L
- Status
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Whether or not the posters are experts, it certainly is a blood sport on this Forum. It does often tend to be a game of “Gotcha!,” but I don’t think anyone wants it otherwise.
Does anyone honestly think that minds will be changed by the points they make in their debates here? I think not.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Absolutely! While the minds of some won’t change, debate allows for people (both those engaging and the lurkers) to hear all sides of an argument. I have changed my views in a couple areas. If others are too close-minded to change their positions, then I will pray for them.
There is only one Truth, and the Church is the fountain of that Truth. Those who remain stubbornly opposed to Church teaching are putting their eternal souls in peril.
If your purpose here is just to engage in “blood sport,” then you may want to rethink your participation on CAF.
E
estesbob
Guest
Over 90% of those who engage in discussion groups are lurkers. They rarely if ever post. That is why it is important that we do continue to refute misrepresentations, distortions and flat-out falsehoods about our faith.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I agree both with post 434 and post 435. I have personally been told, on and off threads, that some of my arguments have persuaded particular posters to change their views or opinions, and/or have opened up understanding. Ditto for observing that others have done the same – relative to other CAF posters.
Regarding lurkers, yes. And further, it can be important, when making any argument outside CAF (for lurkers and contributors) to have accessible a wider range of points and counterpoints than the limit of one’s own understanding, viewpoints, and ways of expressing those. Certainly that is true for me as well.
Regarding lurkers, yes. And further, it can be important, when making any argument outside CAF (for lurkers and contributors) to have accessible a wider range of points and counterpoints than the limit of one’s own understanding, viewpoints, and ways of expressing those. Certainly that is true for me as well.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
I’m not so sure about that first part. I suppose I could list the people whom I see posting on these threads from yourself to Beau to Stan Kolbe, etc. to people outside the U.S., and they seem to be regulars, not drop-ins who leave one or two posts, figuratively speaking, and are not heard from again.
R
rlg94086
Guest
You can’t list the lurkers who never post.I’m not so sure about that first part. I suppose I could list the people whom I see posting on these threads from yourself to Beau to Stan Kolbe, etc. to people outside the U.S., and they seem to be regulars, not drop-ins who leave one or two posts, figuratively speaking, and are not heard from again.
I don’t know if it’s 90%, but there are plenty of people who read but don’t post.
For example, this thread has over 5k views…do you know the breakdown of viewers?
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
It might be a statistic that the Forum, not any of us, could crunch from the numbers - how many are registered members, how many are guests. It could be interesting to find out.You can’t list the lurkers who never post.
I don’t know if it’s 90%, but there are plenty of people who read but don’t post.
For example, this thread has over 5k views…do you know the breakdown of viewers?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I think what estesbob may have been referring to is, just go to any discussion forum, including CAF, go to the individual subforums which list the thread titles, and observe what percentage of total “views” of those threads is to the number of posts on each of them. Very often, it’s a tiny fraction of the “views,” which include both posting viewers and nonposting lurkers. This is particularly true, I’ve noticed, on the more controversial subjects (on many forums, not just CAF): far, far more people viewing than posting: somtimes by a factor of several hundred. (15 posters, 3000 views, that kind of thing)
You can also approach it by getting a list of CAF members (or any other discussion forum) vs. noticing from day to day what the average number of active posters is. (A small percentage) Other times it’s merely testimonial: “I’ve been reading this forum for the last ___months/years, and this is the first time I’ve posted…”
I have no evidence of percentages, either. Just a round concept, based on experience.
You can also approach it by getting a list of CAF members (or any other discussion forum) vs. noticing from day to day what the average number of active posters is. (A small percentage) Other times it’s merely testimonial: “I’ve been reading this forum for the last ___months/years, and this is the first time I’ve posted…”
I have no evidence of percentages, either. Just a round concept, based on experience.
R
rlg94086
Guest
So, now that we got all of that out of our system…how about them Catholics who support homosexual unions? 
E
estesbob
Guest
The last 15 years I have moderated in Internet discussion group on the battle of Gettysburg. We have over 700 members and rarely do we have more than 50 people post per month - that is out of 1500 to 2000 posts per month. And yes before you ask how it is we can run an Internet group for 15 years on a three-day battle the answer is yes we need to get a life!I’m not so sure about that first part. I suppose I could list the people whom I see posting on these threads from yourself to Beau to Stan Kolbe, etc. to people outside the U.S., and they seem to be regulars, not drop-ins who leave one or two posts, figuratively speaking, and are not heard from again.
E
estesbob
Guest
I base my statistics on my experience. Being a lurker myself I know it’s true.You can’t list the lurkers who never post.
I don’t know if it’s 90%, but there are plenty of people who read but don’t post.
For example, this thread has over 5k views…do you know the breakdown of viewers?
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Mind Reader!! I was just about to ask that very thing. LOL!
C
CradleCath
Guest
You’re wrong about that. “Primacy of Conscience” trumps anyone… even the Pope. This has been a teaching of the Church forever:
“Deep within their conscience human persons discover a law which they have not laid upon themselves but which they must obey. Its voice, ever calling them to love and to do what is good and avoid evil, tells them inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that. For human
persons have in their hearts a law inscribed by God… the more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by the objective standards of moral conduct. Yet it often happens that conscience goes astray through ignorance which it is unable to avoid, without thereby losing its dignity. This cannot be said of the person who takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or
when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”
ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/CONSC.TXT
In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas regarded conscience as God-given**** “reason… attempting to make right decisions**” **with the assistance of the innate remnant awareness of absolute good, which he categorised as involving the five primary precepts proposed in his theory of Natural Law.
It is perhaps the most abused teaching of the Church…still it IS a teaching. The problem is that often that still voice inside of us can be influenced by our own desires & perverted by a society that is not in tune with our Creator. I can only remember one teaching of the Church that I questioned deeply. Before I reached my conclusion about it, though, I made an appointment to speak with a priest. I would never depend on my own conscience when it takes me against Church teaching WITHOUT hearing & learning everything possible about the subject.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
I am sorry you are mistaken. A conscience opposed to the Church is not properly formed
C
CMatt25
Guest
Nope. :nope: Cradle was not mistaken. Whether you believe it is or isn’t properly informed is not the point.
Did you even read the EWTN link which was posted?
Here’s the quote from it backing Cradle Catholic’s assertion that it is you and others who are wrong when they say it isn’t so.
“The Catholic Church has always held to the primacy of conscience and taught that individuals must follow their consciences even when they are wrong.”
I know this (the primacy of conscience) appears to be a hang up for some conservatives. But it is what it is. And I can’t imagine a conservative is going to disagree with EWTN.
And it appears to jive with all that CCC speaking about how after we inform our consciences, we still must obey our conscience so not to condemn ourselves. And must not be forced to act against our conscience especially in religious matters. Even if not in accordance with Church teaching and if considered “wrong” by the Church.All the best on your faith journey. God bless and peace.
R
rlg94086
Guest
CradleCath is correct, but you don’t understand fully what was posted. Yes, a person must obey their conscience, but many heterodox Catholics have a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, and, as CradleCath explained, their conscience is influenced by their own desires and perverted by society. What one’s conscience cannot trump, as StTommyMore explained, is the Truth. There is only one Truth, and the Church is the fountain of that Truth.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Cradle Cath and CMatt are correct. Conscience has always trumped, and still does – that is, ulttimately. Now, no need to get ballistic about a properly formed conscience. The latter is still the primary job of the Catholic Christian. Overwhelmingly, those with properly formed consciences will find those consciences compatible with official teachings. It is hardly an escape clause to be tossed around lightly or used to rationalize personal differences casually.
But if there were no need for such autonomy, the Church would not recognize the importance of individual conscience. She would just say: take all your orders from us; put your brain on hold. It is there partly to recognize (correctly, theologically) that ultimately the individual is alone before God and answerable only to God at the moment of death. If the individual were ever to find himself or herself in internal conflict over two moral goods, for example, and in the moment of a crisis decision felt compelled to answer a genuine pull from internal conscience, but ignored that pull, that could be (depending on the consequences of that decision) a serious mistake.
The Church may represent God on earth, but she does recognize that the institution is led both by The Spirit of God and by humans, and that there are limits to the omniscience of the Church and any of its representatives (including the Pope). This has nothing to do with infallibility. It has to do with the reality that not all possible factors in decision making are predictable and enshrined in official teaching. That’s why the elements of sin are laid out as they are: with universal reference to matter and circumstances, but with the recognition of the act of sin left to the individual. The Church recognizes that the relationship between the individual believer and God Himself is inviolable – subject to guidance and formation, but not manipulation or invasion.
But if there were no need for such autonomy, the Church would not recognize the importance of individual conscience. She would just say: take all your orders from us; put your brain on hold. It is there partly to recognize (correctly, theologically) that ultimately the individual is alone before God and answerable only to God at the moment of death. If the individual were ever to find himself or herself in internal conflict over two moral goods, for example, and in the moment of a crisis decision felt compelled to answer a genuine pull from internal conscience, but ignored that pull, that could be (depending on the consequences of that decision) a serious mistake.
The Church may represent God on earth, but she does recognize that the institution is led both by The Spirit of God and by humans, and that there are limits to the omniscience of the Church and any of its representatives (including the Pope). This has nothing to do with infallibility. It has to do with the reality that not all possible factors in decision making are predictable and enshrined in official teaching. That’s why the elements of sin are laid out as they are: with universal reference to matter and circumstances, but with the recognition of the act of sin left to the individual. The Church recognizes that the relationship between the individual believer and God Himself is inviolable – subject to guidance and formation, but not manipulation or invasion.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
I think the subject of this thread lost its luster over a week ago.So, now that we got all of that out of our system…how about them Catholics who support homosexual unions?
It’s Bush’s fault!!!
There. Can we close up now and move to another topic that will eventually devolve into a liberal/conservative, blame Bush/blame Obama fingerpointing session?
T
tskrobacz
Guest
I’d like to confirm that a change was actually made. Does someone have a pre-1997 Catechism? It would be helpful to post the previous wording for 2358.
Here it is from christusrex.org:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
- Status