Can Catholics Be Moral In America?

[zachforn]

My Question: Are all Catholics who decide to participate in Modern American Life committing a mortal sin, simply by choosing to participate?

Here’s my train of thought:

1.Participtating in modern American society results in innocent people suffering and dying. (I have included a brief reading list at the bottom of this post feel free to take the time to do the research and understand that this statement is in fact true)

1. Ignorance of a mortal sin one commits is no defense. (especially since the research is out there and one can choose not to remain ignorant on these matters)
2. We all have freewill to choose to participate or not in modern American society. Billions of people across the globe do not participate everyday.

4… WE all choose to participate in the modern American society.

1. We all by choosing to participate are choosing to participate in mortal sin.

What “participating in modern American society” means:

Using the various plastics in modern products
Using petroleum and petroleum based products
Using electronic technology containing specialty metals like cadmium, beryllium, barium, along with a whole assortment of other dangerous compounds (computers, cellphones, etc.)
Using modern communication technologies
Using the extraction and disposal process of modern products

What We Know:
That by participating in modern American society innocent people suffer and die (Again, research is listed at bottom of this posting). Even though one does not personally inflict the suffering and death with one’s two hands by one’s decision one condones and actively participate in a system that leads to this horrifying consequences. The same if one paid Mr. X to kill Mr.Y so that one could have Mr. Y’s watch/oil/cheap plastic product/etc.

But One EXAMPLE of What I’m Talking About:
Recently, researchers focusing on below-market labor in Thailand took blood samples from more than 2,000 workers from factories that produce plastics, fabrics, and computers for American consumers. The researches were tying to find the cause of elevated rate of deaths at the Seagate factories (which produced hard-drives for American computers) After analyzing the blood samples, they found that the levels of lead in these workers’ blood was greater than 20 micrograms per 100 milliliters. The deaths were the result of lead poisoning. A comparative study was done on police officers and other people form the neighborhoods of the Seagate workers to assure they were not being poisoned at their homes, through water or food. They weren’t the only common denominator was the workers all worker in the same branch at the factory, soldering components onto circuit boards.

The Researchers were ordered to stop their investigation by Kavitanon, the first secretary of the then-prime minister of Thailand and the director-general of the Thai Board of Investment. Why? Because Thailand officials feared that if conditions improved in the factories to protect the workers, the companies would move their operations to China for cheaper labor. Our purchasing choices lead to this.

I understand that one doesn’t have any control over the actions of anyone one else, yet by buying such products one does participate in the system, by purchasing such products one is creating economical force that leads to this.

Yes, I understand it could be different and one WANTS it to be different, BUT it is what it is. This is the system WE CHOSE to participate in, so……

My original question: Are all Catholics who decide to participate in Modern American Life committing a mortal sin, simply by choosing to participate?

P.S.
Please do not reply that I’m just as guilty. I already understand I’m just as guilty.

Brief Reading List:

Flat World, Big Gaps: Economic Liberalization, Globalization, Poverty & Inequality
Ed. by Jomo K.S. with Jacques Baudot (2007)

Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict
by Michael Klare (2002)

Big Business, Poor Peoples: The Impact of Transnational Corporations on the World’s Poor
by John Madeley (1999)

Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor
by Tom Athanasiou (1998)

Corporate Planet: Ecology and Politics in the Age of Globalization
by Josh Karliner (1997)

Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What’s at Stake for American Power
by Mark Schapiro (2007)

Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry
by Stacy Malkan (2007)

Having Faith: An Ecologist’s Journey to Motherhood
by Sandra Steingraber (2001)

Generations at Risk: Reproductive Health and the Environment
by Ted Schettler, Gina Solomon, Maria Valenti, Annette Huddle (2000)

Toxic Deception: How the Chemical Industry Manipulates Science, Bends the Law, and Endangers Your Health
y Dan Fagin and Marianne Lavelle (1999)

Living Downstream: A Scientist’s Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment
by Sandra Steingraber (1998)

Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening our Fertility, Intelligence, and Survival?
by Dianne Dumanoski, John P. Myers, Theo P. Colborn (1997)

 

[Watchman]

Could Catholics be moral in Rome? Not to be flip, but there’s never been a sinless society in which to live. Are you suggesting that Satan has so corrupted the earth that morally correct choices, grace, forgiveness, and redemption can no longer function? If every action unwittingly causes us to sin, where is culpability?

 

[jpm1977]

I agree with the responder. Many of the earliest saints and martyrs lived and worked in pagan Rome with everyone else in that society. St. Genesius was a scribe for a Roman court, for example. The early writings of the Church are full of descriptions of how the Christians “lived among” the Roman populace. Surely there were early hermits, monks, and the like who closed themselves off from society, but the bulk of early Christians lived, worked, played and participated in Roman civic society. It was only when they were put to the choice of renouncing their faith or participating in persecutions against fellow Christians that they “made trouble” and were put to the Lions, etc.

I understand your line of thinking, but I fear some of the rhetoric among the Church is becoming so stark and fundamentalist in some regards that it is leading people to conclusions that are unwarranted, like should we withdraw into isolated communities? Should we stop paying our taxes? I mean, we have to be a part of society to influence and change it. The early Christians are the best example to us today.

 

[Newbie2]

“Participate”. Hmmmm.

Seems to me like there are varying degrees in “participation” in potentially damaging societal activities i.e. that it’s not an all-or-nothing decision.

Methinks the premise of the OP needs revision.

I like the Roman parallel.

 

[fermat]

My Question: Are all Catholics who decide to participate in Modern American Life committing a mortal sin, simply by choosing to participate?

Here’s my train of thought:

1.Participtating in modern American society results in innocent people suffering and dying. (I have included a brief reading list at the bottom of this post feel free to take the time to do the research and understand that this statement is in fact true)…

Brief Reading List:

Flat World, Big Gaps: Economic Liberalization, Globalization, Poverty & Inequality
Ed. by Jomo K.S. with Jacques Baudot (2007)

Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict
by Michael Klare (2002)

Big Business, Poor Peoples: The Impact of Transnational Corporations on the World’s Poor
by John Madeley (1999)

Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor
by Tom Athanasiou (1998)

Corporate Planet: Ecology and Politics in the Age of Globalization
by Josh Karliner (1997)

Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What’s at Stake for American Power
by Mark Schapiro (2007)

Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry
by Stacy Malkan (2007)

Having Faith: An Ecologist’s Journey to Motherhood
by Sandra Steingraber (2001)

Generations at Risk: Reproductive Health and the Environment
by Ted Schettler, Gina Solomon, Maria Valenti, Annette Huddle (2000)

Toxic Deception: How the Chemical Industry Manipulates Science, Bends the Law, and Endangers Your Health
y Dan Fagin and Marianne Lavelle (1999)

Living Downstream: A Scientist’s Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment
by Sandra Steingraber (1998)

Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening our Fertility, Intelligence, and Survival?
by Dianne Dumanoski, John P. Myers, Theo P. Colborn (1997)

I really wish I had more time to address this, but let me make three quick points:

1. The oldest book on your list is 12 years old. Solid scientific research takes more than 12 years to properly evaluate and test. Admittedly, I have not read nor ever heard of these books; however, I have seen enough of this kind of propaganda to feel comfortable questioning the veracity of the research.
2. Mortal sin requires three things:
   1. 
      *]Full knowledge that the action is wrong
      *]Full consent of the will
      *]The subject of grave matter
   I have five children. According to your statement, they are in mortal sin by virtue of the fact that they live in America because Americans do the things listed above. Do they meet all the criteria? No.
   
   What about people with very limited resources? Do they have the means to leave America, but don’t? No.
   
   Finally, assuming I had the resources to leave America and this lifestyle, where could I go that I could avoid these problems? What country or region is free of this kind of exploitation? I know there have to be some, but where? And am I doing more good for my family by leaving them here, or moving them to this new place?
   1. The statement about the Thailand officials not waiting to improve conditions is highly suspect. Anytime you hear a statement that about third world countries openly exploiting workers, you need to a lot of research to verify the facts. I am not saying it does not happen, I am just saying you need to do extensive research to find out if it is true. I am assuming that the book you got this fact from will have a reference. Trace it down. Then trace the next one down. Peel back the onion. You seem to very passionate about this. Use that passion to verify and act.
   I know this post seems critical, but I want to give you some things to think about. I understand the basic premise of your thought, but you need to further refine your line of thinking. The fact that your resource list does appear to contain any opposing points of view is of big concern. For every eco book you read, read one by the authors swore enemy. The truth usually lies in the middle.

 

[zachforn]

I really wish I had more time to address this, but let me make three quick points:

1. The oldest book on your list is 12 years old. Solid scientific research takes more than 12 years to properly evaluate and test. Admittedly, I have not read nor ever heard of these books; however, I have seen enough of this kind of propaganda to feel comfortable questioning the veracity of the research.

I only included a brief selection of an “education.” There are certainly older books. Silent Spring for instance. I agree, too, I wish we all had a little more time to address these sorts of issues Because these issues are very important.

1. Mortal sin requires three things:
   1. 
      *]Full knowledge that the action is wrong
      *]Full consent of the will
      *]The subject of grave matter

1. 
   Yes, I dealt with these criteria. But ignorance of the sin does not clear the soul. That too is part of the criteria for #1
   

   I have five children. According to your statement, they are in mortal sin by virtue of the fact that they live in America because Americans do the things listed above. Do they meet all the criteria? No.
   
   What about people with very limited resources? Do they have the means to leave America, but don’t? No.

   That’s a good point. Do your children has rational choice yet? If they’re anything like mine, that’s a No But, at one point they will and they will CHOOSE to participate and they’ll be where we are now.
   
   Limited resources is another good point. They may or may not be included in this. However, those who do have the resources (whatever those resources are) to CHOOSE not to participate in the system but DO CHOOSE to participate are included in this line of thinking.
   

   Finally, assuming I had the resources to leave America and this lifestyle, where could I go that I could avoid these problems? What country or region is free of this kind of exploitation? I know there have to be some, but where? And am I doing more good for my family by leaving them here, or moving them to this new place?

   Again, there are billions of people who do not voluntarily participate in modern American society. In fact, there are countless numbers of people in America who voluntarily abandon the system (again, I would say research).
   

   1. The statement about the Thailand officials not waiting to improve conditions is highly suspect. Anytime you hear a statement that about third world countries openly exploiting workers, you need to a lot of research to verify the facts. I am not saying it does not happen, I am just saying you need to do extensive research to find out if it is true. I am assuming that the book you got this fact from will have a reference. Trace it down. Then trace the next one down. Peel back the onion. You seem to very passionate about this. Use that passion to verify and act

   I have done the research. That’s why I started this thread. Now, the issue is do others want to do the research.
   

   I know this post seems critical, but I want to give you some things to think about. I understand the basic premise of your thought, but you need to further refine your line of thinking. The fact that your resource list does appear to contain any opposing points of view is of big concern. For every eco book you read, read one by the authors swore enemy. The truth usually lies in the middle.

   It’s not critical at all. It’s what this thread is designed for, so no worries Most of the books on the list include counter arguments within them, some of them actually are the counter arguments I think you’re implying. But, there is just so much evidence out there (the reading list included is just the tip of the iceberg) that shows the horrifying consequences of modern American life, that it becomes challenging if not weirdly self-blinding to deny the effects of our way of living.
   
   I started the thread to encourage the self-research that must happen on an individual basis.

 

[zachforn]

I agree with the responder. Many of the earliest saints and martyrs lived and worked in pagan Rome with everyone else in that society. St. Genesius was a scribe for a Roman court, for example. The early writings of the Church are full of descriptions of how the Christians “lived among” the Roman populace. Surely there were early hermits, monks, and the like who closed themselves off from society, but the bulk of early Christians lived, worked, played and participated in Roman civic society. It was only when they were put to the choice of renouncing their faith or participating in persecutions against fellow Christians that they “made trouble” and were put to the Lions, etc.

I understand your line of thinking, but I fear some of the rhetoric among the Church is becoming so stark and fundamentalist in some regards that it is leading people to conclusions that are unwarranted, like should we withdraw into isolated communities? Should we stop paying our taxes? I mean, we have to be a part of society to influence and change it. The early Christians are the best example to us today.

It is a good argument. However, I would ask how much mortal damage did living in Rome actually do to innocent others. I don’t know. I understand that slavery was part of the Roman system, however could early Christians purchase food, property, etc, without actually dealing with slavery at any level? If so were they guilty of sin, just because they were “Roman”?

Were Romans roads built by slave labor? If so, and an early Christian used that road to haul a food cart to markets to sell fruits, then that Christian would be using “mortal sin” labor to profit. I guess, the question is, did early Christians KNOW they were participating is such sin? We can’t know that answer. Maybe they didn’t, maybe the did.

However, we do know what our system leads to (right?), so we can’t claim ignorance.

But, it is an interesting speculation, what did the early Christians know of their involvement and the consequence of that involvement?

 

[fecistinosadte]

Hey zachforn
Do you know what double effect is? If so, do you think that applies. If you haven’t heard of it, let me know I have some good reading material on the matter.
Thanks

 

[scott1228]

Once you find Eden, let me know where it is, becausse I want to live there!

 

[zachforn]

Hey zachforn
Do you know what double effect is? If so, do you think that applies. If you haven’t heard of it, let me know I have some good reading material on the matter.
Thanks

Yes, I have heard of the moral concept. And I think it applies to some issues of modern society, possibly the purchasing of staple foods, like milk, meat, vegetables, fruit, and “necessities” like books, paper, writing utensils, etc. (Then again most of these products can be created “relatively” easy at one’s home or in the community)

But, the issue gets cloudy when we talk about comfort products (candy bars, sodas, entertainment products, unneeded lighting systems in our homes, pesticides, etc.)

What do you think?

 

[fecistinosadte]

Yeah, I can definitely see that. I think that as long as you see this as a cloudy issue, and one not set in stone. You have answered your question- it is possible (i.e.-they can if they choose).

Let’s examine the principle of double effect to the Seagate factory-

"The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent. (purchasing a hard drive seems to fit this category)
2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary. (*Depends on what the person wills- if it be that they want people to die of lead poisoning or not; also if they could buy a hard drive from some company that is more moral). *
3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed. *(Are we by purchasing the product keeping those people in a job and giving them a means to support their families? Is there life better now that they are working in that Seagate job than them not being in the job?) *
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect” (p. 1021).(Although there are those who die and suffer- is the effect of having a job and supporting your family sufficiently desirable to compensate for a number of deaths?) "

I would say that whether it is a mortal sin to participate in Modern American Life is up to the persons will. If you have indifference towards the suffering, if you buy in order to make people suffer, then obviously you are treading on thin ice. However, we may not even say in those circumstances that one is committing a mortal sin. We can call the sin objectively a grave offense. We can say that people in that state need refrain from Communion, but mortal sin we just can not. We do not know how willed or not willed a certain action is.

The potential is there for holiness. If we use our time in American Life well, then it is praiseworthy and good (i.e.- being frugal and a good steward is a large part of that- providing for the poor is also a huge part of that life!).

However, as Archbishop Fulton Sheen says, it is only possible to be a saint in a world where it is possible to be a devil. So in our American Life- we have the potential on either side.

 

[Dolphincrc]

That’s quite a reading list. It’s funny though how you focus on the enviroment and don’t mention any negative effects from moral decisions of not following Church teaching, issues such as contraception, abortion, social issues, etc. Just to give an example, how contraception increases the risk of cancer and infertility, not to mention its link to other evils.

 

[zachforn]

Yeah, I can definitely see that. I think that as long as you see this as a cloudy issue, and one not set in stone. You have answered your question- it is possible (i.e.-they can if they choose).

Let’s examine the principle of double effect to the Seagate factory-

"The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent. (purchasing a hard drive seems to fit this category)

I would agree with this.

1. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary. (*Depends on what the person wills- if it be that they want people to die of lead poisoning or not; also if they could buy a hard drive from some company that is more moral). *

Or not buy a hard drive at all. The issue of “comfort items” (like a hard-drive) is that they certainly make life a lot easier to live, however, they are not necessary. I think we get so comfortable that they SEEM essential, though they are not. Again, all of the essentials to living can be produced with a very small group community. Modern amenities (which is the issue at hand) are just that, amenities.

Which is to say, this criteria still may have some issue with it: because we don’t need the things people are suffering and dying for.

1. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed. *(Are we by purchasing the product keeping those people in a job and giving them a means to support their families? Is there life better now that they are working in that Seagate job than them not being in the job?) *

I would have to answer the obvious answer: No, they’re lives are not better, many of them have died, while others have become extremely sick because of lead poisoning (and this is just one case). To systemically keep someone enchained in what is essentially slavery or indentured servitude for generations, but to rationalize it by saying they’re better off for it because they are given enough food to not starve, is…wrong? What do you think?

1. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect” (p. 1021).(Although there are those who die and suffer- is the effect of having a job and supporting your family sufficiently desirable to compensate for a number of deaths?) "

I would answer No to your question, because, again, we are purchasing craved wants, not needs.

I would say that whether it is a mortal sin to participate in Modern American Life is up to the persons will. If you have indifference towards the suffering, if you buy in order to make people suffer, then obviously you are treading on thin ice. However, we may not even say in those circumstances that one is committing a mortal sin. We can call the sin objectively a grave offense. We can say that people in that state need refrain from Communion, but mortal sin we just can not. We do not know how willed or not willed a certain action is.

I would say that 3 of the 4 criteria of Double Effect are not met (only #1 is). Certainly, we don’t Will the bad effect, however, we only crave the products, we don’t need the products that people are suffering and dying over, so how does that enter the arena of Double Effect? What do you think?

Also, if we know that we don’t need the products, that they only make us comfortable, how does that touch upon the understanding of “our will”? Because we flex our will to be comfortable, knowing that the unessential flexing of the will to comfort hurts others. Is that a justified will? Are they justified sufferings?

However, as Archbishop Fulton Sheen says, it is only possible to be a saint in a world where it is possible to be a devil. So in our American Life- we have the potential on either side.

I love that quote.

 

[BillP]

Zachforn.

Please! Go speak to a priest about scrupulosity.

 

[zachforn]

Zachforn.

Please! Go speak to a priest about scrupulosity.

Hi Bill. I have talked with many, many different people about this issue including two priests from two local churches in the St Petersburg Florida area, neither of which could satisfactory speak to the issue, they had never really looked into the data out there about how our products come to us. They just didn’t seem to understand where my question was coming from, if that makes sense. I don’t know if I explained that very well

To call it scrupulosity I think is to maybe deny or play down the consequences of our choices about how and what we purchase, which again I don’t think can be fully understood until some research is done on an individual basis.

 

[LilyM]

Zach, in a lot of places hard drives ARE necessary - there are numerous workplaces out there, for example, that simply could not function without them.

My own recent college assignments had to be submitted via email, and I certainly didn’t get written or verbal notification of my results - results were available only online.

While there may be issues with this, there’d surely be just as many environmental impacts from the reams of paper I’d be using if I wrote on paper instead of computer, if I made two hard copies of everything as I used to have to do (one for the school, one for myself). If I researched from photocopied articles rather than online journals and books and so on. Not to mention driving or taking other transport to the library at college to look at the materials and/or physically hand in the assignments. And the photocopying I’d have to do. All as opposed to sitting at home.

Think of all the paper and other resources that the ‘old fashioned way’ involved, and I don’t think there’s a real net loss by switching to electronics.

Email and internet=computer and computer=hard drive. No getting around it. By the way, you’re using one right now yourself - why?

 

[zachforn]

Zach, in a lot of places hard drives ARE necessary - there are numerous workplaces out there, for example, that simply could not function without them.

My own recent college assignments had to be submitted via email, and I certainly didn’t get written or verbal notification of my results - results were available only online.

While there may be issues with this, there’d surely be just as many environmental impacts from the reams of paper I’d be using if I wrote on paper instead of computer, if I made two hard copies of everything as I used to have to do (one for the school, one for myself). If I researched from photocopied articles rather than online journals and books and so on. Not to mention driving or taking other transport to the library at college to look at the materials and/or physically hand in the assignments. And the photocopying I’d have to do. All as opposed to sitting at home.

Think of all the paper and other resources that the ‘old fashioned way’ involved, and I don’t think there’s a real net loss by switching to electronics.

Email and internet=computer and computer=hard drive. No getting around it. By the way, you’re using one right now yourself - why?

Hi Lily!

The reasons I use a computer are the same as your reasons, 1. everyone else is doing it, and i have been conditioned to participate in this culture in such a way, because 2. participating in this manner (using computers) is comfortable.

I agree too, earning a degree is almost impossible to do without computers-use these days Trust me I know, I have a B.S in English Ed, a M.A in English and a M.A. in English Ed. But, I don’t “need” those degrees, they’re convenient to have to get a job in our system, a job that earns me money to buy, mostly, objects of comforts.

So, we’re right back where we started. It’s a dizzying ride i agree

It’s weird how we get…“hooked” on conveniences to such an extent we imagine we ‘need’ them, but in the final analysis are just comfort objects that pull us further into “the system.”

“The system” sounds like a bad B-movie about robot aliens or something

 

[Cowboy_Curtis]

My original question: Are all Catholics who decide to participate in Modern American Life committing a mortal sin, simply by choosing to participate?

In response I pose my own question. Are you suggesting that we should live in a primitive society?

Just a couple of ways that the bible contradicts modern United States society:

Example 1: Slavery

Bible: Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

U.S. bill of rights: Amendment 13
Abolition of slavery

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce these article by appropriate legislation.
**
Example 2: Women’s Rights **

Bible: 1 Peter 3:1-6

1 Peter 3

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Exodus 21:7-11
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

Looks like modern society is a lot less moral than the time of the bible. Do you prefer slavery and sexism? Are these the key to salvation? I’d rather preserve the rights of humans my friend.

 

[zachforn]

Looks like modern society is a lot less moral than the time of the bible. Do you prefer slavery and sexism? Are these the key to salvation? I’d rather preserve the rights of humans my friend.

Hi Cowboy!

I agree totally with you! 100% !!

I don’t know where you got the notion that I was against the notion of preserving the dignity of all human beings. In fact, my original question is that by participating in modern American society are we causing suffering and death (indignity) on innocent people. I gave a brief list of readings that deal with this issue.

I don’t know what you mean by primitive society? It’s kind of a broad term.

 

[CWBetts]

Zach, what you really need is some solid instruction in moral theology. Perhaps then you would abandon this Luddite crusade. There are multiple online college-level courses on this very subject available online. I know of two off of the top of my head. The fact reamins that you are in error because participation in American (or Modern, lets not be only pointing the finger at the United States) Society is not the direct cause of suffering. Even if every personon this forum agreed that we should withdraw from society as you suggest, nothing would change. Human suffering in the industries you mention would persist. In fact witdrawing form society may have unforseen negative consequences. I can tell you that if were not for “modern conveniences” you are so critical of, I would not be Catholic. Will you disregard that good that is done by those who use these conveniences?