Catholic conservatism on the rise as priest refuses funeral for 'sinner'

[AlanFromWichita]

buffalo:

To refute alan -

If anyone observe an apple on a table with another apple, everyone would absolutely know that there are many. They would communicate this to someone else by putting up their forefinger and middle finger and point to the apples. Everyone including Alan would immediately understand there were the same amount there as the number of fingers they were holding up. Now somewhere along the line we chose to call this two.

Give me some credit. I wouldn’t deny that it was two. I might just ask if it has been infallibly defined. :bowdown2:

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Dear Ani Ibi,

You are a worthy student. As you try to enlighten me, you cannot help but enlighten yourself along with me. This makes for a great discussion, IMO. Oh, I mean IMHO.

Now I shall return the favor by helping you see how you can be a more effective apologist, by reflecting back to you those holes I notice in your argument:
Ani Ibi:

It seems that I took you at your word prematurely. You seem to understand perfectly well the relevance of the quote.

OK, be careful with your wording here. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the word you took was that I’m not sure how my posting style is relevant here. I meant “here” as in this particular discussion and whether I am trying to sell a point I don’t believe in.

If that’s not what you thought, then how does my confession that I post frivolously in other threads (such as in the Curmudeon’s Club for example) negate your ability to believe that I am not trying to jerk you around in this discussion?

Well let us assume that this thread is a discussion. Your good faith, then, hinges on how faithful you have been in addressing each point of those who have attempted to have a discussion with you. As opposed to avoiding those same points and choosing tautology over furthering discussion.

Well, honestly, you guys are too much for me. I can’t keep up with all of you at once and hit every sweet spot you want me to hit. I’m flattered, though, that you are concerned when you don’t get to see my considerable wisdom applied to any given point you asked about. The way I scan the forum for posting opportunities also sometimes lacks in thoroughness. If I miss a point you think is particularly important, bump me again, by PM if necessary, and I’ll try to get on it right away. I am to please.

Oh, that is if by “faithful” you mean diligent as in didn’t miss any. I inferred that from the context, so I didn’t assume you meant “faithful” in the judgmental way as in whether I’m being dishonest with you, or in the way that I am Truly Mental Assenting or other measures Christians use of faithfulness. Please let me know if I am wrong on this ***-umption.

Anecdotal. Also presumably an attempt at authorial/psychanalytical analysis. Useful only to see what mindset you bring to your responses. Ultimately, this is moot. The comparison between mathemetic/basenumbers and Magisterial teaching is a false analogy. However if you insist, then consider this:

You are right that the main purpose was to explain the mindset. It is not moot (by the way “moot” used to mean “relevant” but doesn’t now) because there was a combined
secondary purpose.

You are right in addressing the analogy between my argument with Sister and my arguments now with other people who claim to tell me they know What the Church Thinks better than me.

That is the exact analogy I want to draw, and here’s the abstraction I’m using. Sister tried to badger me to accept a mathematical fact as an absolute, unaware that she was operating from a more limited world view than I was. I didn’t realize that she was unaware of negative numbers, because as a teacher I made the false assumption she knew at least everything I knew about math. Therefore, I took her threats as a refusal to acknowledge the truth, when in fact I was being punished for not conforming to her more limited vision of the Truth.

My point is that I often find in cases of “absolutists” who tell me that I am wrong about a particular strategy because God is on their side and I’m just being relative, that they are also just as relative in ways they don’t even percieve, but are also within the teachings of the Church. They claim that since my world view doesn’t match theirs, and theirs is right from their point of view, then mine must be wrong.

If the Sister had been a true expert, she could have just said “look, there are ways to do it we will learn in the future. Right now we are saying ‘we can’t do it’ because we won’t learn how until next year.”

Hey I gotta stop here for a while. This has been a great day so far. Thank you for all your attention. I’ll try to get back soon.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

estesbob:

Thanks for the acknowledgement that you are a Troll. It saves me the bother of ever having to read or respond to any more of your posts.

Here’s an example of why you want to hang around relativists.

In an absolute sense, you have broken board rules.

However, I like you and don’t wish to see you disciplined or banished just because you don’t get a little “spirited” with your vocabulary, so even though you just called me a “troll” in an objective sense, I would be the first to appeal to the moderators for mercy on you – that is if we could discuss Moderator Action.

If I were an absolutist, I would feel obligated to report this post to the moderators and try to get you disciplined, rather than take what you have said in good faith and get over the fact that you use language I might find offensive.

Have a nice day.

Oh, and I love you too. Thank you sharing.

Alan

 

[felra]

AlanFromWichita:

Have a nice day.

Oh, and I love you too. Thank you sharing.

Alan

I am getting that warm Kumbaya feeling just reading this! :bounce:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

felra:

I am getting that warm Kumbaya feeling just reading this! :bounce:

cache.corbis.com/thumb/12/83/65/12836552.jpg

 

[felra]

AlanFromWichita:

My point is that moral relativists and moral absolutists both do that. They just underline different passages of the Bible.

Person One says that a certain act or attitude of another is a sin, and One thinks he is right even if the second protests because the first has “absolute” evidence and teachings. Jesus never watered down the Truth, although He was extremely patient. Therefore when we admonish the sinner, presuming to have been extremely patient, we justify at least a “tentative” adverse judgment of them as not only excusable, but we see it as Christlike because we have not shirked from our difficult duty to go against popularity.

Person Two says that Jesus taught us not to judge in an absolute way, and never stood by and allowed a sinner to be punished by other sinners. Therefore when we protest the punishment of a sinner by other sinners we are Christlike. To charges of moral relativism, we assert moral absolutism on the virtue of being slow to judge as more important than moral absolutism that drives us to punish each other.

We say the first is an absolutist and the second a relatist. For which did Christ die? Which is living his faith? Which is correct about the teachings of Jesus? Which is faithfully serving Christ’s Church? Which one can Christ forgive? Which is using absolute logic applied to selected teachings of Christ?

Both of them, of course.

Remember the Word is a two edged sword. It can cut either way, to curse or to bless. Just because words are true doesn’t mean they can’t be used to hurt others and thus be contrary to the higher Truth that is the real Good News. That’s why Paul says you can know all the facts and still have not love. What does that tell you about favoring absolutism in one aspect of Catholicism over proficiency in another? We are all members of the Body, and we are all different. We just think the others are evil because they don’t function like us. Thank God they don’t, or Christ might end up with two left feet.

Alan

I do not subscribe to all this judgment stuff that you presume when a fellow brother/sister in Christ is presented/confronted with the error of their ways out of concern for the welfare of their soul. This is only being compassionate. A few/many bad experiencesat the hands of fellow believers does not mean that we all have to walk around on eggs shells fearful of coming across as insensitive or judgmental. The measuring rod of wrongness/sinful actions is the Gospel as given to us by the bible, tradition and teaching authority of the Church. Judgment is reserved for God alone—I believe that this is a basic no brainer for any adult Catholic worthy of the name. To think or act otherwise is to delude one’s self. The Truth speaks for itself. Faithful and obedient Catholics are merely mouthpieces, witnesses for the truth of the Gospel, which is fully vested in the Catholic Church.

2472 The duty of Christians to take part in the life of the Church impels them to act as *witnesses of the Gospel *and of the obligations that flow from it. This witness is a transmission of the faith in words and deeds. Witness is an act of justice that establishes the truth or makes it known. (CCC)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

felra:

I do not subscribe to all this judgment stuff that you presume when a fellow brother/sister in Christ is presented/confronted with the error of their ways out of concern for the welfare of their soul. This is only being compassionate.

I don’t presume anything about the intent of the person doing the confronting. I do form an opinion based on whatever, about whether they are addressing me as a brother or not. I absolutely love being corrected. What I hate, though, is people who presume things about my motives and attitudes.

You want me to presume you are compassionate when you correct me. If you place yourself above me, then I need to cut you down so we can converse on the same level. Either that or get on my high horse so I can try to reach you.

Let me give you a quiz. Which one in each pair is a brotherly reminder and which one is a divisive judgment?

1a) brother, I was bothered when I read your remark about my faith because it sounded like you were saying that I thought myself greater than you. I don’t believe you see me like that so I wish you could help me through this.
1b) you troll, I take my faith very seriously and I don’t appreciate cheap shots. I don’t see why you’re acting like a childish brat like just because I have a desire to be right. You just want everything your way and you think the truth should change whenever it is inconvenient for you. blah, blah, blah…

2a) I understand where you’re coming from, but I just want to let you know I think you’re taking a risk here.
2b) Where do you get off thinking you have a Better Answer than the worlds finest theologians for 2000 years combined have consistently agreed upon? Who do you want to be when you grow up, the pope?

Do you see what I mean? Which of these approaches – approach A or approach B – do you see most often on these forums? What about in this very thread? Do we have any examples? Let’s be honest. Let’s all look at our own posts to those with whom we disagree and see where there is charity and where there is not.

According to Maslow’s heirarchy of needs, taught in leadership by the military, self-actualization is a higher order need than love. Therefore, if charity is perceived to be lacking, the call to a self-actualization of intellectual perfection is wasted breath.

felra:

A few/many bad experiencesat the hands of fellow believers does not mean that we all have to walk around on eggs shells fearful of coming across as insensitive or judgmental.

True. I don’t see too many orthodox walking on eggshells around me. In this post I’ve been vilified pretty good for my ideas that the word “relative” may not be in objectively evil word – and all that’s without my being particularly nasty I thought.
A Compassionate Conservative:

Thanks for the acknowledgement that you are a Troll. It saves me the bother of ever having to read or respond to any more of your posts.

Egg shells. Your first amendment rights are being sooo violated because I don’t bow down to people who talk to me like that. If those are egg shells I’d love to see what they’ve got if they were serious about being condescending to me.

Now I’ll quit walking on egg shells. Grow up and get a life. Oh wait, am I just being mischievious or do I really mean that?

{continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)

OK, I’ll quit the nice guy pretense:

If judgment is reserved for God alone, then how come I am an objectively mortally sinning troll because I don’t subject my brain to any contrary thoughts some guy I’ve never met in my life has. Who made that judgment? Who is suggesting that a leaner Church is better than a larger Church, and how does that figure when what you are implying is severing off half of your family members? Who insists that people be punished for sins that we assume they committed because of their external acts, when we also stand by a system that defines mortal sin with criteria that cannot be discerned by your average Catholic? Yet we judge and say others are culpable for their acts because we know their attitudes and they are trouble makers because all they want is to contradict us? We dare ask other Catholics to leave the Church rather than keep hanging around us in their dreadful state, when if we were REALLY absolutists we would know that if they really do leave the church then we have just led them into mortal sin and their blood is on our hands. That means that you, my friend, who suggested that a marginal sheep just quits being a hypocrite and leave the flock, risk the terrible fate of Jesus saying “it would be better a millstone be tied around their neck and be cast into the sea” if they mislead any little ones. Are you so sure you are right and I’m wrong that you are willing to risk that fate? If you shoo a person out and they go to hell, do you really think God will congratule you for keeping the pews clean of that disgraceful human being? This is about as clear a brotherly warning as I can give you. If I’m going to hell, then it isn’t because you didn’t try to convince me. Now consider I might have a brotherly warning for you.

Still want to claim you are on the moral high ground? We can have a battle of pride and the first one whose expanding pride zit bursts gets blessed first with wonderful, comical humility and has to give the other one one of these. :bowdown: The other one will be in the hands of the Holy Spirit. Any takers?

You people who don’t take me seriously, I guess you’ll have to figure out if I’m a prophet and teacher, or just a crazy fool. No biggy to me. I say what the Spirit gives me at any moment so if it doesn’t work for you then I am sure something else will.

2472 The duty of Christians to take part in the life of the Church impels them to act as *witnesses of the Gospel *and of the obligations that flow from it. This witness is a transmission of the faith in words and deeds. Witness is an act of justice that establishes the truth or makes it known. (CCC)

Witnessing to the Gospel by telling others they are not truly a part of the family. OK, whatever you say.

Have a nice day. I’ll go take a tranquilizer now.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

Right. Two is always two. There is no way to manipulate that or nuance it.

Why do you deny the teachings of Christ? Let’s consider the words of Christ – for a refreshing change, I’ll use the Douay-Rheims version:
Matt 19:5-6:

For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

In this case, two becomes one. To insist that two always remains two is to deny the existence of the sacrament of marriage.

The offensive party rests.

Absolutists: 0
Relativists: 1

Alan

 

[Penny_Plain]

fix:

This is hardly an argument that refutes absolutism and proves relativism. In the decimal system does 1+1 ever equal anything aside from 2?

Vid. Matt. 19: 5-6.

Hi, Alan. Need a martini?

 

[felra]

AlanFromWichita:

You want me to presume you are compassionate when you correct me. If you place yourself above me, then I need to cut you down so we can converse on the same level. Either that or get on my high horse so I can try to reach you.

Whereas I would say “chill out”, I think that St. Paul says it much better than I:

“I have become all things to all, to save at least some. All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a greater share in it. Avoid giving offense, whether to Jews or Greeks or the church of God, just a I try to please everyone in every way, not seeking my own benefit but that of the many, that they may be saved.”,** 1 Cor 9:22-23, 10:32-33**.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Penny Plain:

Vid. Matt. 19: 5-6.

Hi, Alan. Need a martini?

Hey, Penny! Great to see you here. Whenever truth and justice is being dished out, I always know you are with me in spirit! I haven’t checked in at the clubhouse lately, so if you make it down that way please send my greetings.

Funny you should come up with the same verse as I did. It must be a random coincidence, or I must have put you up to it. It isn’t like it’s SO OBVIOUS or anything, is it? Gosh as a college math teacher I have dreams of teaching kids such a greater understanding of math than they’ve ever had before. My own children are far-and-away geniuses on theory when it comes to math, in addition to just getting good grades. They volunteer their time tutoring on Wednesday evenings.

Last year before my computer crashed and lost the source code, I wrote some very simple programs to help my own kids and the kids at All Saints school. I ran about 1000 test trials with kids grades 2-5 on just basic arithmetic facts.

My theory was based on my worst algebra student ever, who was very nice and got (and well earned) her first B in her life as a senior in high school in my College Algebra class that I taught for Butler County Comunity College and she got combined high school credit. Last math class she’d ever take in her life before going to college on soccer scholarship. Anyway she literally could not do 5x6 without successive adding or calculator, because until my class she’d always weaseled and cheated her way. Of course, I set a trap that caught her in a blatant cheat and proved to her she could do it herself and not depend on her very good friend, who was a nice guy but a bit of a nerd and certainly the smartest in class.

Anyway the theory itself is that you cannot teach the real Zen of algebra to kids who have no “feel” at all for multiplication tables. Therefore I wrote simple flashcard programs (remember flash cards) so kids could drill themselves. We would start kids as soon as they learn addition up to three or more, and let them practice unlimited at home until they can get a high time/accuracy grade. This was dedicated to my fifth grade teacher Sister Geraldine Marie, who had a master’s degree in math and gave us competetive elimination drills every day. Because of her I can tell you 3/8 is 37.5% without a calculator.

Anyway I’m not intimidated by kids who think they can beat me in math. If they can really beat me, then they’ll teach me something. If they cannot, nice trying. I beat all but two guys in the archdiocese of Chicago, of over 400 schools, and then it was not becasue I made an error but didn’t know in seventh grade what an absolute value sign looked like so I disregarded it in working one problem.

As far as the martini, thanks but I think I’ll stick to sugary carbonated colored flavored water and maybe some real water. I’m having too good of time to risk letting alcohol make me sleepy. Especially after my wife goes to sleep I’ll get back on for some quality time.

After writing that last post just above your reply, my wife remembered I hadn’t taken my medication since yesterday morning.

How did she know?

Oh, here’s a link to the programs: math.wordsfree.org. They are less than 100k each and do not need to be installed (they run in DOS window). They will create an archive file of results and append it as you run any of the programs. They share the same file I think it’s records.txt. Ah, you guys can read. If you want your kids to be the best at the basics, give them lots of drills with no frills. Freeware.

Alan

 

[felra]

AlanFromWichita:

Why do you deny the teachings of Christ? Let’s consider the words of Christ – for a refreshing change, I’ll use the Douay-Rheims version:

In this case, two becomes one. To insist that two always remains two is to deny the existence of the sacrament of marriage.

The offensive party rests.

Absolutists: 0
Relativists: 1

Alan

Uhmmm, are we forgetting something? Hint: it has to do with being fruitful and multiplying. Okay, another hint: It has to do with the procreative aspect of husband and wife (two) becoming one in the flesh. Your equation seems to be lacking in proper variables. Time to revise your score sheet?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

felra:

Uhmmm, are we forgetting something? Hint: it has to do with being fruitful and multiplying. Okay, another hint: It has to do with the procreative aspect of husband and wife (two) becoming one in the flesh. Your equation seems to be lacking in proper variables. Time to revise your score sheet?

Fruitful and multiplying?

Well in the case of my wife and me, 1+1=2, then 2 became 1 so 1+1+1=1 (God of course is the first 1 in the marriage) and now we are one parental set plus six, so I’d guess that leaves 1+1=7. That is a good example. Thanks.

By the transitive property, we also have 2=7, which some absolutists don’t like to admit. The size of the family matters less than its unity. Therefore the whole family starts with two who become one, then multiply from there. Trying to put math to the miracle of life can be challenging.

Summary: we have another counterexample against 1+1=2 being universally true, so yes we do need to revise the score sheet. I’m sorry for taking so long to attend to that:

Absolutists: 0
Relativists: 2

Yay team! Go team! :dancing:

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

felra:

Whereas I would say “chill out”, I think that St. Paul says it much better than I:

“I have become all things to all, to save at least some. All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a greater share in it. Avoid giving offense, whether to Jews or Greeks or the church of God, just a I try to please everyone in every way, not seeking my own benefit but that of the many, that they may be saved.”,** 1 Cor 9:22-23, 10:32-33**.

I love that quote. It’s one of the best examples of relativism I can think of. I’ve used it when Catholics think they have to wear their Catholicism like a badge in public because people will see that they are devoted toward their religion. They say they will proudly and not too quietly pray in public, with full sign of the cross. They’re not embarrassed to be Catholic, and maybe others will see what they are doing and want some of it.

Compared to Pauls strategy, they might as well wear a clown hat, too, when they try to sell Catholicism this way.

Paul was sneaky. He didn’t adhere to a fixed, absolute code of behavior, but adjusted it for the situation at hand, so he would blend in better and not let them see how free true Catholicism is of behavioral restrictions because they couldn’t handle it.

That’s why we have to be clever about doing Jesus’s work. When we walk in wearing lots of Catholic regalia and behaving in obviously pious ways in public for all to see, then we are going against the strategy of St. Paul and against the advice of Jesus.

Thank you for the support. It does help me chill out.

Alan

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Penny Plain:

Vid. Matt. 19: 5-6.

Hi, Alan. Need a martini?

Give it a break Penny. Your point is that God says 1 + 1 = 1. Alan was comparing number systems with Magisterial teaching. They are not comparable. It was a false analogy.

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

Thank you for clearly stating that we are working within the decimal system. A computer nerd may not make that assumption.

Perhaps, but it may also be that one who is trying to refute moral absolutes would try obfuscation?

By stating your assumptions, you are allowing us to have a much more focused conversation than if you just use “well 1+1=2” as an indignant comeback or something. When someone shows me an attitude, the little imp inside of me hears a Double Dog Dare to prove them wrong. My bad, of course.

If you became indignant that is fine, but please use a more accuarate example to make your point, rather than taking a crafty position.

If we are saying that 1 mph on a car + 1 mph on a car in the opposite direction = 2 mph speed at which they approach each other, that is not absolutely correct. Speeds do not add up mathematically, although at 2 mph range the difference is so minute it’s not likely to cause you to be late for dinner. For all intents and purposes then, this appears absolute but really is slightly relative.

Again, this is not the argument. One object plus one object is always two objects. It is a simple concept. Do you have proof that refutes this?

Space and time themselves are not as we normally perceive them. We might call two lines parallel, but they may not be depending on the curvature of the space between them. Of course, it took a solar eclipse before Einstein’s fans and critics could measure that one with current technology.

Point?

Granted, this stuff is negligible for most folk. Astronomers care a lot, though. If the units involved are not miles per hour, but instead a somewhat higher unit of speed, such as (miles per second times 100,000) then we find that in mathematics, which is imaginary made-up absolute stuff that man uses, 1+1=2 while in the Real World, it’s closer to 1+1=1.55.

How does this relate to the argument that 1 object and 1 object equals 2 objects?

That various mathmatical formulations may give more or less accurate answers to calculations does not mean there are no absolutes in morality. The example that is commonly used to prove absolutism {1+1=2} is accuarte, despite the arguments you assert that attempt to manipulate that fact by changing definitions and adding extraneous variables.

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

Why do you deny the teachings of Christ? Let’s consider the words of Christ – for a refreshing change, I’ll use the Douay-Rheims version:

In this case, two becomes one. To insist that two always remains two is to deny the existence of the sacrament of marriage.

The offensive party rests.

Absolutists: 0
Relativists: 1

Alan

You are kiddin’? The verse does not say that two individuals cease to exist or that they will be judged as one at the moment of death. There are still two bodies, two minds, two souls, etc.

 

[fix]

Penny Plain:

Vid. Matt. 19: 5-6.

Hi, Alan. Need a martini?

See my post to Alan about this. A very lame attempt to prove moral relativism.

 

[fix]

Ani Ibi:

Give it a break Penny. Your point is that God says 1 + 1 = 1. Alan was comparing number systems with Magisterial teaching. They are not comparable. It was a false analogy.

That is what happens when one tries to prove moral relativism.