Controversial Catholic issues

[CRATUS]

What is the truth anyways? There are Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Christians. I have a fairly open mind and listen to anyone’s opinion. Protestant think Catholics are not following. Muslims believe Allah is God. Even within the Catholic community, people disagree on how serious a particular sin or what should be considered a sin. “Cafeteria Catholics” pray for the intolerance by the “traditional Catholics.” “Traditional Catholics” pray for “cafeteria Catholics.” What exactly makes someone a bigot? I am even surprised. People have different definitions of what constitutes gossip. Some Christians are so against being judgmental and all for Jesus’s love. Some are more judgmental. I just do not understand. Why can’t people respect other people’s opinions without name-calling? No matter what position, I take I will be a bad person to someone. If I think homosexuality is a sin, I am narrow-minded bigot. If I do not, I am a cafeteria Catholic. If I do not agree with abortion, I am not for women’s reproductive rights, if I do, I am condoning murder. If I speak out against sin, IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO TELL OTHERS WHAT TO DO IN THEIR PERSONAL LIFE. If I do not speak out against sin, what type of friend are you to watch someone sin mortally? IF I evangelize, I am being annoying. Religion is supposed to be personal. If I don’t evangelize, then I have failed.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Well, your post has a number of questions so it will be hard to address them all. I wouldn’t be Catholic if I didn’t think that the Catholic Church has the fullest revelation of truth. I base that answer on the Scriptures, the teaching of the early Church Fathers and even historical records. Just that subject alone is worthy of it’s own thread. I do not believe Muhammad was a prophet of God based on the fact that there are no miracles associated with Muhammad, based on the fact that the Scriptures said there would be no further revelation, and based on the fruit of Islam. Protestantism is unscriptural, in my opinion, in many of the beliefs therein. But one of my biggest problems with protestantism is that everyone interprets the Scriptures to their own satisfaction, and there is no unity. Moreover, there is little, if any, connection with the Apostles and the historical Church. This is very problematic for me because the NT is basically a collection of letters to one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Those letters demonstrate a hierarchy that the Catholic Church has, but protestant churches do not have.

As to some of your other points, I just have to say that we are called to correct a brother who is in sin. That much is in the Scriptures. It is not “judging” to be keenly aware of sin and to correct the sinner. The Scripture most often quoted about not judging is Mt 7:1 “Do not judge, lest you be judged.” The trouble is, people often stop at verse one and don’t finish the passage or compare it to others. That passage is about right judgement; we must take the plank out of our eye (don’t be a hypocrite) so that we may remove the splinter from our brother’s eye (correct the sinner).See also John 7:24, 1 Cor 5:12-13,1 Tim 5:20, just to name a few applicable verses that tell us we need to admonish or correct the sinner. But to do so we must know what sin is and we better be walking on the path of righteousness ourselves. We do this through the study of the teachings of the Church and studying the Scriptures and through Sacramental and prayerful living. You are right, some people do not have well formed consciences. They don’t really recognize how serious a sin is, or they justify sin. You are further correct that some people resort to name calling when trying to prove their point. We must let that roll off of us and remember that “If I speak in human and angelic tongues* but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.” (1 Cor 13:1). So when people are name calling and such— even if they are on point about abortion or whatever— if they are acting without love they are a resounding gong.

I guess you can tell by now that I heavily rely on the Scriptures to lead me to the truth. But I always remember that the Church was given the Holy Spirit to guide her in all truth (Jn 16:13). She is the official interpreter of Scriptures-- so my personal interpretation must not contradict the teaching of the Church.

 

[E_7]

Jesus Christ said: “If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. Remember the word I spoke to you,‘No slave is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me also hates my Father. If I had not done works among them that no one else ever did, they would not have sin; but as it is, they have seen and hated both me and my Father. But in order that the word written in their law might be fulfilled, ‘They hated me without cause.’ I have told you this so that you may not fall away. They will expel you from the synagogues; in fact, the hour is coming when everyone who kills you will think he is offering worship to God. They will do this because they have not known either the Father or me. I have told you this so that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you.” (John 15:18-25, John 16:1-4)

 

[Joe_5859]

What is the truth anyways? There are Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Christians. I have a fairly open mind and listen to anyone’s opinion. Protestant think Catholics are not following. Muslims believe Allah is God. Even within the Catholic community, people disagree on how serious a particular sin or what should be considered a sin. “Cafeteria Catholics” pray for the intolerance by the “traditional Catholics.” “Traditional Catholics” pray for “cafeteria Catholics.” What exactly makes someone a bigot? I am even surprised. People have different definitions of what constitutes gossip. Some Christians are so against being judgmental and all for Jesus’s love. Some are more judgmental. I just do not understand. Why can’t people respect other people’s opinions without name-calling? No matter what position, I take I will be a bad person to someone. If I think homosexuality is a sin, I am narrow-minded bigot. If I do not, I am a cafeteria Catholic. If I do not agree with abortion, I am not for women’s reproductive rights, if I do, I am condoning murder. If I speak out against sin, IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO TELL OTHERS WHAT TO DO IN THEIR PERSONAL LIFE. If I do not speak out against sin, what type of friend are you to watch someone sin mortally? IF I evangelize, I am being annoying. Religion is supposed to be personal. If I don’t evangelize, then I have failed.

Yes, it can certainly get confusing. If only God would come down to earth Himself and tell us what we need to know and what is true, and then leave some people in charge of faithfully passing on that message without error for every generation to follow.

Oh wait…

It is good to be open-minded to a point. As one famous Catholic once said, the purpose of an open mind is for it clamp down on something solid.

Pontius Pilate asked that question of Jesus: “What is truth?” People have always asked that and people always will.

Not every opinion is the same. And there is no way that all can be correct. Some points of view directly contradict another. They can’t all be right.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of vitriol in public discourse nowadays. It’s not enough to disagree with someone, but we seem to have to run people into the ground with insults. It’s the dualistic politicization of our culture at large. It is very sad.

It doesn’t need to be that way. We can and should disagree civilly and charitably. We can and should extend initial good will towards those we disagree with, presuming the best of intentions on their part. If we do not, we will never understand each other and will continue to talk past each other.

So what is truth? It’s not just a set of opinions. It’s a Person. And His name is Jesus.

 

[TimothyH]

Religion is supposed to be personal.

No, quite the opposite is true. Faith is personal. Religion is communal.

-Tim-

 

[glendab]

Hello Cratus.

What is the truth anyways? There are Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Christians. I have a fairly open mind and listen to anyone’s opinion. Protestant think Catholics are not following. Muslims believe Allah is God. Even within the Catholic community, people disagree on how serious a particular sin or what should be considered a sin. “Cafeteria Catholics” pray for the intolerance by the “traditional Catholics.” “Traditional Catholics” pray for “cafeteria Catholics.” What exactly makes someone a bigot? I am even surprised. People have different definitions of what constitutes gossip. Some Christians are so against being judgmental and all for Jesus’s love. Some are more judgmental. I just do not understand. Why can’t people respect other people’s opinions without name-calling? No matter what position, I take I will be a bad person to someone. If I think homosexuality is a sin, I am narrow-minded bigot. If I do not, I am a cafeteria Catholic. If I do not agree with abortion, I am not for women’s reproductive rights, if I do, I am condoning murder. If I speak out against sin, IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO TELL OTHERS WHAT TO DO IN THEIR PERSONAL LIFE. If I do not speak out against sin, what type of friend are you to watch someone sin mortally? IF I evangelize, I am being annoying. Religion is supposed to be personal. If I don’t evangelize, then I have failed.

…and Jesus said, “let no one be offended in Me.”

Glenda

P.S. I suppose you’ll have to decide whether pleasing people is more fulfilling than pleasing God. See how a silly character defect can effect one’s whole spiritual outlook? Where is the problem? God or the defect that colors how God is seen?

 

[RedFox0456]

I would like to give you my piece of advice. Spend some time in prayer and reflection - preferably before the Blessed Sacrament if you can. Spend some time inviting God into your heart. I assure you there is a very real impact when this is accomplished.

 

[Oreoracle]

As to some of your other points, I just have to say that we are called to correct a brother who is in sin. That much is in the Scriptures. It is not “judging” to be keenly aware of sin and to correct the sinner.

But how is that not judging? You are saying that you know what is wrong (i.e., what is sinful), you believe you have the capacity to recognize wrongful behavior, you think you can accurately label who is in sin, and you have assumed the role of correcting them. In what sense is that not judging?

 

[CRATUS]

But how is that not judging? You are saying that you know what is wrong (i.e., what is sinful), you believe you have the capacity to recognize wrongful behavior, you think you can accurately label who is in sin, and you have assumed the role of correcting them. In what sense is that not judging?

Is that bad? We all know right and from wrong. If I see someone stealing, I call it out. Theft is wrong. As it is being rude. Parents raise their children to know what is right and what is wrong. We can’t pretend that nothing is wrong to avoid judgment. Maybe my parents should not lecture me when I am being rude.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

"CRATUS:

What is the truth anyways? There are Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Christians. I have a fairly open mind and listen to anyone’s opinion. Protestant think Catholics are not following. Muslims believe Allah is God. Even within the Catholic community, people disagree on how serious a particular sin or what should be considered a sin. “Cafeteria Catholics” pray for the intolerance by the “traditional Catholics.” “Traditional Catholics” pray for “cafeteria Catholics.” What exactly makes someone a bigot? I am even surprised. People have different definitions of what constitutes gossip. Some Christians are so against being judgmental and all for Jesus’s love. Some are more judgmental. I just do not understand. Why can’t people respect other people’s opinions without name-calling? No matter what position, I take I will be a bad person to someone. If I think homosexuality is a sin, I am narrow-minded bigot. If I do not, I am a cafeteria Catholic. If I do not agree with abortion, I am not for women’s reproductive rights, if I do, I am condoning murder. If I speak out against sin, IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO TELL OTHERS WHAT TO DO IN THEIR PERSONAL LIFE. If I do not speak out against sin, what type of friend are you to watch someone sin mortally? IF I evangelize, I am being annoying. Religion is supposed to be personal. If I don’t evangelize, then I have failed.

When it comes to determining in broad terms which religion you is correct (Christianity/Islam, then Catholicism/Protestantism, etc) - we have reason. We do our best. Once we settle upon Catholicism, and for the issues within Catholicism - we do what the Church itself teaches.

So it doesn’t matter if one Catholic says we aren’t being pious enough, or if another says we are closed minded and bigoted, it matters if we are following the truth that Christ has revealed and entrusted to His Church. Accused of being unfaithful for going to a Mass in English or receiving on the hand? Shrug it off, the Church says those things are ok. Accused of being bigoted for recognizing that sex outside of marriage is wrong? Well in fact it is wrong, as the Church teaches, so those who so accuse you are wrong.

Some things are prudential judgement of course - the line between evangelization and nagging. In these cases we just do our best to absorb the general guidance we receive from those qualified to give it, and do our best.

The important thing is not to confuse division among people with division within the truth. Some Catholics think all kinds of things that don’t mesh with Church teaching. They are just wrong.

But how is that not judging? You are saying that you know what is wrong (i.e., what is sinful),

Yes, to some extent. (That is, there may be some situations where it’s hard to tell, but for many things yes.)

you believe you have the capacity to recognize wrongful behavior,

Yes again, at least to some extent.

you think you can accurately label who is in sin,

Here is the distinction. I can, if I see someone doing something that I know to be wrong, know that he is doing something wrong. But doing something wrong isn’t all it takes for an action to be sinful.

and you have assumed the role of correcting them. In what sense is that not judging?

It is not judging the person (if done correctly), it is judging the action.

 

[CRATUS]

But how is that not judging? You are saying that you know what is wrong (i.e., what is sinful), you believe you have the capacity to recognize wrongful behavior, you think you can accurately label who is in sin, and you have assumed the role of correcting them. In what sense is that not judging?

There are too many annoying snot-nosed children, parents refuse to teach right and wrong. They have no problem rummaging through other people’s kitchens. They have no problem talking showing no respect for authority. Throwing rocks at other children. If their parents correct them, of course, that is judging. If there is no right and wrong, LET CHILDREN GOVERN THEMSELVES. God forbid that happens.

 

[Oreoracle]

Is that bad? We all know right and from wrong. If I see someone stealing, I call it out. Theft is wrong. As it is being rude. Parents raise their children to know what is right and what is wrong. We can’t pretend that nothing is wrong to avoid judgment. Maybe my parents should not lecture me when I am being rude.

I didn’t say it was wrong to judge. But I call such things what they are: judgments. I don’t avoid words with negative connotations just to make my actions, like judging, seem more palatable.
Iron Donkey:

Here is the distinction. I can, if I see someone doing something that I know to be wrong, know that he is doing something wrong. But doing something wrong isn’t all it takes for an action to be sinful.

Okay, but I replied to someone who said they correct sinful behavior. It may be that wrong behavior isn’t necessarily sinful, but surely sinful behavior is necessarily wrong.

It is not judging the person (if done correctly), it is judging the action.

I don’t see the difference. To judge that one has murdered is to judge them as a murderer. To judge that one has stolen is to judge them as a thief. You can’t judge actions without implicitly judging the actors.

If you disagree, then perhaps we should say that people aren’t convicted in courtrooms, rather their actions are convicted.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I didn’t say it was wrong to judge. But I call such things what they are: judgments. I don’t avoid words with negative connotations just to make my actions, like judging, seem more palatable.

…

I don’t see the difference. To judge that one has murdered is to judge them as a murderer. To judge that one has stolen is to judge them as a thief. You can’t judge actions without implicitly judging the actors.

If you disagree, then perhaps we should say that people aren’t convicted in courtrooms, rather their actions are convicted.

To judge that a person is a thief is to judge that he is a person who has committed theft, which is an entirely different type of judgement than that which is prohibited, and in fact says nothing about the state of the person’s soul or their worth as a human. It was in the sense of “making claims about the state of a person’s soul and/or their worth” that I was using when I said “judge a person.”

So yeah, judging is not in itself wrong, no matter what connotations it may have, but at the same time it is generally a good idea to recognize in which senses the word is normally used in a given context - in this case, the context of arguments among Catholics about whether opposing sin/immoral actions or similar is prohibited under the “judge not lest ye be judged” thing.

Although if your response was to claim that saying someone is doing sinful behavior is to accuse them of sin - well it can be, if taken literally, but there’s semantics there too. “Sinful behavior” is shorter to say than “objectively wrong behavior, which has the property that the knowledge that it is objectively wrong is easy to obtain and likely to be had by, for instance, any Catholic, and so, assuming full consent of will, is likely to be sin, and reasonably likely to be mortal sin.” It is generally understood that we can find out that someone is stealing money for drugs, for instance, and be concerned that this is likely to be a grave sin, but without presuming to know for sure - if for example, the addiction overrides their will enough even on the stealing and not just on the drug use itself.

 

[Oreoracle]

To judge that a person is a thief is to judge that he is a person who has committed theft, which is an entirely different type of judgement than that which is prohibited, and in fact says nothing about the state of the person’s soul or their worth as a human. It was in the sense of “making claims about the state of a person’s soul and/or their worth” that I was using when I said “judge a person.”

While definitions are a matter of convention, I must say that that is a pretty bad convention. I never call people worthless and, being an atheist, I don’t claim that anyone is hellbound. So by your definition, it follows that I never judge people.

Now I like to give myself the credit of being a good person, but I don’t give myself that much credit. Certainly I have judged people even without questioning their inherent worth or so much as considering their soul.

 

[polytropos]

While definitions are a matter of convention, I must say that that is a pretty bad convention. I never call people worthless and, being an atheist, I don’t claim that anyone is hellbound. So by your definition, it follows that I never judge people.

Now I like to give myself the credit of being a good person, but I don’t give myself that much credit. Certainly I have judged people even without questioning their inherent worth or so much as considering their soul.

The distinction doesn’t have to be framed in terms of damnation; it is the same distinction between objective and subjective culpability. One can “judge” that someone has done something wrong in the sense of identifying an act. What is prohibited is making presumptions about people’s subjective culpability.

So Catholics will say that abortion is wrong, and whoever participates in an abortion is committing an evil act. But they do not (or should not) judge someone who has an abortion by calling her a murderer. (So it is right to say that abortion is murder, but one should not call someone a murderer simply because she has an abortion. The distinction probably becomes a bit grayer when you have an abortionist like Kermit Gosnell, where I don’t think it’s out of line to call someone a murderer for committing acts that are plainly infanticide.) People who have abortions are often under a great deal of stress and may be coerced to varying degrees by boyfriends, parents, colleagues, Planned Parenthood workers, etc. We simply don’t know, so while we should admonish the behavior, we do not point fingers at people and call them evil. (Though some Catholics might do that. It’s also the case that most people who support abortion will interpret and claim admonishments of behavior as condemnations of the person engaging in the behavior.)

That is what Jesus always does in the Gospels; he says not to judge, but goes on to point out when people are committing sins.

It seems to me like to presume about someone’s subjective culpability is to judge their worth, in a sense. (I don’t think this is to say that we can never believe anything about someone’s subjective culpability. Someone might tell us about his or her motivations, for example.)

 

[Oreoracle]

So Catholics will say that abortion is wrong, and whoever participates in an abortion is committing an evil act. But they do not (or should not) judge someone who has an abortion by calling her a murderer.

So just to be clear, you’re saying that we can identify wrongful acts, but we can’t assess the degree of responsibility anyone has for their wrongful actions?

If so, I have a couple of objections. Firstly, the initial poster to whom I replied said we can recognize sinful behavior, not just wrongful behavior. To say an act is sinful presupposes some degree of culpability on the sinner’s part. Secondly, how does this work in practice? You can acknowledge that someone is misbehaving, but you can’t directly blame them for the behavior. How would we decide how to sentence someone in a courtroom if we can’t assess their culpability?

That is what Jesus always does in the Gospels; he says not to judge, but goes on to point out when people are committing sins.

Okay, but again, the concept of sinning presupposes responsibility, does it not? One cannot accidentally sin. One cannot sin due to external pressures beyond one’s control. (Unless I have sorely misunderstood Catholic morality.) So to say that another has sinned is to attribute culpability to them.

 

[WilT]

What is the truth anyways? …If I speak out against sin, IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO TELL OTHERS WHAT TO DO IN THEIR PERSONAL LIFE. If I do not speak out against sin, what type of friend are you to watch someone sin mortally? IF I evangelize, I am being annoying. Religion is supposed to be personal. If I don’t evangelize, then I have failed.

First of all if your not religious then religion or those practicing religion shouldn’t bother you. Now if you want to be religious then you must follow some format and that is what many are doing. Now, you have the freedom to join any religion but if for example you want to join the Catholic religion then you need to allow the Church’s Tradition, Doctrine , and Spirituality to guide you. If you want to know of Love, then the Catholic Church has the answer because it is a Love story much greater than any other told. It teaches Love of the true sense** Agape **not the warm fuzzy love so many prefer to know as love. So if you don’t follow the Catholic Church and you claim to know true love then may I suggest in saying to perhaps not comment on things you may not be familiar with. A Master Chef will not take cooking instructions from a fast food cook, so those not familiar with True love shouldn’t claim to know about love and claim to know it. So if religion to you is personal then don’t worry about what others claim of their faiths.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

But how is that not judging? You are saying that you know what is wrong (i.e., what is sinful), you believe you have the capacity to recognize wrongful behavior, you think you can accurately label who is in sin, and you have assumed the role of correcting them. In what sense is that not judging?

We are not to judge the state of a person’s soul as God would. In other words, we cannot assume we know their culpability for their sins (consent to the sin, knowledge of the sin). But yes, we can and should judge wrong behavior. The Scripture is filled with exhortation to judge sin rightly, not just for the sake of others but for ourselves. So judging souls is a no, judging and correcting a sin is a yes,

Example, if my best friend tells me she is committing adultery, and I know it is a grave sin, I’m called upon to tell her it is a sin. I do not have to presume whether she knows it is a sin or not, I do not presume whether is she is going to hell or not, I simply tell her it is a sin and why. Once we correct the sinner we should leave the rest to God.

You may have a different standard of right and wrong. Maybe some things seem right to you that we believe are sins. We turn to the Scriptures and the teaching of the Church to form our consciences. But surely you can agree on murder as a sin or just wrong?How about stealing? How about rape or incest? These are sins and just plain wrong, you don’t have to judge the person to know that their action was wrong. Do you think if your spouse commits adultery that you can’t say- hey, that was wrong? Of course you can, because it is wrong. Like I say, we may have more things we believe are wrong than you- maybe you think homosexual sex or abortion are fine according to your values. But we Catholics are to judge sin based on the values taught by the Scriptures and the Church. Hope that clarifies.

 

[Oreoracle]

We are not to judge the state of a person’s soul as God would. In other words, we cannot assume we know their culpability for their sins (consent to the sin, knowledge of the sin). But yes, we can and should judge wrong behavior. The Scripture is filled with exhortation to judge sin rightly, not just for the sake of others but for ourselves. So judging souls is a no, judging and correcting a sin is a yes,

As I’ve been discussing with Polytropos, my understanding of Catholic morality is that people are culpable for their sins by definition. One cannot accidentally sin or be forced to sin by circumstance. So to even claim that someone has sinned is to presuppose that they are culpable for the act. If they aren’t, you can’t assume that they are responsible for it, which means you can’t assume they’ve actually sinned.

You may have a different standard of right and wrong. Maybe some things seem right to you that we believe are sins. We turn to the Scriptures and the teaching of the Church to form our consciences. But surely you can agree on murder as a sin or just wrong?How about stealing? How about rape or incest?

But we don’t simply declare that these actions are wrong. We use sanctions such as fines or prison to discourage those behaviors. To do so effectively, one has to judge the extent to which a person is culpable, otherwise all instances of a crime, such as manslaughter, would be dealt with in the same manner. I hope we can agree that it would be impractical to forego passing judgments, at least in the courtroom.

 

[WilT]

No, quite the opposite is true. Faith is personal. Religion is communal.

-Tim-