Cafeteria Catholics are getting it worse than non-Christians

[Brendan]

Is that really what I said?

Pretty much

My problem is that I can’t ask the Pope to come and interpret questions of moral theology for me. I have to do the best I can with my limited resources.

The big problem is that when the Church attempts to explain Her Teachings, as in the Councils, you reject them.

I’ve given an example of where Jesus’ teachings ( in Matthew 23) correspond directly to an Ecumenical Council ( Pastor Aeternus), but yet you stated earilier that you do not believe that Christ’s teaching are always reflected in Church teachings.

Could you explain how Christ’s teachings is NOT reflected in Pastor Aeternus? Or your reasoning on why you do not consider yourself bound by Matthew 23 and\or Pastor Aeternus?

 

[JonW]

Brendan,

Thank you for putting in what I left out. Yes, a “well-formed” conscience is the integral aspect and necessary precondition for following one’s conscience.

If I may, I’ll charitably suggest that it is hard to really hear what someone is saying when you’re both put off by one another, and showing it. In that case the discourse doesn’t get too far I think.

Of course it was unfair. That was the point, and thanks for making it for me.

It is easy to make snap judgements about somebody else’s state of mind. I was hoping somebody a little less … agreeable … would take the bait.

Actually, I respectfully think that I did not make your point, since the very reason Joseph and his father were against the Nazis from the beginning was that they thought that the Nazi philosophy and propoganda went against Church teachings.

God Bless

Jon

 

[Nordar]

As A Catholic I know that I must be in total obedience to The Magisterium, I believe that they are guided by The Holy Spirit. Jesus told us this in The Bible. Even if there is something that I question, I am still called on to be obedient to the Church teachings.
This is not a judgement on any one, it is quite simply what I as a Catholic believe. I am not more important than Jesus, if he said that we obey the Magisterium then that is what I do. I do not want to go before God on judgement day and tell him I believed what he said was wrong, and I was right because my conscience was paramount to His teachings.

 

[Penny_Plain]

The issue is that, by Penny’s own admission, she has not investigated the reasons for the Church’s teachings, and thus following her conscience can be a dangerous action.

Is that really what I said?

(sigh) Brendan, I don’t think you actually need me here to debate me. Carry on.

 

[JonW]

Hi Nordar,

Thanks very much. You are right. We should all follow the Church in Her teachings. I didn’t mean to imply that everything the Church teaches should immediately be accountable to my conscience, or anything like that. But, I see that I probably did imply that by saying the conscience is paramount. What I meant to say is that if there is something that you cannot go along with in good conscience, after having “well-formed” it, trying to form it to the teaching of the Church, as well as finding out why the Church teaches it, praying over it repeatedly, trying to see all sides of the Church’s reason, etc., then, and only then is conscience paramount. I should also say that as a Catholic, I don’t have many problems that I have come up against in regards to the Church personally, and I am often baffled by people who claim that this or that particular teaching doesn’t suit them for various and sundry reasons when it is as clear as day that they simply don’t want to behave as the Church teaches because they are enslaved to their sin to such an extent that they simply cannot see outside of it, etc. What’s more, I believe that a truly well-formed conscience will most definitely not be contrary to Church teaching. However, the gift of our free will is so important to God, and us, that the Church has said that we are to follow our well-formed conscience in these cases. Also, if you later come to regret following your conscience on some matter, that is because it was never well-formed on the issue. As I said, a fully well-formed conscience will not be contrary to any Church teaching, I think, but we are not always fully aware of how formed our true conscience is. As a result, we should in those cases adhere to Church teaching, not as “puppets” but because, to paraphrase Chesterton, “A Catholic is someone who knows that there is someone smarter than he or she is.”

God Bless

Jon

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

. Sleeping with a $5500 an hour prostitute like the (ex) Governor of New York is probably pretty nice.

EWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!

By whose definition?

 

[Nordar]

Hi Nordar,

Thanks very much. You are right. We should all follow the Church in Her teachings. I didn’t mean to imply that everything the Church teaches should immediately be accountable to my conscience, or anything like that. But, I see that I probably did imply that by saying the conscience is paramount. What I meant to say is that if there is something that you cannot go along with in good conscience, after having “well-formed” it, trying to form it to the teaching of the Church, as well as finding out why the Church teaches it, praying over it repeatedly, trying to see all sides of the Church’s reason, etc., then, and only then is conscience paramount. I should also say that as a Catholic, I don’t have many problems that I have come up against in regards to the Church personally, and I am often baffled by people who claim that this or that particular teaching doesn’t suit them for various and sundry reasons when it is as clear as day that they simply don’t want to behave as the Church teaches because they are enslaved to their sin to such an extent that they simply cannot see outside of it, etc. What’s more, I believe that a truly well-formed conscience will most definitely not be contrary to Church teaching. However, the gift of our free will is so important to God, and us, that the Church has said that we are to follow our well-formed conscience in these cases. Also, if you later come to regret following your conscience on some matter, that is because it was never well-formed on the issue. As I said, a fully well-formed conscience will not be contrary to any Church teaching, I think, but we are not always fully aware of how formed our true conscience is. As a result, we should in those cases adhere to Church teaching, not as “puppets” but because, to paraphrase Chesterton, “A Catholic is someone who knows that there is someone smarter than he or she is.”

God Bless

Jon

Thank you! I agree with what you are saying, Just for the record my post was not directed at you or anything you said

 

[Peeb]

(earlier post refers to how sleeping with a $5,500 prostitute is probably pretty nice)…
EWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!

By whose definition?

Not mine!

 

[goofyjim]

Are you saying one person cannot determine, objectively, that another person is committing a moral error?

Could you make a moral determination between a Klansman buring crosses and Mother Theresa’s charity work? Could you determin if one action was morally superior to the other?

If so, you have determined which person is getting the message of Christ better than the other. (and which one is getting it worse)

If not, then we can open up a thread in the Moral Theology forum to discuss objective morality.

So which one do you honestly adhere to?

But the Klansmen and Nazis are not loving their neighbor as Christ instructed. Cafeteria Catholics are. They’re just living the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. So to compare the two is way out of bounds.

 

[Brendan]

But the Klansmen and Nazis are not loving their neighbor as Christ instructed. .

But I thought we aren’t supposed to ‘judge other people’, who are you to judge a Nazi and tell him he is wrong

I thought you said that NOONE ( you even used caps for that) had the right to tell another person they are getting it worse.

Do you exempt yourself from your own statement?

And who, exactly, is empowered to judge if someone is actually following the ‘spirit’ of the law? You personally? Is it only you who can do that? What if someone disagrees with your assessment? How do we determine who is correct?

 

[goofyjim]

But I thought we aren’t supposed to ‘judge other people’, who are you to judge a Nazi and tell him he is wrong

I thought you said that NOONE ( you even used caps for that) had the right to tell another person they are getting it worse.

Do you exempt yourself from your own statement?

And who, exactly, is empowered to judge if someone is actually following the ‘spirit’ of the law? You personally? Is it only you who can do that? What if someone disagrees with your assessment? How do we determine who is correct?

Oh please. I think we both know the difference between a Nazi and a cafeteria Catholic. By the actions we can see that one is filled with hate while the other is not.

 

[Nordar]

Oh please. I think we both know the difference between a Nazi and a cafeteria Catholic. By the actions we can see that one is filled with hate while the other is not.

You know this how? I personally happen to know a couple of CC who are filled with hate, they just can’t seem to get past it. So you are saying that your assessment is correct and everybody who disagrees with you is wrong. Hate is hate no matter what form it takes. I can’t see the difference between Nazi’s and a CC in the context that you present that NOONE has the right to judge another…

 

[goofyjim]

You know this how? I personally happen to know a couple of CC who are filled with hate, they just can’t seem to get past it. So you are saying that your assessment is correct and everybody who disagrees with you is wrong. Hate is hate no matter what form it takes. I can’t see the difference between Nazi’s and a CC in the context that you present that NOONE has the right to judge another…

Nazis very actions are out of hatred. The whole movement reeks of it. There may be some cafeteria Catholic who hate. Not all of them do. There some devout Catholics who hate as well. I’ve met a few but I don’t make general statements about devout Catholics hating everybody. This argument has gone on long enough. You cannot compare a cafeteria Catholic who in good conscience doesn’t agree with the Church to a Nazi.

 

[Nordar]

Nazis very actions are out of hatred. The whole movement reeks of it. There may be some cafeteria Catholic who hate. Not all of them do. There some devout Catholics who hate as well. I’ve met a few but I don’t make general statements about devout Catholics hating everybody. This argument has gone on long enough. You cannot compare a cafeteria Catholic who in good conscience doesn’t agree with the Church to a Nazi.

I wasn’t aware this was an argument, yep a lot of people have hate. Then your statement that~~~ NOONE~~~ is wrong!

 

[Brendan]

Oh please. I think we both know the difference between a Nazi and a cafeteria Catholic. By the actions we can see that one is filled with hate while the other is not.

Great, now we are finally getting somewhere. You now agree that there is an absolute, objective morality, and those who violate that objective morality ( even if they do it in good conscience, like some Nazi’s) are just plain wrong and are in need of correction.

Now who exactly defines what is part of the ‘spirit of the law’ and what is not? What if two people differ?

Say, for example, the Nazi is a Nazi out of Love, Love for the Fatherland, Love for their race…etc. Loving one’s country or one’s nationality is not contrary to Christ.

Does the fact that they are doing something out of Love, or doing it in good conscience automatically mean that they cannot be subject to objective correction?

Are we permitted to correct what we view as a mistaken sense of Love? To direct them towards what, in our opinion, is a more Christlike outlook on Love?

 

[goofyjim]

Great, now we are finally getting somewhere. You now agree that there is an absolute, objective morality, and those who violate that objective morality ( even if they do it in good conscience, like some Nazi’s) are just plain wrong and are in need of correction.

Now who exactly defines what is part of the ‘spirit of the law’ and what is not? What if two people differ?

Say, for example, the Nazi is a Nazi out of Love, Love for the Fatherland, Love for their race…etc. Loving one’s country or one’s nationality is not contrary to Christ.

Does the fact that they are doing something out of Love, or doing it in good conscience automatically mean that they cannot be subject to objective correction?

Are we permitted to correct what we view as a mistaken sense of Love? To direct them towards what, in our opinion, is a more Christlike outlook on Love?

I will not carry on this conversation anymore. We seem to drift towards defending Nazis more than cafeteria Catholics. I will not defend one who kills. That does include abortion. But Nazis in general kill for the Fatherland. How can what they do be out of Love?

 

[Brendan]

I will not carry on this conversation anymore. We seem to drift towards defending Nazis more than cafeteria Catholics. I will not defend one who kills. That does include abortion. But Nazis in general kill for the Fatherland. How can what they do be out of Love?

No one is defending Nazi’s, but we are using them as an example of making public determinations on morality. We are just seeing if your standards are logically consistent.

You seem to recognize that there is an objective standard of what is right and what is wrong, which is very good… I am just wondering by what authority you recognize what that standard is.

If each person can make their own determination of what is right and wrong, then no one can morally correct a Nazi.

If right and wrong is subject to a society’s norms or majority public perception, then slavery was a moral act in the early 19th century.

Do you hold to any of these?

 

[Nordar]

I will not carry on this conversation anymore. We seem to drift towards defending Nazis more than cafeteria Catholics. I will not defend one who kills. That does include abortion. But Nazis in general kill for the Fatherland. How can what they do be out of Love?

No one is defending Nazi’s.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Are we permitted to correct what we view as a mistaken sense of Love? To direct them towards what, in our opinion, is a more Christlike outlook on Love?

Is that what you think you are doing in this thread?

 

[Brendan]

Is that what you think you are doing in this thread?

Certainly.

Christ said that He is the Truth. Sharing Truth with someone is, by definition, sharing Christ.

Some choose to reject Truth, and therefore reject Him.