severely abused his authority commands something that can be done without grave harm or sin, then it must.

Problem is little, if anything, has been commanded, so I fail to see where traddies are truly disobedient.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
#66
(11-13-2019, 01:56 PM)piscis Wrote: The example of a farmer's market seller using his earnings to go to a prostitute is completely irrelevant to this discussion since you couldn't know what his intentions were unless he had a big sign in front of his stand saying "All proceeds go to support my fornication." 

lol
Reply
#67
(11-13-2019, 01:56 PM)piscis Wrote: The example of a farmer's market seller using his earnings to go to a prostitute is completely irrelevant to this discussion since you couldn't know what his intentions were unless he had a big sign in front of his stand saying "All proceeds go to support my fornication." 

The modern mitre is basically this, is it not? (well, perhaps is more prostitution to political causes and not fornication, itself)

Reminds me of a joke an old priest once told me :

An Irish man was worried about his teenage son and what his vocation was, and couldn't get anything out of the lad, so he went to the priest and asked for help. "Bring him in on Saturday," he said, "and I'll have a special test for him." So on Saturday the boy and Father showed up, the priest had put out in the room an ornate Missal, a bag full of silver coins and a bottle of whiskey. He explained to the Father that he'd tell the boy to go in and pick something as a gift while unbeknownst to the boy they watched from the next room through a crack in the wall. "If the boy chooses the Missal," the priest said, "well then he has a priestly vocation. If he chooses the money, he'll be a banker or businessman, but if he picks the bottle, well, sad to say, he'll probably be good for nothing." So the boy was sent in, and looked at the table, then looked around to make sure no one was looking, and placing the missal under his arm, grabbed the sack of money, took a swig of the bottle and carried all three off. "God be praised," exclaimed the priest. The father was confused, so asked, "What does this mean, Father?" The old priest replied, "Your son is meant to be a bishop."
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Imperator Caesar Trump, MiserereMeiDeus, piscis
Reply
#68
Great thread.  Thank you.
But one thing is necessary. Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her.  Luke 10:42
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)