Does this make me a "cafeteria Catholic"?

[rhiannonh]

God accepts all of us for being who we are and he loves us for being who we are. He does love the warts and all stuff.

It is each other that puts demands on ourselves and not ready to believe that God wants us as just us. You do not have to do anything special or different to reach God. Just be the real you. That all he wants from us. The anger the love the tears the joy just us as the full human package.

 

[JRKH]

God accepts all of us for being who we are and he loves us for being who we are. He does love the warts and all stuff.

It is each other that puts demands on ourselves and not ready to believe that God wants us as just us. You do not have to do anything special or different to reach God. Just be the real you. That all he wants from us. The anger the love the tears the joy just us as the full human package.

Could you provide the biblical evidence or Church teaching to back up this very interesting assertion?

I see Scripture telling us that a great deal of change needed .

Peace
James

 

[AlanFromWichita]

God accepts all of us for being who we are and he loves us for being who we are. He does love the warts and all stuff.

It is each other that puts demands on ourselves and not ready to believe that God wants us as just us. You do not have to do anything special or different to reach God. Just be the real you. That all he wants from us. The anger the love the tears the joy just us as the full human package.

I love this. :bounce:

Here’s a quote you might like; I posted it on facebook a day or two ago.

‎"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts." - Albert Einstein

Oh yeah, I forgot. I think I changed my signature to that quotation.

Alan

 

[seanom]

Why would would you have doubts?, you do know that the Church’s teachings are infallible, you should read the words of Jesus when he talks about the holy spirit “he will lead you into all the truth” etc.

 

[rhiannonh]

Could you provide the biblical evidence or Church teaching to back up this very interesting assertion?

I see Scripture telling us that a great deal of change needed .

Peace
James

I am sorry to let you down there because I can’t in that its what I have learned in my own life via forums and sermons.

I am Anglican of which I am thankful in that I be totally rubbish RC in that am so easy going regards rules and things. I would be forever at confession before the service because I be forever breaking every rule there seems to be. Yes I do choose to go to Confession as its optional for us and I find it fulfilling experience because I have learned how to talk about sin in a way that helps rather than hinder.

Where in the Bible does it actually tells us that a great deal of change is needed by the way? What you see of me in church is the same out of church. I have had a hard year as such as joined the Altar Servers who bow and do sign of the cross at every relevent time and something I never done and its taken me some doing to start to relax with it and mean it. Though that helps because we now have the priest that makes the bow, somehow more significant as he slower and deliberate which carries more meaning to me. But am waffling there.

So where in the Bible does it tell us we need to change please?

 

[Jocko_VT]

Well - Let me posit this for your consideration…

1. Assuming that the couple is devout,

You’ve really narrowed down the population for this scenario!!

then God is at the center of their lives and they would not wish to offend Him or separate themselves from Him. For such a couple, using a condom simply would not be an option - based on Love.

Correct, according to Church teachings–this has not been in question in this thread.

1. If I were the party who had been infected, and assuming I Love my wife with all my heart (which I do), then why would I want to endanger her in any way??
   For me to wish to engage ins sex, even using a condom, is less safe for my wife than abstaining from sex altogether…

Indeed. But, what if your decision is denying your wife’s wishes?

And then, turn it around, and assume you’re the uninfected spouse, and assume you want to make love to your wife because you love her.

It’s still not so simple.

Again - Abstaining is the better option - Based on the most Loving Choice.

If the decision is solely that of the infected spouse, yes. But it takes two to…tango. I envision much more complexity to the case you present, because, ideally, both spouses *want *to make love, and to deny that to your spouse, even out of love, is complicated.

The problem that I see with many of these scenario’s is that they are written in a way that presumes that abstinence is not an option. I wonder why that is?

They aren’t written that way. Abstinence would obviously solve the problem. But, as I’ve mentioned a few times (and you can argue with this), a sexless marriage can be stressful on the marriage itself. You are correct, though–in a marriage where both spouses agree to abstain, for whatever reason, abstinence is a viable option. What of the average person, though? And what of the devout couple where the uninfected spouse does not want to abstain?

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
Well - Let me posit this for your consideration…

1. Assuming that the couple is devout,

This may be true…but then this IS a Catholic Forum and Catholics Should all be devout.

then God is at the center of their lives and they would not wish to offend Him or separate themselves from Him. For such a couple, using a condom simply would not be an option - based on Love.

Correct, according to Church teachings–this has not been in question in this thread.

Agreed. Including this in my answer is part of showing that in a properly ordered Catholic marriage God comes first…even above our own desires.

Indeed. But, what if your decision is denying your wife’s wishes?

This would require much discussion between the couple. I can assure that in the case of my wife and myself, our love for each other and for God would permit us to resolve the matter.

And then, turn it around, and assume you’re the uninfected spouse, and assume you want to make love to your wife because you love her.

My desire to make Love to my infected wife would simply take other forms. There are many ways to make Love that do not involve sex.
The greatest Love I can show my spouse in such a matter is to honor her desire NOT to infect me.

It’s still not so simple.

If the decision is solely that of the infected spouse, yes. But it takes two to…tango. I envision much more complexity to the case you present, because, ideally, both spouses *want *to make love, and to deny that to your spouse, even out of love, is complicated.

I agree that it is not simple. but the complications that arise are generally the result of less than ideal application of the principle of Agape Love.

Originally Posted by JRKH
The problem that I see with many of these scenario’s is that they are written in a way that presumes that abstinence is not an option. I wonder why that is?

They aren’t written that way. Abstinence would obviously solve the problem.

Thanks for clarifying.
My comment was not actually pointed at you so much as simply a general observation. Sorry if I seemed to be picking on you.

But, as I’ve mentioned a few times (and you can argue with this), a sexless marriage can be stressful on the marriage itself.

Indeed a sexless marriage can be stressful. I have been in one for more than 3 years. You see, my wife has Alzheimer’s so as you can imagine, lack of intimacy is only ONE stress that exists in my marriage.

You are correct, though–in a marriage where both spouses agree to abstain, for whatever reason, abstinence is a viable option. What of the average person, though?

This may sound cold, but …Jesus does not expect us to be “average”. We are called to be perfect. Read Mt 5:48.

And what of the devout couple where the uninfected spouse does not want to abstain?

In such a case the couple must pray and reflect carefully and seek an agreement that works best in their sacramental marriage.

Peace
James

 

[rhiannonh]

God accepts all of us for being who we are and he loves us for being who we are. He does love the warts and all stuff.

It is each other that puts demands on ourselves and not ready to believe that God wants us as just us. You do not have to do anything special or different to reach God. Just be the real you. That all he wants from us. The anger the love the tears the joy just us as the full human package.

Hi
Alan
thanks for the Einstein quote.

 

[JRKH]

I am sorry to let you down there because I can’t in that its what I have learned in my own life via forums and sermons.

You have not let me down.
I do not want you to let yourself down.
Just as importantly, I don’t want anyone reading this thread to become misinformed.
So - before you make pronouncements like this one:
“You do not have to do anything special or different to reach God. Just be the real you.”
I suggest you make sure that the Bible backs you up.

Where in the Bible does it actually tells us that a great deal of change is needed by the way? What you see of me in church is the same out of church. I have had a hard year as such as joined the Altar Servers who bow and do sign of the cross at every relevent time and something I never done and its taken me some doing to start to relax with it and mean it. Though that helps because we now have the priest that makes the bow, somehow more significant as he slower and deliberate which carries more meaning to me. But am waffling there.

So where in the Bible does it tell us we need to change please?

Well - to begin with we have This:
Mt 5:48
You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Now unless you believe yourself to be already perfect…I suspect some change is required.

Look also at Mt 4:17
*From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. *

The word “Repent” here comes from the Greek, “Metanoeo” and means 1) to change one’s mind, i.e. to repent 2) to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins.

These are but two examples of basic principles upon which the great bulk of Jesus ministry is based.
Take the time to read chapters 5-7 of Matthew…the Sermon on the mount…and see if Jesus is not calling for people to change.

Peace
James

 

[rhiannonh]

Don’t we just love semantics

…:hug3:

but I stick by what I say because I understand what I mean. Peace be with you.

God does love us as we are. Yes God sent his only Son Jesus Christ who died for us so that our sins be forgiven. That does not give us the right to sin. But it does means God still loves us.

The change will be loving and gentle through the Grace of God. Too many of us want tear our neighbours words apart to try and show they are wrong xyz. When all what matters is that God loves us for who we are. Who we are includes change at the right time not just change for change sake.

 

[JRKH]

Don’t we just love semantics

…:hug3:

but I stick by what I say because I understand what I mean. Peace be with you.

God does love us as we are. Yes God sent his only Son Jesus Christ who died for us so that our sins be forgiven. That does not give us the right to sin. But it does means God still loves us.

The change will be loving and gentle through the Grace of God. Too many of us want tear our neighbours words apart to try and show they are wrong xyz. When all what matters is that God loves us for who we are. Who we are includes change at the right time not just change for change sake.

Please understand that I am not attacking you. However, when you come here and begin making “teaching” statements, you had better be able to solidly back them up.
This is because those who teach will be held to a higher standard.
Mt 18:6
“6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
So - it is incumbent upon all of us to choose our words carefully and to be able to express ideas clearly and to be able to back up any position with verifiable evidence.

And as far as “semantics” goes…Yes I Love semantics. Words are important for they convey meaning. Being clear and precise is a big part of that.

By your posts I would say that you are fairly young.
I hope you will stay around the boards and read carefully and with an open mind to what is being expressed here.
There is much to learn.

Peace
James

 

[Ubenedictus]

If you have daughters, make sure they haven’t taken any training by the police on what to do if attacked. Make sure they know you would rather they die than be attacked, because that’s not what the police will have told them.
WOW U TEACH UR CHILDREN CONFU THATS COOL. SELF DEFENCE IS MORAL. I DON’T KNOW WHY BUT I LIKE GORRETIs, etc style
I don’t care if the Church says my daughters are saints or not; I do not wish them to be killed. They are already saints as far as I’m concerned whether the Church recognizes them or not.
AT TIMES UR OPINION DON’T MATTER, ONLY GOD MATTERs
Moreover, my wife was attacked before I knew her, and raped.SORRY
If you had been able to coach her, you would have deprived me of my wife,YOU CANT PREDICT D FUTURENice move, Matt, especially since every Knight receives a rosary that we are supposed to have with us at all times.
CONGRATS
Oh yes, you would have deprived our parish of five cantors, six altar servers, and three lectors. Oh, and then there was the girls whose life my daughter saved – she would have been dead,ARE U STILL TRYING TO PREDICT GOD ALWAY HAS HIS WAY too.
CONGRATS
And my new son-in-law would not have a wife.

:crying:
U ARE PREDICTING
So you see? All I have to do is call my wife St. Julie, and now instead of being dead and costing all that money for the Church to research her, she has given life to me, six children, and a wife to our new son-in-law. Let the Church recognize someone else as saint; we are all different parts of the body and I am happy with whichever one I am (dare I ask) and then when I’m done the Lord will let me know what I did. I’m going for, “well done My good and faithful servant.”.

Well, then you try telling the Church. I happen to agree with her teachings on this, so I have no desire to tell the Church her principles are faulty.
I’m HAPPY U DON’T
Oh, she may not call it that, but that’s what it is in essence. For example, someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.
WOW U ARE THINKING MY THOUGHT I WANTED TO START A THREAD ON THIS BUT ALAS I HAVE FOGOtten how to start a thread. MAYBE U CAN HELP. BUT THIS CASE IS NOT BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF LESSER OF 2 EVIL, IT IS BASFD ON THE NATURAL LAW ‘MANS NATURAL DESIRE TO LIVE’
So there she goes, giving exceptions for “thou shalt not kill?” Or not?
THE CHURCH DIDN’T GOD DID. PLS READ THE OLD TESTAMENT

That’s easy. I can even become a church unto myself, and enthusiastically embrace 100% of Catholic teachings if I want – that’s what free will is about.
YES U CAN BUT THEN U BECOME A CATHOLIC OF A TYPE
But I am confident I can embrace one teaching of the Church while rejecting another. I’m doing it in my mind right now. Hmmmm… Hmmmmm… j/k
YES U CAN
There is one thing, though, about becoming a church unto myself that would help me retain hope if I were to make the changeover. I can do that and still remain Catholic, and in fact the Church teaches that I can do nothing other than remain Catholic even if I try. How great is that?
U ARE CORRECT

Agreed. Father also.
I GUESS U’RE A MAN NOT A WOMAN, PARDON ME I THOUGHT U ARE A WOMAN

No problem at all. I see you are sincere, and I hope I wasn’t to flippant with my responses. I think I’ll leave them as is, though, so I can get this posted sometimes this year.

Alan

u made some gud points but most of them don’t affect the the contraception question. The fact u don’t want your children to be killed is a gud natural emotion (one of the reason for the morality of self defence) but does not make contraceptives a moral option again i like Dominic savio whose moto was ‘death before sin’ i think u should buy such books for your daughters.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Well I can tell you that I have looked into a couple of the Marion Dogma’s and frankly got a headache. I accept them on the authority of the Church but I do not understand them.
Now - Whether that is because they are complicated, or because I am not smart enough…I dunno…
Likewise, one of the great doctors of the Church, and a name often mentioned, St Thomas Aquinas likewise causes me to go…:hypno::hypno::yawn: I just can’t follow the depth of his reasoning. Again…Is it because it’s complex? Or is it that I am not smart enough?
That’s a rhetorical question by the way…

Peace
James

yeah the writting of many theologians on various dogmas are complex and hard to understand but if u use the church document and not the theologian it is easier. Maybe try those dogmas using a council document or even the ccc

 

[Ubenedictus]

I’ll bet it’s happened many, many times already!! I know for a fact that people are exposed to HIV accidentally.
THANKS FOR REMINdING ME

I don’t either. I’m assuming that using condoms is forbidden even in this example, though.
I THINK I CAN GUESS NOW SINCE NOBOdy is telling me. I GUESS THE CHURCH’S POSITION IS NO

This just dodges the question. Don’t make it about condoms. It’s the principle that matters. Let’s say there *IS *a contraceptive that just happens to be 100 percent effective at preventing the spread of *all *disease. It would, because it’s a contraceptive, not be allowable in the example I provided. It still places one in a difficult situation. When the cross you carry puts you at higher risk of one sin, whereas another sin will eliminate that increased risk, it’s problematic.
THE MORAL OPTION WILL BE ABSTAINence

In this case, it’s certainly better to use the condom. You’re venturing into the unknown, but you’re protecting yourself from a certain set of knowns, at least. I know that’s not your intended message, but it’s in there.

Regardless, no matter how one rationalizes the problem, it’s still a problem. Saying, “well, they’ll reap what the sow,” doesn’t actually solve the problem.

sometimes its better to reap what u sow. It almost sound like kill/bribe d person with d evidence so no one will know i stole/fraud. Even though it is a gud human emotion to protect ones name/ personality, protect those close to u from the shame, stigma etc it will not make murder/bibery a moral option. If u really care about the other and yourself then u will not steal. Trying to ‘control the collateral damage’ thru sinful means isn’t the moral/christain thing to do. When this type of control become moral then anything that control collateral damage becomes right including the above.
Ubenedictus

 

[JRKH]

yeah the writting of many theologians on various dogmas are complex and hard to understand but if u use the church document and not the theologian it is easier. Maybe try those dogmas using a council document or even the ccc

And if these documents are not sufficient??? Then what. One needs to look at the theological basis for the teaching…now we are back to the theologians…
See I’ve read the Catechism on the subject as well as some other “lightweight” items. they only confuse me more and I prefer to put my energy into learning more about things that have real bearing on my walk…I don’t see the Immaculate conception as effecting my faith.

All I am saying is that not everyone is a brilliant Scholar. The vast majority of us are happy to get the basics down. The rest we trust the Church on.

Peace
James

 

[PRmerger]

1. If I were the party who had been infected, and assuming I Love my wife with all my heart (which I do), then why would I want to endanger her in any way??
   For me to wish to engage ins sex, even using a condom, is less safe for my wife than abstaining from sex altogether…

This is an interesting adjunct.

Indeed–if you are the infected party would you risk infecting your spouse with HIV by engaging in sex with a condom, even with the info that they are quite effective?

(Here, “you” is a generic “you” and not a personal “you”.)

Again - Abstaining is the better option - Based on the most Loving Choice.

Yes.

The problem that I see with many of these scenario’s is that they are written in a way that presumes that abstinence is not an option. I wonder why that is?

Peace
James

Yup. I heard Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand say (paraphrasing): no one in the entire history of the world–EVER–has died from not having sex.

 

[PRmerger]

I am sorry to let you down there because I can’t in that its what I have learned in my own life via forums and sermons.

But if you don’t have a canon for the truth, then you are essentially saying that whatever you decide, after being on forums and listening to sermons, is true. And thus, if a person, after being on a few forums and listening to a sermon, decides that, for example, Mary is part of the Trinity, how is it that you would argue that this is not true?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I am Anglican of which I am thankful in that I be totally rubbish RC in that am so easy going regards rules and things. I would be forever at confession before the service because I be forever breaking every rule there seems to be. Yes I do choose to go to Confession as its optional for us and I find it fulfilling experience because I have learned how to talk about sin in a way that helps rather than hinder.

It is IMO too bad that the RCC tends to be thought of as a place where you are forced to obey a list of rules so exhaustive that there are enough rules to correctly cover any situation we’ll ever encounter, and in detail.

Plus we are told we have free will, but depending how we exercise it we will be glorified eternally or punished eternally – how is that free will? It is in the same sense as I have free will not to show my hands if a SWAT team surrounds me and yells, “put your hands out to your sides!” I can choose whether to obey or not. IMO this is diametrically opposed to free will and demonstrates what happens when dualistic-only thinking is in play.

Where in the Bible does it actually tells us that a great deal of change is needed by the way?

God does not love us if we change.
God loves us to we can change.

Membership includes those with sicknesses of all sorts.

One would think that if the Church were to form us into the people God wishes us to be, we would experience change at the hand and guidance of the Church. But the problem is we do focus on rules and dogma, and IMO have a poor track record of helping people make the changes we say are needed to aspire to to goal of perfection that was set by Jesus. We are great at persuading people to conform to our requirements on external behavior, but no matter how much we preach about internals, with no guidance on how to get there it might as well be wishful thinking because very few of us become as saints, when in fact all of us are. Does that make sense?

That said, if you know where to look the RCC has abundant resources for helping us change for the better in order to receive peace, joy, and other gifts from God. It’s just that only a tiny minority of us actually knows these resources exist so they don’t know to even go look. We seem to think that if we preach about becoming more loving, patient, and kind, and conform to externals – like exactly how we hold our head at any given time – that we actually give the false impression that we are doing what we can to meet God when in fact, we are only behaving as lab rats and failing to become fully human because we are given a model of submission and conditioning as a Good Thing when in fact when this mindset is essentially what Jesus came to save us from.

Times change, but people stay the same unless we collectively do something about it. We are not without resources to bring about massive spiritual renewal, if we only had the will, as a Church, to accomplish that, and the honesty to see that what we are doing now is not going to get it done.

There is a precept of the Church that we must go to Mass every Sunday. But there is no precept that we purge even a speck of sawdust from our eye, because we don’t know how to measure and judge and compare ourselves to each other to the extent we can systematically determine who has the Best Conduct. The spiritual journey is reduced to cheap behavior contests.

What you see of me in church is the same out of church. I have had a hard year as such as joined the Altar Servers who bow and do sign of the cross at every relevent time and something I never done and its taken me some doing to start to relax with it and mean it. Though that helps because we now have the priest that makes the bow, somehow more significant as he slower and deliberate which carries more meaning to me. But am waffling there.

That’s what I mean about externals. We are very particular about whether we appear to be in conformance with some version of code of conduct. We had that before Jesus came, though, so IMO conforming to these behaviors does not distinguish us from those who are still waiting for Jesus. Accepting Jesus and following His commands is neither prevented nor implied by somebody who appears perfect and follows every rule as far as anybody can tell – including ourselves.

But if you don’t have a canon for the truth, then you are essentially saying that whatever you decide, after being on forums and listening to sermons, is true. And thus, if a person, after being on a few forums and listening to a sermon, decides that, for example, Mary is part of the Trinity, how is it that you would argue that this is not true?

You don’t argue. It is our job to present the facts. We have neither the responsibility nor the capability to even tell if someone has conformed to our explanation of truth, much less make them. IOW we are not tasked to be each others’ thought police; if God wanted us to be that, He would have given us worldly eyes that we could see and correctly judge each other.

Also I think we need to get a grip on priorities, especially in the first stages of any given evangelization attempt. Think “fisher of men.” If we find a fish and give it a bite of something it ALREADY likes to eat, we can entice it to come closer to us. If you try to explain to the fish why it wants to come have dinner, without bait it already understands this is not going to be a compelling explanation. Give me a little love now; promises of great love – to be achieved sometime later and only after my intellectual disagreements with you are cleared up – are not anywhere near as effective.

Alan

 

[JRKH]

I like your post here Alan…Got a few comments though (surprise surprise…)

It is IMO too bad that the RCC tends to be thought of as a place where you are forced to obey a list of rules so exhaustive that there are enough rules to correctly cover any situation we’ll ever encounter, and in detail.

Indeed it is too bad.

Plus we are told we have free will, but depending how we exercise it we will be glorified eternally or punished eternally – how is that free will? It is in the same sense as I have free will not to show my hands if a SWAT team surrounds me and yells, “put your hands out to your sides!” I can choose whether to obey or not. IMO this is diametrically opposed to free will and demonstrates what happens when dualistic-only thinking is in play.

I disagree here. Having knowledge of reward or punishment may effect our behavior but it does not remove our free will.
The question re: the swat team would be - Why would you choose NOT to show your hands? Not that they have somehow removed your free will - your ability not to.
Reward/punishment is used by every parent and every government in history for the purpose of “behavior modification”. Yet - Just as you express below about “externals”, such behavior modification does not necessarily change the internals.

God does not love us if we change.
God loves us to we can change.

Membership includes those with sicknesses of all sorts.

Agree.
But to say (as rhiannonh does) that no change is required flies in the face of all biblical teaching.

One would think that if the Church were to form us into the people God wishes us to be, we would experience change at the hand and guidance of the Church.

Many do.

But the problem is we do focus on rules and dogma, and IMO have a poor track record of helping people make the changes we say are needed to aspire to to goal of perfection that was set by Jesus.

Perhaps you and I are called to do more in this area. Certainly the Church could use more adult catechists, bible study leaders and so forth.

We are great at persuading people to conform to our requirements on external behavior, but no matter how much we preach about internals, with no guidance on how to get there it might as well be wishful thinking because very few of us become as saints, when in fact all of us are. Does that make sense?

It does make sense, but then again it is very important not to generalize too much. The Church is comprised of over a billion souls. Consider the hugely broad range of knowledge, of mental capacity, of education, of desire, of capacity and capability among these billions. In teaching these spiritual children The Church rightly begins (just like good parents) with very basic “behavior modification” techniques and uses the God provided, tired and true “reward-punishment” choice. I do not fault the Church for this. This is a good and necessary first step.
However - I think that where the problem comes in is that many times the children are not encouraged to grow beyond this. To seek the whys and wherefores behind the “proper behavior” so that they understand why the “rules” make sense.

That said, if you know where to look the RCC has abundant resources for helping us change for the better in order to receive peace, joy, and other gifts from God. It’s just that only a tiny minority of us actually knows these resources exist so they don’t know to even go look.
Agreed!!! The Church is so rich in resources but so few are widely known. I suspect that the majority - especially among “Cradle Catholics” - are not even aware of these various sources.

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

(cont)

We seem to think that if we preach about becoming more loving, patient, and kind, and conform to externals – like exactly how we hold our head at any given time – that we actually give the false impression that we are doing what we can to meet God when in fact, we are only behaving as lab rats and failing to become fully human because we are given a model of submission and conditioning as a Good Thing when in fact when this mindset is essentially what Jesus came to save us from.

While I can see what you are driving at, I have to disagree with this in the broadly generalized form that it is presented.

Times change, but people stay the same unless we collectively do something about it. We are not without resources to bring about massive spiritual renewal, if we only had the will, as a Church, to accomplish that, and the honesty to see that what we are doing now is not going to get it done.

You sound like a man with a mission…

There is a precept of the Church that we must go to Mass every Sunday. But there is no precept that we purge even a speck of sawdust from our eye, because we don’t know how to measure and judge and compare ourselves to each other to the extent we can systematically determine who has the Best Conduct. The spiritual journey is reduced to cheap behavior contests.

This may be true among some - and it is too bad. But what you describe here is not True Christianity.

That’s what I mean about externals. We are very particular about whether we appear to be in conformance with some version of code of conduct. We had that before Jesus came, though, so IMO conforming to these behaviors does not distinguish us from those who are still waiting for Jesus. Accepting Jesus and following His commands is neither prevented nor implied by somebody who appears perfect and follows every rule as far as anybody can tell – including ourselves.

And this is why we are called not to judge. For we can only judge by externals and none of us can know the heart of another.
If, as you say an individual follows the externals without a converted heart, he is as a whitewashed tomb. If another follows all the externals with a beautifully converted heart, he is a light unto the world. Yet we - looking only at the outside, may not be able to accurately judge…

As a worldwide community, the Church communicates in a way that is common and relatively easy to understand. Thus she uses codes of law and conduct. “Commandments” contained in the Catechism, the Code of Canon Law, the various canons from the many councils etc…
The vast majority of her priests and teachers, trying to minister to the many hundreds who are under their individual care, try their best to preach and teach truth - and not simply “behavioral” - to their flock. Beyond this it becomes much more individualistic.
It becomes a matter of each individual’s journey…What reading might be of benefit to a given individual.
This cannot be addressed so easily in a “preaching” venue but must be approached more one on one…and it is we - not the priest or teacher - who must be like the rich young man and say “what more must I do”…

See what I mean??

Peace
James