Don't agree, but can anyone point out the bad?

[Newbie2]

Looking through the forums, it’s clear that there are those who are non-Catholics who disagree with Catholic teaching, as well as some Catholics who disagree with Catholic teaching, not to mention those who disagree with some Catholic teaching…and let’s not forget those who agree with, but still struggle with Catholic teachings.

I would like toposit that while there’s disagreement, nothing in Church teachings on morality is harmful for us if we follow it. This, of course, is not a new revelation or really any kind of revelation at all…just a thought and fodder for conversation.

 

[Tracy07]

Looking through the forums, it’s clear that there are those who are non-Catholics who disagree with Catholic teaching, as well as some Catholics who disagree with Catholic teaching, not to mention those who disagree with some Catholic teaching…and let’s not forget those who agree with, but still struggle with Catholic teachings.

I would like toposit that while there’s disagreement, nothing in Church teachings on morality is harmful for us if we follow it. This, of course, is not a new revelation or really any kind of revelation at all…just a thought and fodder for conversation.

Hi I agree and just wanted to add something father said to us in mass recently he said that although sometimes we dont understand or we question something in our faith its ok to do that, because we dont always have to understand it just accept it as thats what faith is all about.
xx

 

[AlaAnnie]

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve learned that when I disagree with a particular church teaching, I’ve found that I really didn’t understand the background of it. Once I dug into the “why” of the matter, I found that there were aspects that I never considered and my disagreement was in error.

 

[newbetx]

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve learned that when I disagree with a particular church teaching, I’ve found that I really didn’t understand the background of it. Once I dug into the “why” of the matter, I found that there were aspects that I never considered and my disagreement was in error.

Same here!

I would like toposit that while there’s disagreement, nothing in Church teachings on morality is harmful for us if we follow it. This, of course, is not a new revelation or really any kind of revelation at all…just a thought and fodder for conversation.

I would say this is not true in absolutely all cases. There are scriptural messages that say we should accept death to follow the teachings of the church.

Sunday Mass in an area where it is dangerous to travel to Mass or just by being witnessed as being a Christian could result in death.

Child bearing can sometimes result in death.

I think we have it pretty easy in most Western Cultures to follow the faith without fear of harm. But that has not always been the case for some believers.

Our priest tells a story about his home country. The military seizes a doctor when he comes to do missionary work. The doctor is interegated and thought to be a spy. He tells the officers that there is a man in the village that will vouch for him. They take him to that man’s house where he and his family live and ask if the man knows the doctor. Of course, the man denies he knows the doctor and the doctor is shot right there. Morally, what happened here? Is it not dangerous to tell the truth sometimes?

 

[rpp]

Same here!

I would say this is not true in absolutely all cases. There are scriptural messages that say we should accept death to follow the teachings of the church.

Sunday Mass in an area where it is dangerous to travel to Mass or just by being witnessed as being a Christian could result in death.

Child bearing can sometimes result in death.

I think we have it pretty easy in most Western Cultures to follow the faith without fear of harm. But that has not always been the case for some believers.

Our priest tells a story about his home country. The military seizes a doctor when he comes to do missionary work. The doctor is interegated and thought to be a spy. He tells the officers that there is a man in the village that will vouch for him. They take him to that man’s house where he and his family live and ask if the man knows the doctor. Of course, the man denies he knows the doctor and the doctor is shot right there. Morally, what happened here? Is it not dangerous to tell the truth sometimes?

In the example in the last paragraph, you did not prove that what the doctor did harmed the doctor. True, he was murdered, but now he is a martyr, and possibly a saint in Heaven. Being killed for the faith is not “harmful”. Nor is suffering for the faith “harmful”. Remember, it is not the body that is important, but the soul.

The OP is right, there is nothing harmful in following the moral teachings of the Church.

 

[newbetx]

In the example in the last paragraph, you did not prove that what the doctor did harmed the doctor. True, he was murdered, but now he is a martyr, and possibly a saint in Heaven. Being killed for the faith is not “harmful”. Nor is suffering for the faith “harmful”. Remember, it is not the body that is important, but the soul.

The OP is right, there is nothing harmful in following the moral teachings of the Church.

Well, I guess you have a point. I just never thought that dying under such circumstances wasn’t being “harmed.”

So using this logic… If the bank I’m in is being robbed, I should walk up to the armed gunman and tell him what he is doing is a sin and to drop his weapon, because niether I nor my family can be “harmed” by him shooting me.

So then did the gunman do the Doctor and I a favor by killing us?

 

[Cathy]

Originally posted by newbetx:
"So using this logic… If the bank I’m in is being robbed, I should walk up to the armed gunman and tell him what he is doing is a sin and to drop his weapon, because niether I nor my family can be “harmed” by him shooting me. "

Some prudential judgment is called for in this situation.

Did you see the TV interview with the 90-year-old woman who refused to give her gun-toting attacker $10? She told him that if he killed her, she would go to heaven, but he would go to hell. She then proceeded to give him a 10-minute sermon on salvation, during which he cried and repented. At that point, she handed him the $10, and he kissed her and thanked her.

This 90-year-old woman didn’t have to consider the financial loss to any dependent if she were killed. It seems in her case, she did the right thing. If she were a 30-year-old mother with small children, she could legitimately make a decision to hand over the $10 upon demand.

One more comment:
In the Catholic Faith, the body does matter very much. Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. We venerate the bodies of the saints after their deaths. We believe in the resurrection of the body. Though the resurrected body is glorified and changed, it is still our body for all eternity, if I understand the Church teachings correctly.

 

[JonW]

Absolutely, Cathy. Our bodies are incredibly important. JPII’s Theology of the Body makes it very cear that our bodies are not just an important part of who we are as God’s beloved children, they are one of the most important and revealing aspects of who we truly are in relation to God, ourselves, and eachother. They also tell us a lot about God and His plan for salvation in Christ and the resurrection of the dead. Check out TOB. It’s an awesome gift to the church.

God Bless

Jon

 

[Newbie2]

Well, I guess you have a point. I just never thought that dying under such circumstances wasn’t being “harmed.”

So using this logic… If the bank I’m in is being robbed, I should walk up to the armed gunman and tell him what he is doing is a sin and to drop his weapon, because niether I nor my family can be “harmed” by him shooting me.

Catholic Moral theology would teach that prudence is a virtue, and that such an action would unnecessarily put yourself and your family at risk.

I cannot recall any teachings that sugggest imprudence, rashness or shall we say, stupidity.

I realize that you’re eluding to the “Is it a sin to lie to the germans looking for the Jews you’re hiding in the basement?” or similar argument with the doctor story, but that’s the great thing about Catholic Church teaching and Moral theology; we can work out these questions by following Church teachings and at the same time not fall into mere Reletivism.

 

[rpp]

Well, I guess you have a point. I just never thought that dying under such circumstances wasn’t being “harmed.”

So using this logic… If the bank I’m in is being robbed, I should walk up to the armed gunman and tell him what he is doing is a sin and to drop his weapon, because niether I nor my family can be “harmed” by him shooting me.

So then did the gunman do the Doctor and I a favor by killing us?

As others have pointed out, prudential judgment is called for. I would also point out that your example does not follow the same logic as my analysis of your first example. In this case, there would almost certainly be other, and safer means, resolve the situation, including relying on the legitimate civil authority, e.g., the police. In the earlier example, we are talking about spreading the gospel, something very different from law enforcement and protecting the citizenry.

 

[briang72]

I would like toposit that while there’s disagreement, nothing in Church teachings on morality is harmful for us if we follow it. This, of course, is not a new revelation or really any kind of revelation at all…just a thought and fodder for conversation.

I would like to add that the Church teachings are not only of no harm to us to follow, but all of them are also beneficial to us.
We don’t follow them just to follow them. The act following the teachings conforms us to holiness. Our efforts to follow the teachings are never in vain.

The harm comes from the devil who is always at work telling us how ridiculous and inconvenient the teachings can be. Even he cannot give a truthful explanation of how the teachings harm us, but his lies are very convincing to us sometimes.

 

[newbetx]

I realize that you’re eluding to the “Is it a sin to lie to the germans looking for the Jews you’re hiding in the basement?” or similar argument with the doctor story, but that’s the great thing about Catholic Church teaching and Moral theology; we can work out these questions by following Church teachings and at the same time not fall into mere Reletivism.

No, not my point at all.

OK, we are supposed to point out to those that are sining that they are, correct. In my story, I do that. In rpp’s post, he claimed that no harm can come to the doctor, because his soul could not be harmed. So even while he is now dead to this world, he was not “harmed.”

This calls into question the OP’s definition of “harmed.” I took it to mean physical, rpp takes it to mean spiritual. I can see rpp’s point, but I don’t think that is what OP was referring to.

rpp says:

Being killed for the faith is not “harmful”.

What does this mean with regard to the OP question?

 

[StCsDavid]

I would like to posit that while there’s disagreement, nothing in Church teachings on morality is harmful for us if we follow it. This, of course, is not a new revelation or really any kind of revelation at all…just a thought and fodder for conversation.

I liken it to the phenomena that the older I get the wiser my father becomes. Much of Church teaching seems to fall into that convention. Maturity seems to allow one to get a better grasp on what the Church is teaching and the reason behind it. It also seems that nearly all Church teachings on moral issues are a source of true freedom versus oppression.