Forcing Morality on Others

[OrangeOwl]

Tonight I was discussing the Catholic religion with a non-religious friend. It’s something that I don’t do very often, because it’s not something I’m very comfortable with. I’m always afraid that I’m going to say something inaccurate about the Church or I’ll say it in such a way that’ll make my friend dismiss the Church entirely. What’s worse, sometimes I find myself just parroting the Church’s position on issues, when I’m not really sure that I’m convinced by her position myself.

Basically, he was saying that he doesn’t have a problem with religious people as long as they don’t force their views on others. I tried to say that we don’t, but part of me feels that we do.

I guess I’m thinking particularly about how Catholics are basically not allowed to support the legalization of gay marriage. I really can’t find a convincing argument against gay marriage that isn’t rooted in religious views. (And, please, let’s just leave it at that, because I don’t want to get into a discussion over whether something is or is not a convincing argument). So I’m supposed to tell non-Catholics that gay people can’t get married because the religion I adhere to says so?

This makes me feel uneasy. To what extent are Catholics obligated to turn the country’s laws into the Church’s laws? What is the Church’s position on enforcing the 10 Commandments on the non-Catholics?

On CAF, I have read people talk about how the Church tried, in the past, to keep/make divorce and adultery illegal. So exactly where do we draw the line, then? Are we supposed to also support banning condoms and making it illegal to not attend Sunday services or to eat meat on Lenten Fridays? In the very far fetched situation where a woman must choose between her life and the life of her unborn child, can I support her right to *choose *an abortion? Am I supposed to believe that separation of church and state is a bad thing?

I just don’t know. I am feeling very frustrated. I try very hard to be in line with the Church, but so often it feels like I’m losing this battle. I feel like I am constantly fighting against my own opinions, because I very often feel like I’m not allowed to have them (when they deviate from a Church position).

I don’t want anyone to change their minds on Church positions based on this post. In fact, I hope they don’t. Instead, rather, I hope someone can help me see the Church’s position. Or at least how to reconcile these conflicting thoughts in my head.

 

[benidict]

Tonight I was discussing the Catholic religion with a non-religious friend. It’s something that I don’t do very often, because it’s not something I’m very comfortable with. I’m always afraid that I’m going to say something inaccurate about the Church or I’ll say it in such a way that’ll make my friend dismiss the Church entirely. What’s worse, sometimes I find myself just parroting the Church’s position on issues, when I’m not really sure that I’m convinced by her position myself.

Basically, he was saying that he doesn’t have a problem with religious people as long as they don’t force their views on others. I tried to say that we don’t, but part of me feels that we do.

I guess I’m thinking particularly about how Catholics are basically not allowed to support the legalization of gay marriage. I really can’t find a convincing argument against gay marriage that isn’t rooted in religious views. (And, please, let’s just leave it at that, because I don’t want to get into a discussion over whether something is or is not a convincing argument). So I’m supposed to tell non-Catholics that gay people can’t get married because the religion I adhere to says so?

This makes me feel uneasy. To what extent are Catholics obligated to turn the country’s laws into the Church’s laws? What is the Church’s position on enforcing the 10 Commandments on the non-Catholics?

On CAF, I have read people talk about how the Church tried, in the past, to keep/make divorce and adultery illegal. So exactly where do we draw the line, then? Are we supposed to also support banning condoms and making it illegal to not attend Sunday services or to eat meat on Lenten Fridays? In the very far fetched situation where a woman must choose between her life and the life of her unborn child, can I support her right to *choose *an abortion? Am I supposed to believe that separation of church and state is a bad thing?

I just don’t know. I am feeling very frustrated. I try very hard to be in line with the Church, but so often it feels like I’m losing this battle. I feel like I am constantly fighting against my own opinions, because I very often feel like I’m not allowed to have them (when they deviate from a Church position).

I don’t want anyone to change their minds on Church positions based on this post. In fact, I hope they don’t. Instead, rather, I hope someone can help me see the Church’s position. Or at least how to reconcile these conflicting thoughts in my head.

Gay marriage is not just a purely religious view. it is a societal and constitutional issue. I oppose it, because I want ot protect our priest from being forced to perform such unions. Also, the very word marriage has the meaning of procreating children in its definition. my computer is wacky, so please be patient if i can only respond in snippets.It has to be opposed for several reasons. you do have a right to speak your mind, as much as the next guy or gal. dont be shy. Peace

 

[Ashton_Gaskill]

First of all, it is my understanding that if the mother’s life is seriously at risk, that is one of the very few circumstances that abortion is considered okay, for the record there.

As for the OP in general, it sounds to me that you are trying to believe the Church’s views on things without trying to understand the why. If you have a differing view on something, don’t just say “I think you’re wrong, but I’m going to try really hard to believe you’re right”, ask questions and find out WHY the Church says something is wrong. There is plenty of theological writing on all sorts of topics explaining why the Church believes what it believes.

Go learn about the Faith!

 

[Nec5]

This guy focuses on the idea that we “shouldn’t force our morality on others” which is often a libertarian mantra:
renewamerica.com/columns/duke/101005
renewamerica.com/columns/duke/101013
renewamerica.com/columns/duke/101020

The last two columns are particularly relevant to this idea.

The point is that every society forces it’s moral/religious views on its members.

And the separation of church and state is a con job twisted by progressives to justify an anti-religious interpretation of the Constitution. They didn’t want a Pope figure running things, but they also wanted a deeply moral and religious citizenry involved in the country. That’s why the early Congress bought and distributed Bibles, held prayers before sessions, and so on. Heck, John Jay, the first Supreme Court Justice, argued that it was the duty of the government to promote Christianity (although he apparently disliked Catholics and didn’t think they were possibly Christians).

The reason you’re fighting against your own opinions is that virtually all of our education is laced with this kind of progressive ideology. It seems that everyone accepts it as truth. It’s no surprise that you are conflicted.

Don’t waste time debating others until you do your own research on these things. Don’t listen to me or anyone else; read all the literature yourself. You’ll find that most of the people you argue against have not looked into it; they merely parrot the popular line.

If you want non religious arguments against gay marriage, type that in google and look around. You’ll see all sorts of arguments and counter arguments.

 

[benidict]

First of all, it is my understanding that if the mother’s life is seriously at risk, that is one of the very few circumstances that abortion is considered okay, for the record there.

As for the OP in general, it sounds to me that you are trying to believe the Church’s views on things without trying to understand the why. If you have a differing view on something, don’t just say “I think you’re wrong, but I’m going to try really hard to believe you’re right”, ask questions and find out WHY the Church says something is wrong. There is plenty of theological writing on all sorts of topics explaining why the Church believes what it believes.

Go learn about the Faith!

I would agree with you about the mothers life being at risk being one of the very few circumstances. Unfortuantely the Church does not. I got into a whole heap of trouble on another thread over this. Peace

 

[JRKH]

OrangeOwl,
I understand your frustration but once you recognize the false premise you will feel much more at peace.

We have all heard variations on the theme of “Don’t force your religion/morality on others”. Around election time I have even heard is suggested that one should “leave their religious convictions outside the voting booth”…
These things are simply - Bovine Scat

Every person has beliefs and standards and opinions and ideas. What they are based on, whether faith, or science, or philosophy, or what their uncle told them in a bar, makes no difference. They have come to certain conclusions and ideas based on reasons that seem good to them. They take these conclusions, these ideas, these convictions into the voting booth with them. Should a Catholic or other Christian do no less?

Now - if there are enough votes agreeing with Church teaching then the law will agree with Church teaching and the “will of the people” (not the Church) prevails. If their are NOT enough votes agreeing with Church traching then the law will not agree with Church teaching and the “will of the people” (not the Church) likewise prevails.
Of course even if something is legally permissable but morally wrong, a Catholic must not personally do it or support it and certainly can work to have it overturned. But that too is a freedom we enjoy in America and something that people of all convictions do.

Lets take abortion as an obvious example. Currently it is legal. We must accept that tis is civilly legal. That does not mean that we accept it as morally correct. We work, not so much to overturn laws, but to change people’s minds. Once sufficient numbers are convicted of the wrong of abortion two things will happen…1) The numbers of abortions will drop (most important) and…2) It will be very easy to get the laws changed to restrict or eliminate abortion altogether.
And most importantly in this - it will be done because it is the “will of the people”…

So don’t be afraid of standing up for your religious beliefs and talk with your friend(s) about them. This is called evangelization. Just don’t pin your friend down and pour water on him trying to baptize him… This would be “forcing” you beliefs on him.
As far as laws and such are concerned…That is the “will of the people”…

Peace
James

 

[phoooiee]

Isn’t the relativist dogma of tolerance just as totalitarian as any religious dogma?

Here is a great quote from Joseph Ratzinger: (all of this comes from the book Values in a Time of Upheaval, which is incredible and I highly recommend it)

“Truth is not a product of politics. If the relativists genuinely believe this, then they are in fact flirting with totalitarianism even though they seek to establish the primacy of freedom, for the make the majority a kind of divinity against which no further appeal is possible.”

As it happens, if the idea of truth is not relative, then one cannot edit out one’s religious beliefs from everything.

It is one thing to force religious faith on another- this is wrong because it does not respect the dignity of the person.

It is another to say that no one should force their views of morality on anyone else. This is impossible without anarchy.

Where does it stop?

Please note that the church does not support making the homosexual act illegal.

There is an enormous difference between banning something and seeking to prevent the government from affirming something. Like it or not, the act of affirming something by the state (like the right to abortion in any circumstances) strongly influences the people to accept that as truth. In any discussion of abortion, how many times is it heard, “Abortion is the law of the land” with the implicit assumption that this means it is right and those who oppose it must be wrong.

Here is a summary of Ratzinger’s conclusions concerning the role of the state:

1. The state is not itself the source of truth and morality.
2. The goal of the state cannot consist in a freedom without defined contrasts
3. The state must receive from outside itself the essential measure of knowledge and truth with regard to that which is good.
4. In the best possible scenario, this “outside” would be the pure insight of reason (In practice, this does not exist, therefore the state should depend on religion)
5. Christian faith has proved to be the most universal and rational religious culture.
6. The State must receive inspiration and guidance from the Church but the Church must remain separate from and outside the state. By merging with the State the Church would destroy both the essence of the state and its own essence.

I encourage you to think what would happen under a different system- one where the will of the majority was supreme, and the highest value is tolerance of the beliefs of others.

At one time slavery was supported by a majority in this country, just as an example. Did that make it right?

There are a whole host of things that are not good for society that can easily become supported by society.

To answer one of your other questions- we are obligated to turn the Church’s laws into the country’s laws when it is necessary to ensure that it remains possible for people to continue to pursue a moral life.

“Concern for peace is therefore first and foremost a concern to ensure a form of law that guarantees justice both for the individual and for society as a whole.”

“The absolutely profane character that has developed in the West is utterly alien to the cultures of the world, which are convinced that a world without God has no future. Hence it is precisely multiculturalism that summons us back to our own selves [meaning the Christian roots of Western culture]”

Just some things to consider…

 

[benidict]

This guy focuses on the idea that we “shouldn’t force our morality on others” which is often a libertarian mantra:
renewamerica.com/columns/duke/101005
renewamerica.com/columns/duke/101013
renewamerica.com/columns/duke/101020

The last two columns are particularly relevant to this idea.

The point is that every society forces it’s moral/religious views on its members.

And the separation of church and state is a con job twisted by progressives to justify an anti-religious interpretation of the Constitution. They didn’t want a Pope figure running things, but they also wanted a deeply moral and religious citizenry involved in the country. That’s why the early Congress bought and distributed Bibles, held prayers before sessions, and so on. Heck, John Jay, the first Supreme Court Justice, argued that it was the duty of the government to promote Christianity (although he apparently disliked Catholics and didn’t think they were possibly Christians).

The reason you’re fighting against your own opinions is that virtually all of our education is laced with this kind of progressive ideology. It seems that everyone accepts it as truth. It’s no surprise that you are conflicted.

Don’t waste time debating others until you do your own research on these things. Don’t listen to me or anyone else; read all the literature yourself. You’ll find that most of the people you argue against have not looked into it; they merely parrot the popular line.

If you want non religious arguments against gay marriage, type that in google and look around. You’ll see all sorts of arguments and counter arguments.

No. its not a libertarian mantra. we believe all views should be able to be expressed. Now you could say the its a liberal left mantra. That Might me fair. unless the person on the left also holds more libertarian ideals. Both spectrums are represented in the libertarian Idea. And the libertarians do not have an abortion platform, leaving that up to their individual members. I for one, believe that Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, belong to the unborn also. Another may disagree with me. Its a pretty big tent. Peace

 

[JRKH]

Tonight I was discussing the Catholic religion with a non-religious friend. It’s something that I don’t do very often, because it’s not something I’m very comfortable with. I’m always afraid that I’m going to say something inaccurate about the Church or I’ll say it in such a way that’ll make my friend dismiss the Church entirely. What’s worse, sometimes I find myself just parroting the Church’s position on issues, when I’m not really sure that I’m convinced by her position myself.

Basically, he was saying that he doesn’t have a problem with religious people as long as they don’t force their views on others. I tried to say that we don’t, but part of me feels that we do.

(Snip)

In regards to the bolded…No one wishes to have views “forced” on them. Yet each of us would love to convince the other of the rightness of our views.
So in response to:
“I don’t have a problem with religious people as long as they don’t force their views on me.”
My response would be:
“I completely agree, but I’m sure you will understand that I would love to convince you of the rightness of my position”.

Pease
James

 

[Kleftiko]

The Church holds some particularly embarassing positions; it’s not a wonder that you feel uneasy sharing them with others.

 

[benidict]

The Church holds some particularly embarassing positions; it’s not a wonder that you feel uneasy sharing them with others.

Honestly, I find one of them laughable, the other tragic. So because I disagree with only 2 positions out of the entire Cathechism, I am considered a heretic at best.

 

[FightingFat]

First of all, it is my understanding that if the mother’s life is seriously at risk, that is one of the very few circumstances that abortion is considered okay, for the record there.

Nope! Abortion is NEVER OK! WHat we can say is that, in a life threatening situation, if one acts to save the mother’s life, and the baby dies as a result, it is an unfortunate by-product, but it is essential to understand that it is not licit to act with the intention of killing the child.

As for the OP in general, it sounds to me that you are trying to believe the Church’s views on things without trying to understand the why. If you have a differing view on something, don’t just say “I think you’re wrong, but I’m going to try really hard to believe you’re right”, ask questions and find out WHY the Church says something is wrong. There is plenty of theological writing on all sorts of topics explaining why the Church believes what it believes.

Go learn about the Faith!

Good points!

 

[FightingFat]

The Church holds some particularly embarassing positions; it’s not a wonder that you feel uneasy sharing them with others.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Gay marriage is not just a purely religious view. it is a societal and constitutional issue. I oppose it, because I want ot protect our priest from being forced to perform such unions. Also, the very word marriage has the meaning of procreating children in its definition. my computer is wacky, so please be patient if i can only respond in snippets.It has to be opposed for several reasons. you do have a right to speak your mind, as much as the next guy or gal. dont be shy. Peace

Natural law comes to mind.

Homosexuals can’t ‘marry.’ Such acts are gravely sinful. I didn’t invent that. If you don’t like it, take it up with God. And if you love the sinner, how can you not hate the sin?

And as someone else has already pointed out, abortion is never ‘okay.’

 

[Kleftiko]

Care to elaborate?

 

[FightingFat]

Care to elaborate?

Well, I’ve heard it so many times. People who make statements like that tend to have an understanding of the “positions” they denigrate which, at best, could be described as perfunctory.

 

[Kleftiko]

Well, I’ve heard it so many times. People who make statements like that tend to have an understanding of the “positions” they denigrate which, at best, could be described as perfunctory.

What are you suggesting here is perfunctory? This reads as if I have an understanding of embarassing Church positions that are (there isn’t an object here) described as lacking interest or enthusiasm. The positions lack enthusiasm? My statements are perfunctory? The person’s relation to the issue is perfunctory? Not sure what it is you’re trying to say here.

 

[FightingFat]

What are you suggesting here is perfunctory? This reads as if I have an understanding of embarassing Church positions that are (there isn’t an object here) described as lacking interest or enthusiasm. The positions lack enthusiasm? My statements are perfunctory? The person’s relation to the issue is perfunctory? Not sure what it is you’re trying to say here.

What I am trying to say—evidently, badly— is that I doubt you understand any Church positions you consider to be embarrassing.

 

[benidict]

Natural law comes to mind.

Homosexuals can’t ‘marry.’ Such acts are gravely sinful. I didn’t invent that. If you don’t like it, take it up with God. And if you love the sinner, how can you not hate the sin?

And as someone else has already pointed out, abortion is never ‘okay.’

I agree with you. Homosexuals cannot marry. their really is no such possibility. We have no disagreement. However, constitutionaly speaking, There may be an argument for civil unions, that would keep religion out of it. Give unto ceaser the things that are ceasers, and to God the things that are Gods. This should however be done on a state by state basis, and not on the federal level. It goes beyond homosexuality.

 

[Kleftiko]

What I am trying to say—evidently, badly— is that I doubt you understand any Church positions you consider to be embarrassing.

And you will no doubt conclude this tautologically. I used to be Catholic and have a very broad understanding of their positions and respective defences. If I say that the defences for their positions are faulty, you will say that I can’t really be said to understand church positions. In other words, if I take Church positions as embarassing, you may take it as evidence that I don’t understand them.

I feel I do have a good understanding of them and consider them nevertheless embarassing.