Does this make me a "cafeteria Catholic"?

[AlanFromWichita]

Hi, Alan,

Just wondering if you might be able to answer my post above?

IOW: If you were theological ruler of the world, what moral imperatives would you proclaim/prohibit that’s different from what God has actually decreed? And does your current theology reflect this–“I don’t believe that God really wants us to _____”, or have you deferred to the actual Theological Ruler of the World on this particular issue?

Thank you. I forgot about your question so I’m glad you brought it back up.

Let me get to the second part first, since the first will take a bit more thinking. If I say “I don’t believe that God really wants us to X” then it is my personal opinion with full acknowledgement that I may be wrong because God’s mind is not like mine, and vice versa, so I can only build a engineering model of God (an “image” if you prefer) based on everything I’ve ever learned and experienced. Normally I could see myself telling somebody this in direct reply to something they have said, like “I think God wants Y for me, or I think God wants me to be miserable, etc.” If it doesn’t fit my model, until I get more information and can thereby refine the model, my first guesses are that it isn’t true or I’ve misunderstood. The person I say this to is welcome to engage me in discussion after which, who knows? I might have a much better model.

To the first part, I’m imagining God did to me like Bruce Almighty and said, “here, Alan, you take over for 2012 and see how you do with it.” I’m going to pretend He just did that.

The first thing that comes to mind is prayer. “God, thank you for everything you’ve done for all of your creation. I am honored that You have chosen me to perform this task, and I humbly accept the challenge since it is Your will, not mine.”

Note: I just remembered the first time I flew solo in an airplane. I had no idea I was going to solo. We were practicing landings and the instructor said, “stop here.” So I did, he got out, and said, “ok, go around three more times.” Wow.

Back to the prayer. How about, “Lord, let me be as merciful as You are. Please may I have a few moments to reflect on all of this? And also may I ask that an autopilot function be enabled as of now, that will keep things according to Your will until mine is developed enough to start testing it.” OK, that should buy some time.

OK, so now I’m answering only to myself and not God and I get to make the rules. I’m thinking…

OK. I got it. First thing I want to do is establish what we don’t want to change. The obvious starting point is at the Two Great Commands. I choose to leave these completely intact, although I choose also to leave mystery involved in how to accomplish these things. I don’t think people would have a very fulfilling life if they had answers to all their questions handed to them on a silver platter. Some answers can only be found through living.

So let’s get the wording. I’ll start with the living Word:

Mark 12:30-33
Jesus replied, “The first is this: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” The scribe said to him, “Well said, teacher. You are right in saying, ‘He is One and there is no other than he.’ And ‘to love him with all your heart, with all your understanding, with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself’ is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

Now, another prayer. “Thank You Lord for Your creation and all You’ve done for it. I believe You were speaking to me in the parable about the dishonest steward, so that’s why I’m about to do what I’m going to do. As always, I seek Your guidance which will remain mysterious to me, and which helps me even after You let go for your break and let me fill in.”

OK. Dishonest steward. The only reason I can think of God might want me to take such a position is that, having personal experience with fellow sinners and being one myself, that makes me different from Jesus so it might give me a new strategy. And that gives me the next idea.

All right. I want to tweak the wording a bit and use it as the beginning of the Servant Supplement to the Living Word. But no time for that now. Back to work.

Strategy point 1: Leave the Catholic Church, as an organization, completely alone. At least for now. Work entirely through the hearts of the parts of her body.

Next step: Reexamine “free will.” reexamine “theological virtues.”

All right. This is fun, but I’m going to take a break now; until then please return to your regularly scheduled universe. Thank you for caring.

Oh, before I go one more thing, "Lord, it is my pleasure to ask you to flood the world with an increased awareness of the consciousness you promulgated through Your beatitudes.

… Also, I am pleased to offer my ‘instant beatitude personalization tool’ to our brothers and sisters. I wrote the code many years ago as my first program to practice writing web sites in the language ‘php’ but I see it’s down now. Lord, if I can get the beatitude tool working, then I invite You to bless it if You will.

Finally, Lord, please let me live to see another day. Each day is better than the one before. If it be Your will, Father. I will now engage the autopilot until I get back to the office. At this point, I’m not asking for anything else you haven’t already done or given me. Amen."

Peace and joy,
Alan

PS I’m not sure what you were expecting, maybe something more like whether I would change the teachings on contraception or something like that?

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you. I forgot about your question so I’m glad you brought it back up.

Let me get to the second part first, since the first will take a bit more thinking. If I say “I don’t believe that God really wants us to X” then it is my personal opinion with full acknowledgement that I may be wrong because God’s mind is not like mine, and vice versa, so I can only build a engineering model of God (an “image” if you prefer) based on everything I’ve ever learned and experienced. Normally I could see myself telling somebody this in direct reply to something they have said, like “I think God wants Y for me, or I think God wants me to be miserable, etc.” If it doesn’t fit my model, until I get more information and can thereby refine the model, my first guesses are that it isn’t true or I’ve misunderstood. The person I say this to is welcome to engage me in discussion after which, who knows? I might have a much better model.

To the first part, I’m imagining God did to me like Bruce Almighty and said, “here, Alan, you take over for 2012 and see how you do with it.” I’m going to pretend He just did that.

The first thing that comes to mind is prayer. “God, thank you for everything you’ve done for all of your creation. I am honored that You have chosen me to perform this task, and I humbly accept the challenge since it is Your will, not mine.”

Note: I just remembered the first time I flew solo in an airplane. I had no idea I was going to solo. We were practicing landings and the instructor said, “stop here.” So I did, he got out, and said, “ok, go around three more times.” Wow.

Back to the prayer. How about, “Lord, let me be as merciful as You are. Please may I have a few moments to reflect on all of this? And also may I ask that an autopilot function be enabled as of now, that will keep things according to Your will until mine is developed enough to start testing it.” OK, that should buy some time.

OK, so now I’m answering only to myself and not God and I get to make the rules. I’m thinking…

OK. I got it. First thing I want to do is establish what we don’t want to change. The obvious starting point is at the Two Great Commands. I choose to leave these completely intact, although I choose also to leave mystery involved in how to accomplish these things. I don’t think people would have a very fulfilling life if they had answers to all their questions handed to them on a silver platter. Some answers can only be found through living.

So let’s get the wording. I’ll start with the living Word:

Mark 12:30-33
Jesus replied, “The first is this: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” The scribe said to him, “Well said, teacher. You are right in saying, ‘He is One and there is no other than he.’ And ‘to love him with all your heart, with all your understanding, with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself’ is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

Now, another prayer. “Thank You Lord for Your creation and all You’ve done for it. I believe You were speaking to me in the parable about the dishonest steward, so that’s why I’m about to do what I’m going to do. As always, I seek Your guidance which will remain mysterious to me, and which helps me even after You let go for your break and let me fill in.”

OK. Dishonest steward. The only reason I can think of God might want me to take such a position is that, having personal experience with fellow sinners and being one myself, that makes me different from Jesus so it might give me a new strategy. And that gives me the next idea.

All right. I want to tweak the wording a bit and use it as the beginning of the Servant Supplement to the Living Word. But no time for that now. Back to work.

Strategy point 1: Leave the Catholic Church, as an organization, completely alone. At least for now. Work entirely through the hearts of the parts of her body.

Next step: Reexamine “free will.” reexamine “theological virtues.”

All right. This is fun, but I’m going to take a break now; until then please return to your regularly scheduled universe. Thank you for caring.

Oh, before I go one more thing, "Lord, it is my pleasure to ask you to flood the world with an increased awareness of the consciousness you promulgated through Your beatitudes.

… Also, I am pleased to offer my ‘instant beatitude personalization tool’ to our brothers and sisters. I wrote the code many years ago as my first program to practice writing web sites in the language ‘php’ but I see it’s down now. Lord, if I can get the beatitude tool working, then I invite You to bless it if You will.

Finally, Lord, please let me live to see another day. Each day is better than the one before. If it be Your will, Father. I will now engage the autopilot until I get back to the office. At this point, I’m not asking for anything else you haven’t already done or given me. Amen."

Peace and joy,
Alan

Sheesh!

PS I’m not sure what you were expecting, maybe something more like whether I would change the teachings on contraception or something like that?

Yes, something like that.

Is there a teaching or moral imperative that you would love to change, but don’t because you understand that God has decreed it, even if you don’t agree or can’t abide by it or can’t understand it?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Sheesh!

Sorry. I had to get into the role before even considering making a tweak to a world I think is already as perfect as God wants it to be.

You’re asking me how I would one-up God, so I suppose I don’t regret using a little bandwidth to gather thoughts on what it would be like to actually do that.

I’ve decided before I went any further, I’d have to borrow the prayer from Solomon about asking for a wise and discerning heart. I don’t know that I’d want all his worldly riches, though, because that’s a lot of responsibility. I’m better at handling other people’s stuff than my own.

Is there a teaching or moral imperative that you would love to change, but don’t because you understand that God has decreed it, even if you don’t agree or can’t abide by it or can’t understand it?

First of all, whether God “decreed” it is a matter of whether I buy what other people have told me, since God has never spoken to me in actual human words – with a couple possible exceptions under some very extreme conditions that I’m not sure of.

Do I choose to believe that the Church teaching something infallibly is the exact equivalent of God decreeing something? No. I’m sorry.

That said, I don’t have a problem with her being an authority on faith and morals, because frankly I don’t know how much faith I have anyway and I have no problem living other someone else’s moral code – at least in my observable behavior. What I can’t do is to entrust my mind to the Church’s teachings to the extent I’d let them go in and do a makeover of my thoughts while I was at contemplativer prayer or something. I think the Holy Spirit acts in each and every one of us, and that the RCC is thus guided, not the other way around.

That said, I guess I’d at least raise a question about contraception. I do not wish to challenge the issue of abortifacients used as contraception at this time. I’m only talking about something that prevents actual fertilization for now. The first example I can think of has to do with extramarital affair. Many Catholics say that the Church teaching is such that if you are already sinning by having sex outside of marriage, or adultery, you must never wear a condom for so-called “safe sex” or pregnancy prevention, because that is even a more serious sin, which will count against you in addition to the one you’re already committing."

If that’s the Church’s advice, then I disagree. I say that even if you are sinning, you have a moral responsibility to limit the collateral damage from the sin if possible. (Like if you’re going to scream obscenities at God, leave the crowded theater first.) I reject the notion that “spilling seed” is even an issue.

From a strategic “dishonest servant” standpoint, I can tell you that when I was in my wild days in college (1977-1981) this is one of the reasons I liked dating Catholic girls. Protestants and non-Christians were more likely to make me wear a you-know-what.

There. I hope that’s more what you were after. How’d I do?

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

If that’s the Church’s advice, then I disagree. I say that even if you are sinning, you have a moral responsibility to limit the collateral damage from the sin if possible. (Like if you’re going to scream obscenities at God, leave the crowded theater first.) I reject the notion that “spilling seed” is even an issue.

From a strategic “dishonest servant” standpoint, I can tell you that when I was in my wild days in college (1977-1981) this is one of the reasons I liked dating Catholic girls. Protestants and non-Christians were more likely to make me wear a you-know-what.

There. I hope that’s more what you were after. How’d I do?

Alan

So, if I were to condense your answer, it would go something like this: I disagree with the Church’s teaching on the use of condoms, but even if I don’t agree with it, I defer to the authority of the Church and state that it is indeed immoral to use condoms.

Is that a correct synopsis?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

So, if I were to condense your answer, it would go something like this: I disagree with the Church’s teaching on the use of condoms, but even if I don’t agree with it, I defer to the authority of the Church and state that it is indeed immoral to use condoms.

Is that a correct synopsis?

That’s pretty close. Let me try one now:

I disagree with the Church’s teachings (as I was told anyway) on the use of condoms in that they are intrinsically and unconditionally displeasing to God.

I think that under some conditions, wearing a condom is preferable to not wearing one, without necessarily implying a “contraceptive attitude.” I think a contraceptive attitude is far more than that, far more than even just physical aspects of it and to focus on a piece of latex 90% of the time is to cheapen the discussion about contraceptive attitude.

I’ll up it a little more: If I knew my daughter or sister was already having sinful sex, I would pray to God she at least wears one. I am not afraid of talking it over with God on judgment day. I have nothing to explain because He knows my heart; He can explain to me what is what.

I will defer to Church authority to define the words “moral” and “evil” for discussion purposes among Catholics, and I am open to any reaction or instruction the Church might have on the matter. But I will not behave in a way that I think in my heart is wrong, even if I believe it is against Church teachings to do it my preferred way. Yes, I would commit an act involving grave matter if I believed that in this case the grave matter was preferred, even if as lesser of evils. The Church may judge me as she wishes, for example whether this is full knowledge and consent, etc. or give me a dispensation of whatever her options are. I will take it up with God directly if He calls me to.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

I can give all of myself to my wife while recognizing that there are many aspect about her that are something short of perfect, or at least they are, in my perception, something short of perfect.

That’s fine. As limned earlier, the Church has never claimed to be perfect. You can love her in her imperfections, as well as her perfections, just like a marriage.

The question is still, what is enough for the wife? It’s not about what I’m willing to do, but about what my spouse finds acceptable, given my own substantial shortcomings.

What the wife wants is ALL of you. A commitment that holds nothing back. Not, "I love you when you say ‘God loves everyone’ but, alas, I cannot love you when you say, ‘Divorce and re-marriage is adultery.’ "

 

[PRmerger]

But, the question is whether God will accept me as I am at the moment (i.e., whether it would be right for me to go through the sacraments of initiation).

Of course God “accepts” you, Jocko!

It’s not whether I’ll accept God, despite my doubts and questioning–my weak faith.

I must humbly proffer that it sounds absolutely like this is what it’s all about.

My wife accepted me as a husband even though I wish she wouldn’t lock her keys in the car on occasion. If she demanded that I love the fact that she sometimes locks her keys in the car, she and I would not be married.

But will you leave her because of this?

 

[PRmerger]

That’s pretty close. Let me try one now:

I disagree with the Church’s teachings (as I was told anyway) on the use of condoms in that they are intrinsically and unconditionally displeasing to God.

I think that under some conditions, wearing a condom is preferable to not wearing one, without necessarily implying a “contraceptive attitude.” I think a contraceptive attitude is far more than that, far more than even just physical aspects of it and to focus on a piece of latex 90% of the time is to cheapen the discussion about contraceptive attitude.

I’ll up it a little more: If I knew my daughter or sister was already having sinful sex, I would pray to God she at least wears one. I am not afraid of talking it over with God on judgment day. I have nothing to explain because He knows my heart; He can explain to me what is what.

I will defer to Church authority to define the words “moral” and “evil” for discussion purposes among Catholics, and I am open to any reaction or instruction the Church might have on the matter. But I will not behave in a way that I think in my heart is wrong, even if I believe it is against Church teachings to do it my preferred way. Yes, I would commit an act involving grave matter if I believed that in this case the grave matter was preferred, even if as lesser of evils. The Church may judge me as she wishes, for example whether this is full knowledge and consent, etc. or give me a dispensation of whatever her options are. I will take it up with God directly if He calls me to.

Alan

Huh?

I thought condom use was an example of a teaching that you deferred to the Church on–that you believe your opinion is incorrect and that the Church is correct on.

Now it sounds like you’re saying you can’t abide by this teaching.

What is it, then?

Do you accept that your belief on condom use is wrong and the Church is right? Or you think the Church is wrong on this one?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

That’s fine. As limned earlier, the Church has never claimed to be perfect. You can love her in her imperfections, as well as her perfections, just like a marriage.

That’s what I’m saying. Why waste breath worrying about whether the Church is perfect, instead of just loving her unconditionally the way Jesus does?

This should not be a topic of dissention, but it is because we still like to be right so our egos won’t let go of it. Mine included. (can you tell?)

What the wife wants is ALL of you. A commitment that holds nothing back. Not, "I love you when you say ‘God loves everyone’ but, alas, I cannot love you when you say, ‘Divorce and re-marriage is adultery.’ "

Could you please rephrase this? I’m not sure what you’re asking. Yes, my wife wants all of me, as I want all of her. Doesn’t mean we don’t have our own minds or agree on everything that is right or wrong. Same way with the Church. My pastor doesn’t punish me for disagreeing with him, and even consents to let me try it my way at times.

As far as divorce and remarriage, I’ll await your clarification because I don’t understand your question.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

That’s what I’m saying. Why waste breath worrying about whether the Church is perfect, instead of just loving her unconditionally the way Jesus does?

I dunno–I haven’t seen a single Catholic poster here “worrying” about whether the Church is perfect

Could you please rephrase this? I’m not sure what you’re asking. Yes, my wife wants all of me, as I want all of her. Doesn’t mean we don’t have our own minds or agree on everything that is right or wrong. Same way with the Church. My pastor doesn’t punish me for disagreeing with him, and even consents to let me try it my way at times.

It speaks to the OP topic. Do you only accept the Church’s teachings when it agrees with your own? And say the Church is wrong?

Or do you defer, with the humility of a creature bending at the knee to the Creator, and say, "I believe and you say so I therefore, a creature, must be wrong and now I say, “Not-a as well”

As far as divorce and remarriage, I’ll await your clarification because I don’t understand your question.

Alan

It’s just one of the many teachings that people disagree with Christ on. They don’t want it to be adultery. They want to be able to divorce and re-marry. So therefore they say, “God didn’t really mean that divorce and re-marriage is wrong.”

 

[JRKH]

Alan and PR…

If I may jump inhere just briefly…It sounds like Alan is kind of saying something similar to what the Pope said not long ago in an interview/book or whatever that caused a bunch fo controversy…

If I remember right it related to homosexual sex and the comment was to the effect that using a condom, while still immoral, at least showed some level of concern for the other (not transmitting disease).
I dis-remember the specifics…

Anyway - I sort of hear something similar in Alan’s post on contraception. That he defers to the Church’s teaching on the matter, but if one is engaging in sex outside marriage anyway, the use of a condom “limits collateral fallout” (pregnancy and disease). It’s not saying that it is right but …If one is to advise (or admonish) the person it is better to admonish them for the fornication rather than the condom use…Stop the one and the other goes away.

Peace
James

 

[AlanFromWichita]

But, the question is whether God will accept me as I am at the moment (i.e., whether it would be right for me to go through the sacraments of initiation). It’s not whether I’ll accept God, despite my doubts and questioning–my weak faith.

My wife accepted me as a husband even though I wish she wouldn’t lock her keys in the car on occasion. If she demanded that I love the fact that she sometimes locks her keys in the car, she and I would not be married.

I like the saying, “God doesn’t love you if you change; God loves you so that you can change.”

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I dunno–I haven’t seen a single Catholic poster here “worrying” about whether the Church is perfect

OK, then I mean the teachings of the Church. Surely you have seen scores of posters claiming they are perfect?

Many seem to want to justify instead of discuss certain topics involving the way the Church is run, so effectively those things that are not claimed by the Church to be infallible or error free or whatever, may not be questioned either nor suggestions offered. So basically even if we think we have an idea that might help the Church, if it goes against any documentation, we can’t even consider bringing it up. To me that isn’t obedience; that’s blindness and a robot could do a better job if all the rules are determined in advance. We have human instinct and guidance by the Holy Spirit to act immediately in a situation, without having to refer each and every time to the books. I’m afraid we are trying very hard to avoid responsibility for doing what our heart and mind, being well formed in morality and mercy, tells us, in favor of always having a piece of paper backing us up for every single decision we make.

Please refer to I Robot by Isaac Asimov. I haven’t read it but I used to have an album by Alan Parsons Project of the same name and saw a cool movie about it, a movie I recommend.

I’m serious about this. I used to write software that had to control complicated machines that tested 15,000 electronic capacitors per hour and package them in reels of embossed tape with heat seal cover, for shipment to the customer. My software had to take into account every possible error that might happen with every possible mechanical and electrical part on this machine, and I got pretty close but I’m telling you it’s impossible. You can guard against everything you can think of, but when you have a factory where you have technicians of varying skills running 64 of these machine 24/7, and meanwhile mechanical engineering is making one change after another to allow it to run faster and with every change – about 74 changes in six years – we risked finding a new problem because, for example, speeding up one part of the machine sometimes requires speeding up another part, too. I’m saying it can’t be done. If every decision we make is subject to a previously written document as its final arbiter, then like I said we would be worse than robots. We would be the worst of both worlds – like flawed robots who could neither follow instructions perfectly or make a decision in the absence of applicable instructions.

Sorry, pontificating alarm just went off … moving on …

It speaks to the OP topic. Do you only accept the Church’s teachings when it agrees with your own? And say the Church is wrong?

I do not require Church teachings to agree with what I believed before I hear the teaching. I am fascinated by any point of view other than my own – especially those I hadn’t thought of myself and those I have thought of but haven’t discussed much with anyone. Without that I would never grow. All of us have changed our beliefs on important topics, or we would still think like an infant. Unfortunately it seems this is often the case with many people and I struggle to make it not the case with me.

But if I have enough information and explanation to believe I completely understand something and I still just can’t accept it, I may not say the Church is wrong, and I might stand down about my criticism, but I’ll at least keep a red flag on it that never goes away unless resolved, that this is one of those issues where I’m not there yet – and may or may not ever get there. I’m sorry but if I’m in a situation where I need to make a choice, and I don’t believe that the choice that seems to match the textbooks the best is right in my heart and mind, then I plan to do what I believe is right. And although I am not ashamed, I strive to do such things in a way to minimize risk of scandal.

Honestly, I think the Church needs people like me, but I may be wrong. I may just be an appendix or something in the Body. A cyst?

Or do you defer, with the humility of a creature bending at the knee to the Creator, and say, "I believe and you say so I therefore, a creature, must be wrong and now I say, “Not-a as well”

No, if I could speak interactively with God I’m more inclined to say this: “I believe this and I am told Your Church says that. It doesn’t seem right to be because I think to dogmatically follow the rule in this situation will cause more harm than good, so when I had to act quickly and without worldly counsel available, I acted as I believed I should. I ask if you will help me understand what I should do in the future in such a situation, and if I have done wrong, I deeply regret it and I ask Your guidance on anything I can do to help repair what I may have harmed.”

So therefore they say, “God didn’t really mean that divorce and re-marriage is wrong.”

Now that you mention it, I do not understand annulments very well but that’s another concern I have. I think the Church is in a very tricky logical labyrinth with how she handles them. Jesus said one may break the bond in case of death or infidelity of the partner. Why are there exceptions? And if we find out 10 years after a marriage whether it was “actually” a marriage or could be annulled as if it didn’t happen, that means that when we go to a wedding we have no idea whether the wedding we’re witnessing constitutes a valid marriage.

Thanks for sticking with me. I don’t know about you, but this is helping me sort out what I think and what I don’t. That way if I’m right I’m also clearer about it, and if I’m wrong I know where I stand now and where I need to go.

:tiphat:

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If I remember right it related to homosexual sex and the comment was to the effect that using a condom, while still immoral, at least showed some level of concern for the other (not transmitting disease).
I dis-remember the specifics…

This is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. We’re going to increase risk of a horrible death of another human being because we think that it is worse to mitigate that risk with whatever imperfect means we have available, then to prepare for it.

That’s another thing with condoms and Catholic girls compared to non-Catholic girls. Some of them believed that having condoms constitute premeditating a sin, which may cause it to change from a venial sin due to heat of the moment rather than a mortal sin because there is physical evidence that they planned in advance.

Stop the one and the other goes away.

Exactly. Work on fixing the root causes of the real problem, rather than trying to battle its symptoms forever. Strategy decision. That brings up another thing I have issues with; the way the Church deals with politics. I think she often expends great energy on things that end up being ineffective, and needs to examine how she allocates her resources at fighting losing battles with symptoms of societal sickness compared with increased emphasis on helping her sheep be transformed and renewed, molded as in clay in the hands of the Potter. She needs to teach and assist more, and preach less, about how to accomplish the ideal of love and mercy we talk and talk about, but keep falling into the same sins over and over.

If the Church would take even a 10% tithe from her spending on political efforts about social issues and spend it researching and implementing techniques to help each and every member of the Body become closer to God – in an experiential way and proven by works – than whatever they spend now, in this day and age, with technology to spread the word that we have, it could make a measurable difference within very few years. A few years ago I emailed the pope with the suggestions I had then. The chances of the pope hearing and/or responding are more remote than the lottery, but this way at least somebody at the Vatican has had my idea flash across the screen. I figure if I don’t like what I have, in a free society I should speak up or shut up.

We need to take the “implied pain or fear thereof” out of “correction” Right there we could maybe solve half the problems we have with each other.

Alan

 

[JRKH]

OK, then I mean the teachings of the Church. Surely you have seen scores of posters claiming they are perfect?

Many seem to want to justify instead of discuss certain topics involving the way the Church is run, so effectively those things that are not claimed by the Church to be infallible or error free or whatever, may not be questioned either nor suggestions offered. So basically even if we think we have an idea that might help the Church, if it goes against any documentation, we can’t even consider bringing it up.

I see your point. However I think that there are a couple of things that we need to consider in this matter.

1. Public vs Private conversation. When discussing things in a public forum where many people are potentially watching, and those watching have unknown levels of understanding, may not be Catholic etc. It is important that we present Church teaching with documentation in order to minimize misunderstandings.
2. Obedience to present teaching even while discussing possible changes - As new matters come up and issues reviewed for possible change, we must remain obedient to current teachings until refined instructions are given. This is also true in the Business world. A suggestion for a change does not mean the old instructions are suddenly void. First the suggestion must go through proper review and new instructions issued.
3. Doctrinal belief vs Practice - The matter of what can change and how can depend on whether something is a matter of “Practice” (Priestly celibacy) or Doctrine (Male only Priests). Discussing the one might have some point. Discussing the other is pointless.

To me that isn’t obedience; that’s blindness and a robot could do a better job if all the rules are determined in advance. We have human instinct and guidance by the Holy Spirit to act immediately in a situation, without having to refer each and every time to the books. I’m afraid we are trying very hard to avoid responsibility for doing what our heart and mind, being well formed in morality and mercy, tells us, in favor of always having a piece of paper backing us up for every single decision we make.

I agree with you that there is this danger. But do not lose sight of the importance of being well drilled in Church teaching. You allude to this above where you say, “being well formed in morality and mercy”.
Consider people who join the army. They are immediately given a book to study and to learn. They undergo physical and mental training to drive home the lessons of that book and other books. Every facet of their lives is governed by this manual. As they move further and further along in their training, they become more and more indoctrinated - infused - with the lessons they need to function and to survive in the military environment.
An environment that includes the battlefield where that training (along with “well formed” initiative) can well save their lives and the lives of those around them.
But the training must come first. And that is what we are trying to do here every day. Train.

I’m serious about this. I used to write software that had to control complicated machines that tested 15,000 electronic capacitors per hour and package them in reels of embossed tape with heat seal cover, for shipment to the customer. My software had to take into account every possible error that might happen with every possible mechanical and electrical part on this machine, and I got pretty close but I’m telling you it’s impossible. You can guard against everything you can think of, but when you have a factory where you have technicians of varying skills running 64 of these machine 24/7, and meanwhile mechanical engineering is making one change after another to allow it to run faster and with every change – about 74 changes in six years – we risked finding a new problem because, for example, speeding up one part of the machine sometimes requires speeding up another part, too. I’m saying it can’t be done. If every decision we make is subject to a previously written document as its final arbiter, then like I said we would be worse than robots. We would be the worst of both worlds – like flawed robots who could neither follow instructions perfectly or make a decision in the absence of applicable instructions.

But consider the feed back loops and change notification requirements and training and…That are all part and parcel of what you are talking about above. Think about what your reaction might be to someone ignoring instructions simply because they think they “know better”.

…if I have enough information and explanation to believe I completely understand something and I still just can’t accept it, I may not say the Church is wrong, and I might stand down about my criticism, but I’ll at least keep a red flag on it that never goes away unless resolved, that this is one of those issues where I’m not there yet – and may or may not ever get there. I’m sorry but if I’m in a situation where I need to make a choice, and I don’t believe that the choice that seems to match the textbooks the best is right in my heart and mind, then I plan to do what I believe is right. And although I am not ashamed, I strive to do such things in a way to minimize risk of scandal.

I think that this is a justifiable position given the conscience clause in the Catechism. We just must be very careful how we apply it so that, as you say, we avoid scandal, and also that we (as individuals) do not mislead others.

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

No, if I could speak interactively with God I’m more inclined to say this: “I believe this and I am told Your Church says that. It doesn’t seem right to be because I think to dogmatically follow the rule in this situation will cause more harm than good, so when I had to act quickly and without worldly counsel available, I acted as I believed I should. I ask if you will help me understand what I should do in the future in such a situation, and if I have done wrong, I deeply regret it and I ask Your guidance on anything I can do to help repair what I may have harmed.”

Nicely put.

Now that you mention it, I do not understand annulments very well but that’s another concern I have. I think the Church is in a very tricky logical labyrinth with how she handles them. Jesus said one may break the bond in case of death or infidelity of the partner. Why are there exceptions? And if we find out 10 years after a marriage whether it was “actually” a marriage or could be annulled as if it didn’t happen, that means that when we go to a wedding we have no idea whether the wedding we’re witnessing constitutes a valid marriage.

It is indeed a “logical labyrinth”. I would say that the Church has tried to codify to some extent the very thing that you are talking about above - not being robots.
Consider how difficult it is for you to explain your positions here. These too can become “logical labyrinths”. The Church, desiring to show mercy and Love, while still upholding the sanctity of marriage, is trying to navigate a minefield of pitfalls between being too lax and to strict in this matter.

Thanks for sticking with me. I don’t know about you, but this is helping me sort out what I think and what I don’t. That way if I’m right I’m also clearer about it, and if I’m wrong I know where I stand now and where I need to go.

:tiphat:

Alan

No problem my friend. We are here to strengthen each other and to seek understanding and consensus.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

This is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. We’re going to increase risk of a horrible death of another human being because we think that it is worse to mitigate that risk with whatever imperfect means we have available, then to prepare for it.

The problem with this kind of thinking is this…If a person is going to ignore the Church’s teaching on extramarital sex, why should there be an assumption that they will obey the Church’s teaching on the use of condoms???

That’s another thing with condoms and Catholic girls compared to non-Catholic girls. Some of them believed that having condoms constitute premeditating a sin, which may cause it to change from a venial sin due to heat of the moment rather than a mortal sin because there is physical evidence that they planned in advance.

Some may indeed think this way, but consider this…the “Heat of the moment” is interrupted by the need to use a condom. That interruption provides the opportunity for thought and drawing back from the act. So it DOES constitute a premeditation and a consent of the will and thus a mortal sin.

Exactly. Work on fixing the root causes of the real problem, rather than trying to battle its symptoms forever. Strategy decision.

Indeed - keep the “heat of the moment” under control and the follow-up problems don’t come up. (and this is from one who failed miserably in this as a youth…)

That brings up another thing I have issues with; the way the Church deals with politics. I think she often expends great energy on things that end up being ineffective, and needs to examine how she allocates her resources at fighting losing battles with symptoms of societal sickness compared with increased emphasis on helping her sheep be transformed and renewed, molded as in clay in the hands of the Potter. She needs to teach and assist more, and preach less, about how to accomplish the ideal of love and mercy we talk and talk about, but keep falling into the same sins over and over.
If the Church would take even a 10% tithe from her spending on political efforts about social issues and spend it researching and implementing techniques to help each and every member of the Body become closer to God – in an experiential way and proven by works – than whatever they spend now, in this day and age, with technology to spread the word that we have, it could make a measurable difference within very few years.

While I can’t really speak to the “politics” aspect, I fully agree that we need better Catechesis among the faithful.

A few years ago I emailed the pope with the suggestions I had then. The chances of the pope hearing and/or responding are more remote than the lottery, but this way at least somebody at the Vatican has had my idea flash across the screen. I figure if I don’t like what I have, in a free society I should speak up or shut up.

Peace
James

 

[PRmerger]

I like the saying, “God doesn’t love you if you change; God loves you so that you can change.”

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

1. Public vs Private conversation. When discussing things in a public forum where many people are potentially watching, and those watching have unknown levels of understanding, may not be Catholic etc. It is important that we present Church teaching with documentation in order to minimize misunderstandings.

Funny. In practice it seems to go the other way. We discuss things among international strangers and for the viewing of God knows what kind of lurkers, that are more personal than anything we’d discuss with our wives, parents, or even beer buddies. Gosh, people come here for advice to try to get their stories straight and gain courage to enter the confessional!! I can tell the whole world about how I was smoking crack in the back of church or how I couldn’t stop myself from masturbating in their airplane bathroom while thinking about the stewardess, or how I am trying to arrange a tryst with my wife’s best friend at Motel 6, but NO WAY am I going to tell any of that to a priest who is not even fazed by it, under absolute privacy. :whacky:

A suggestion for a change does not mean the old instructions are suddenly void.

Right.

Discussing the one might have some point. Discussing the other is pointless.

I don’t find any discussion pointless. Maybe it is out of place, going in circles, or ruffling feathers, but I can’t think of a single topic I would consider “pointless” except as a relative measure or in a particular context, like I can say, “if we think we’re going to see a change in our lifetimes we are borderline delusional,” but I don’t like to say, "you can’t change it and neither can I so I don’t want to hear your opinion about it. I’m just too curious. I like to know what people around me might be thinking, because so often especially when I was younger, I got hurt for listening to what people said and responding honestly rather than knowing what their evil little minds were thinking and thereby knowing how to respond strategically. Nuns, especially, were good at this. They gave me credit for mischief I would never have thought of on my own.

They undergo physical and mental training to drive home the lessons of that book and other books. Every facet of their lives is governed by this manual.

Right.

As they move further and further along in their training, they become more and more indoctrinated - infused - with the lessons they need to function and to survive in the military environment.
An environment that includes the battlefield where that training (along with “well formed” initiative) can well save their lives and the lives of those around them.

Right.

But the training must come first. And that is what we are trying to do here every day. Train.

But you are right. We don’t really become effective as humans until we internalize the training manual. But once we do that, we refer to it for refreshing and improving our skills, but in actual combat I don’t have time to look up every single thing in the book – it had better be a part of me by now or we’re all going to die.

But consider the feed back loops and change notification requirements and training and…That are all part and parcel of what you are talking about above. Think about what your reaction might be to someone ignoring instructions simply because they think they “know better”.

Right. I feel that when I’m teaching kids to drive. Sometimes I am that person, but it of course is highly situational. It’s why I never like to oversell my abilities to those delegate tasks. If I have been honest or conservative with claims of my own capabilities, and the experts entrust me with a new job with great responsibility, then I have to trust my leaders before I trust myself enough to make the first move.

One thing I do like to do. I like to know my exact level of authority to deviate from procedures, and under what conditions.

When I’m flying an airplane, especially in IFR weather (like in a cloud; I used to fly IFR) lives depend on my ability to correctly interpret the gauges, even in the event something malfunctions. Our lives depend on my understanding and following ATC instructions accurately and immediately. There are many emergency procedures, but no procedures can predict every situation that will occur. So there is one blanket rule that says the pilot-in-command may deviate from ATC instructions in an emergency, to the extent necessary to avoid or limit catastrophe. But when it’s over, you WILL be called on the carpet and you had better have a good explanation.

From FAR 91.123:
(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

(c) Each pilot in command who, in an emergency, or in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory, deviates from an ATC clearance or instruction shall notify ATC of that deviation as soon as possible.

(d) Each pilot in command who (though not deviating from a rule of this subpart) is given priority by ATC in an emergency, shall submit a detailed report of that emergency within 48 hours to the manager of that ATC facility, if requested by ATC.

Alan

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH View Post

1. Public vs Private conversation. When discussing things in a public forum where many people are potentially watching, and those watching have unknown levels of understanding, may not be Catholic etc. It is important that we present Church teaching with documentation in order to minimize misunderstandings.

Well this is not what I was driving at. Rather, the point I was making is that, in giving advice here we need to adhere to Church teaching first. If we DO offer personal observations we need to be clear about the fact.

I don’t find any discussion pointless. Maybe it is out of place, going in circles, or ruffling feathers, but I can’t think of a single topic I would consider “pointless” except as a relative measure or in a particular context, like I can say, “if we think we’re going to see a change in our lifetimes we are borderline delusional,” but I don’t like to say, "you can’t change it and neither can I so I don’t want to hear your opinion about it. I’m just too curious. I like to know what people around me might be thinking, because so often especially when I was younger, I got hurt for listening to what people said and responding honestly rather than knowing what their evil little minds were thinking and thereby knowing how to respond strategically. Nuns, especially, were good at this. They gave me credit for mischief I would never have thought of on my own.

Yea you are right. Anything can be “discussed”.

But you are right. We don’t really become effective as humans until we internalize the training manual. But once we do that, we refer to it for refreshing and improving our skills, but in actual combat I don’t have time to look up every single thing in the book – it had better be a part of me by now or we’re all going to die.

Absolutely - Train - Train - Train…True in the military and True in faith.

When I’m flying an airplane, especially in IFR weather (like in a cloud; I used to fly IFR) lives depend on my ability to correctly interpret the gauges, even in the event something malfunctions. Our lives depend on my understanding and following ATC instructions accurately and immediately. There are many emergency procedures, but no procedures can predict every situation that will occur. So there is one blanket rule that says the pilot-in-command may deviate from ATC instructions in an emergency, to the extent necessary to avoid or limit catastrophe. But when it’s over, you WILL be called on the carpet and you had better have a good explanation.

And so must we have a good explanation when we stand before God.

Peace
James