2 disagreements so im not a real Catholic?

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Ok. then my philosophy is not utilitarian. I could care less about pleasure. I am a soldier, and pretty much live not much different than our cloistered monks. Except, I carry guns and I hunt terrorist. I also could care less about the common good. I believe in the rule of law. And in doing what is right, reguardless of my personal feelings and beliefs. Sometimes this gets me into trouble. I may not like what my government has me do at times, but as long as the order is not illegal. I will do it. If the order is illegal. i.e. firing on unarmed civilians, I will not obey the orders of my superiors, and will do all in my power to prevent the order from being carried out by others. Does this help in clarifying my philosophy? I am finding this interesting, and a way to know my self better. I thank God for those of you who are better educated. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut and time. And also thank you for sharing bunny. I have seen him for a long time here, and never could remember to ask. Peace

I haven’t read philosophy in a long time, but it’s possible that you might be interested in Kantism (by philosopher Immanuel Kant). He argued that we should do good for “good’s sake”, and not for any other reason; we are act with what he termed as “duty” or the elegantly spelled out “categorical imperative”.

In fact, I was just about to start a thread asking what the Church’s stance is on Immanuel Kant. Persoanlly, I can see many parallels, and I feel more connected to him than St. Thomas Aquinas (who is quite difficult to read).

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[benidict]

I haven’t read philosophy in a long time, but it’s possible that you might be interested in Kantism (by philosopher Immanuel Kant). He argued that we should do good for “good’s sake”, and not for any other reason; we are act with what he termed as “duty” or the elegantly spelled out “categorical imperative”.

In fact, I was just about to start a thread asking what the Church’s stance is on Immanuel Kant. Persoanlly, I can see many parallels, and I feel more connected to him than St. Thomas Aquinas (who is quite difficult to read).

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

I have never heard of this philosopher. I may have a new author to study. Thank you very much. I also have never heard of this philosphy, I think I might find it very interesting. It would fit in with alot of my own thinking. Peace

 

[vsedriver]

I disagree with the church teaching on prohibiting barrier methods of contraception and their view that the death penalty is acceptable in some cases. However I accept both of them and chalk up my disagreement as a shortcoming that hopefully someday I will be able to resolve. Please note that there is a difference between disagreement and rejection.

I was where you were so I did a thorough study of what the Church says about sex, it’s role and function in our lives. To say the least I was bowled over and completely humbled by what I learned. Sometimes our resistance to Church teaching is more about what we don’t know than what we think we know.

As far as the death penalty goes, I can see why the Church allows it, especially in cases of self-defense for society but the Church has no problem with me being against the death penalty all together.

 

[vsedriver]

I am willing to keep my mouth shut, but Im not going to lie, and state I agree with something I do not. That in and of itself would be a sin. Thank you for your kind words. And I truly believe that those in the Jewish tradition are our close relatives, and You are Still the Chosen people of God. Peace

Rather than say you disagree with a Church teaching perhaps it would be more correct to say you do not understand a Church teaching. In that way you don’t have to keep your mouth shut yet are not publicly being disobedient to Church teaching.

Don’t seek agreement but seek understanding.

 

[benidict]

Rather than say you disagree with a Church teaching perhaps it would be more correct to say you do not understand a Church teaching. In that way you don’t have to keep your mouth shut yet are not publicly being disobedient to Church teaching.

Don’t seek agreement but seek understanding.

Interesting advice. Let me get back to you on that. I appreciate this VS. Thank you.

 

[TedDC]

I was where you were so I did a thorough study of what the Church says about sex, it’s role and function in our lives. To say the least I was bowled over and completely humbled by what I learned. Sometimes our resistance to Church teaching is more about what we don’t know than what we think we know.

I have quite the opposite reaction - I see some Church teachings as essentially declarative, not explanatory. I found them to be compelling at a superficial level, but upon digging deeper, I saw that they were merely assertions built upon weak foundations of unproven assumptions.

 

[benidict]

I have quite the opposite reaction - I see some Church teachings as essentially declarative, not explanatory. I found them to be compelling at a superficial level, but upon digging deeper, I saw that they were merely assertions built upon weak foundations of unproven assumptions.

Hi Ted. I dont wholly disagree with you. are you a former Catholic, and was this a factor in you leaving if you are. Peace

 

[TedDC]

Hi Ted. I dont wholly disagree with you. are you a former Catholic, and was this a factor in you leaving if you are. Peace

Yes, to both questions.

 

[vsedriver]

But the OP said that his disagreements had to do with preserving life. I would just note that while the current debate on life issues would seem to make the preservation of physical life paramount, from the Church’s point of view, physical life is not ever the most important thing. Eternal life is. Attaining heaven is more important than preserving life. So, assuming the issues concern the greatest good for an individual’s life in this world, one has to realize that for the Church, the condition of one’s life in this world is merely temporary; eternal life is paramount.

Once I turned all my thinking to Eternal Life, many things changed in my life. I had no idea how totally wrapped up in physical life I was. I still struggle with this. But when my focus is on Eternal Life things that seemed a pain or annoyance to do became a joy.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

God Bless your sons. I love Marines! I am sure they would stand up to an illegal order. I am also sure that they, like myself, have nothing to ever worry about in this reguard. I have very good leadership. Even our officers routinely put themselves into harms way along with the lowest enlisted private. Not just Captains, or Leautenants, but Colonels as well. We have the most moral armed forces on the planet. My prayers for him. And if he is in Afghanistan, then I shall double them up. I am an Army M.P. and sometimes we get to work with the Marines. Great guys/ladies.

My one marine son is home right now on pre-deployment leave. Soon he goes back to Okinawa and then on to Afghanistan next month. My other son will probably deploy in the fall. Thanks for the prayers.

John

 

[benidict]

Just a thought, but it seems to me that many of our opinions and actions in everyday life stem from a utilitarian philosophy. My own inclination is to alway try to make people happy with an outcome, for example. That’s utilitarian, because it operates on how everyone is going to be affected by the outcome, without respect to underlying moral principles. (Who can think about moral principles all the time?)

Someone once said that “compassion leads to the gas chamber.” Compassion for an unwed pregnant woman can lead to the death of her child. Compassion for a sick and elderly person can lead to active euthanasia. Compassion for a sinner can lead to advocating the sin. Sometimes the best of intentions can produce the worst of results.

But the OP said that his disagreements had to do with preserving life. I would just note that while the current debate on life issues would seem to make the preservation of physical life paramount, from the Church’s point of view, physical life is not ever the most important thing. Eternal life is. Attaining heaven is more important than preserving life. So, assuming the issues concern the greatest good for an individual’s life in this world, one has to realize that for the Church, the condition of one’s life in this world is merely temporary; eternal life is paramount.

Now this is fascinating. Either you are mistaken in your understanding of what the Church teaches, or the Church is badly mistaken and does not take into account what Christ plainly stated. If we care only for a persons spirtual well being and not their physical, we are worse than an infidel, or a heathen. If all we give a darn about is Eternal life. We really screw up. Not mad at you. I think you raise an excellet point. Peace

 

[hxcCatholic413]

We are allowed to have our own mind on everything as long as it is not contrary to the teachings of the church. The way I resolved accepting something even though in my heart I disagreed with it was that if the church was wrong about, say contraception, how do I know they werenot also wrong about the divinity of Jesus and the resurrection? There are so so many things about our faith that I accept but don’t fully understand. That is why it is called faith I guess

In my view it’s quite clear that Jesus was both divine and human…reading scriptures it’s obvious by what he said, did, and taught. I don’t understand how your against Death Penalty in all cases (same here ), but for various methods of contraception isn’t that a contradiction of sorts? hmm not trying to incite anything just struck me as odd. God Bless!

 

[hxcCatholic413]

I agree that I can never call myself anything but Catholic. But would you associate with your family if they questioned your loyalty to them, based on 2 disagreements? This could get pretty uncomfortable, wouldnt you agree? I may have to throw myself on the mercy of Jesus at the end of it all. Im willing to spend time in purgatory, for my objections, If in fact I am in error. Both “errors” if thats what they are, are made with the intent to preserve Life.

hey you have a mind and a heart that God gave you yes it’s okay to have disagreements…hey there’s priests that don’t agree w/ everything. One of my biggest disagreements is that the Church allows married Episcopalian priests to convert and become Catholic priests, but cradle Catholics that become priests can’t become married? God Bless!

 

[hxcCatholic413]

benidict:
Now this is fascinating. Either you are mistaken in your understanding of what the Church teaches, or the Church is badly mistaken and does not take into account what Christ plainly stated. If we care only for a persons spirtual well being and not their physical, we are worse than an infidel, or a heathen. If all we give a darn about is Eternal life. We really screw up. Not mad at you. I think you raise an excellet point. Peace

Simple Answer:
Church is supposed to teach prayer, fasting, and almsgiving…That’s it!

 

[benidict]

hey you have a mind and a heart that God gave you yes it’s okay to have disagreements…hey there’s priests that don’t agree w/ everything. One of my biggest disagreements is that the Church allows married Episcopalian priests to convert and become Catholic priests, but cradle Catholics that become priests can’t become married? God Bless!

very good points. you raise. I would also add, this is yet another inconsistency on the part of Rome. It seems we have double standard all over the place. More to follow, I have some very good examples. Peace

 

[mark_a]

No - you should study the 2 issues and pray to understand why you are in error.

 

[estesbob]

In my view it’s quite clear that Jesus was both divine and human…reading scriptures it’s obvious by what he said, did, and taught. I don’t understand how your against Death Penalty in all cases (same here ), but for various methods of contraception isn’t that a contradiction of sorts? hmm not trying to incite anything just struck me as odd. God Bless!

The church does not say I have to accept the death penalty. Just that it is appropriate in some cases. I disagree with that but I accept their teaching and take pains to never try to mislead others, especially Catholics, as to what the church teaching is.

On the contraception I should clarify that by saying that I understand the church’s prohibition against all forms of contraception, including barrier methods, in marriage. I have a problem with a prohibition on barrier methods of contraception outside of marriage in that it seems to me the couple is already committing a sin and perhaps not been open to life is not the same problem it is for a married couple. But again I accept the teaching

 

[JimG]

benidict:
Now this is fascinating. Either you are mistaken in your understanding of what the Church teaches, or the Church is badly mistaken and does not take into account what Christ plainly stated. If we care only for a persons spirtual well being and not their physical, we are worse than an infidel, or a heathen. If all we give a darn about is Eternal life. We really screw up. Not mad at you. I think you raise an excellet point. Peace It is not that concern for eternal life can exclude care for our neighbors’ physical life. It is rather that no matter how well we care for our neighbors’ --or or own–physical life, if means nothing if we end up in hell rather than in heaven.

In fact, if one were to take the description of the last judgment in Matthew’s gospel literally, (Matt 25:31ff) it would seem that care of our neighbors’ physical needs is the sole criterion for entering heaven.

Yet if care for the physical and material needs of fellow human beings were all that mattered, the Church would be a political organization, not a Church.

A huge part of Church activity in the world is devoted to charitable endeavors, but the spiritual works of mercy are as important as the corporal works of mercy. What does it profit a man to gain the whole world (or even a small part of the world, materially) and lose his eternal soul? And what does it profit the beneficiaries of our charitable actions if they end up well off materially but spiritually bereft?

 

[hxcCatholic413]

The church does not say I have to accept the death penalty. Just that it is appropriate in some cases. I disagree with that but I accept their teaching and take pains to never try to mislead others, especially Catholics, as to what the church teaching is.

On the contraception I should clarify that by saying that I understand the church’s prohibition against all forms of contraception, including barrier methods, in marriage. I have a problem with a prohibition on barrier methods of contraception outside of marriage in that it seems to me the couple is already committing a sin and perhaps not been open to life is not the same problem it is for a married couple. But again I accept the teaching

good explanation

 

[sidbrown]

The Church has never changed a teaching on faith and morals. .

I think that the Church has changed its position on slavery. And as well, I believe that they have changed their teaching on the grounds for granting a marriage annulment, so that now almost anyone in the USA can get one. At one time it was taught that burning a heretic at the stake was the right thing to do, but now they don’t teach that. And also, it was taught that torture was allowed to extract confessions under certain circumstances, but now it is taught that it is wrong to torture people.
Another change has been whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or proceeds from the Father and from the Son. The original teaching according to the creed universally taught was that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father. However, it is now taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
Another change concerns the primary and secondary purposes of marriage. Presently, it is taught that they are coequal, but previously it was taught that one was primary and the other was secondary.