Forcing Morality on Others

[ANNE_2]

For comfort and accuracy regarding all Church teaching, I highly recommend reading and then using as a reference two books. These books will explain many of the questions and statements made in some of these postings. - - -

“Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” which was first published in the US in March, 2000 (dark green cover) and is the only catechism from the Church Magisterium.
And the “Compendium Catechism of the Catholic Church” which was first published in the US in March 2006, with a Motu Proprio from Pope Benedict XVI.

Most Americans including athiests believe that it is wrong to kill another person. For a non-religious site go to “Endowment for Human Development”.
This is a great site including for those who may be considering abortion. These are human babies who suck their thumbs at 8 weeks of development, they are not tissue.

The moral and natural laws must be followed by all. (See both books above for more information.)
No Society can exist without some rules and laws imposed upon its members for the “common good”.
Example - sane people in the US would not propose that we do away with all red lights and stop signs, allow killing at random, allow stealing of anything we desire, etc.- this would be chaos.
Ask an athiest what he would do if you stole and kept his car or prized possession - he would not be happy.

 

[benidict]

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.

I like you. :hug1:

 

[TrueLight]

For comfort and accuracy regarding all Church teaching, I highly recommend reading and then using as a reference two books. These books will explain many of the questions and statements made in some of these postings. - - -

“Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” which was first published in the US in March, 2000 (dark green cover) and is the only catechism from the Church Magisterium.
And the “Compendium Catechism of the Catholic Church” which was first published in the US in March 2006, with a Motu Proprio from Pope Benedict XVI.

Yay! I was trying to figure out which catechism I should buy. I kept reading about the Baltimore catechism.

Thanks for this!

 

[TrueLight]

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 embarrassing.

I don’t want to put you on the spot, but I’m curious about which ones you find embarrassing. If you don’t want to say, please feel free to PM me.

 

[FightingFat]

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.

Your dissension proves my thesis.

 

[ANNE_2]

Although this is not always followed by all Religious (as required in Church teaching) in the USA, - - -

The Church restricts itself in intervening in Social areas.
"The Church intervenes in by making a moral judgment about economic and social matters when the fundamental rights of the person, the common good, or the salvation of souls requires it". Compendium - 510. (Also see CCC 2245, 2246, etc)

 

[FightingFat]

Although this is not always followed by all Religious (as required in Church teaching) in the USA, - - -

The Church restricts itself in intervening in Social areas.

"The Church intervenes in by making a moral judgment about economic and social matters when the fundamental rights of the person, the common good, or the salvation of souls requires it".   Compendium - 510.  (Also see CCC 2245, 2246, etc)

Exactly, as Wojtyla put it: “Her mission does not restrict freedom but rather promotes it. The Church proposes; she imposes nothing. She respects individuals and cultures, and she honors the sanctuary of conscience. To those whom for various reasons oppose missionary activity, the Church repeats: Open the doors to Christ!” (Redemptoris Missio 39).

 

[JRKH]

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.

Embarassing to whom??

I am not embarassed by the Church’s teachings…I dare say that the great preponderance of people here on this board are not embarassed by them .

You found the teachings to be difficult and troubling and so rejected the Catholic Church…So there is no reason for you to find them “embarassing”…

So - this begs the question…Embarassing to whom?

Peace
James

 

[Kleftiko]

I like you. :hug1:

Horray, a lone fan! Haha

I don’t want to put you on the spot, but I’m curious about which ones you find embarrassing. If you don’t want to say, please feel free to PM me.

Certainly,

I tend to have social justice issues, but some of them are just perplexities at moral and religious observances:

Gay civil unions / marriage / lifestyle
Wives submitting to husbands
Contraception / NFP / Masturbation

Theological positions on:
Infallibility
The efficacy of prayer
The problem of evil (particularly natural evil)

Issues revolving around these headers, more specifically the social justice issues. For instance, it makes little difference to me that people believe or don’t believe Jesus preformed miracles; it does become bothersome when Catholic issues leak into mainstream politics.

Tautological reasoning, my friend, is nothing about which to smile!

Your dissension proves my thesis.

If, in an argument or debate, the points you use to counter my position were adequate to sustain your own, it might be said that your thesis is proven (although even that word is problematic). My dissension alone can neither prove nor provide evidence for your thesis, unless your thesis is: Kleftiko is often drawn into debate. I’m being cheeky, but you see where I’m going with this.

 

[Kleftiko]

Embarassing to whom??

I am not embarassed by the Church’s teachings…I dare say that the great preponderance of people here on this board are not embarassed by them .

You found the teachings to be difficult and troubling and so rejected the Catholic Church…So there is no reason for you to find them “embarassing”…

So - this begs the question…Embarassing to whom?

Peace
James

Here is the example from Dictionary.com

to cause confusion and shame to; make uncomfortably self-conscious; disconcert; abash: His bad table manners embarrassed her.

Even if [the Church] is not embarrassed, it is embarassing to those who have to advocate such teachings against their better sensibilities (as the OP) and to people who have to come to terms with its presence in our culture, as myself (and like the woman who dines with the poorly-mannered man). In common language, to say “So and so has embarrassed herself” is to say that they have acted or spoken foolishly. I am not, therefore, referring to staunch believers as feeling a certain way for their beliefs. Quite on the contrary, much pride is taken in them.

 

[JRKH]

Even if [the Church] is not embarrassed, it is embarassing to those who have to advocate such teachings against their better sensibilities (as the OP)

Which should mearely spurr the believer to greater study in order to understand the Church’s teachings

and to people who have to come to terms with its presence in our culture, as myself (and like the woman who dines with the poorly-mannered man).

Well in the case of the woman diner, she has associated herself with the man by sitting with him. You on the other hand have distanced yourself from teh Church so you should not be embarassed…using the dininga analogy,you have, in effect, gotten up from the table and left.

In common language, to say “So and so has embarrassed herself” is to say that they have acted or spoken foolishly. I am not, therefore, referring to staunch believers as feeling a certain way for their beliefs. Quite on the contrary, much pride is taken in them.

So your original comment in Post number 10 that, “The Church holds some particularly embarassing positions…” does not apply to you since you have left the table, does not apply to me because I don’t find church teachings embarassing regardless of what others might think, and so the only ones left who might be embarassed are those who do not know church teachings and so cannot defend them…Such people have two options…learn more or keep quiet. I recommend they learn more since to remain quiet is not a good way to Love your neighbor.

Peace
James

 

[Rence]

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.

Some people cross the line in their evangelization, others do not. It’s one thing to spread the Word, to answer questions, to show someone what the Church teaches, and quite another to try and make Catholic law the only law. We don’t do this. That’s an individual Catholic’s response to the secular world.

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?

Not supporting gay marriage is not the same thing as telling non-Cahtolics that gay people can’t get married. You can teach the rules and teachings of the Church without stomping on the rights of others. God gave everyone free will, not just the free will to obey Catholic laws.

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?

Yeah, that would make me very uneasy too. Catholics aren’t obligated to turn the country’s laws into the Church’s laws. Jesus said that when you’re evangelizing, if the person to whom you are speaking rejects your teaching, to “shake the dust of that house/town” from your feet and go to the next one. He also said to give to Caesar (the secular law) what is Caesar’s and to give to God what is God’s. That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t fight to get laws made or changed to reflect what you believe to be true. But it also doesn’t mean that you have to go against your conscience and lobby and fight for laws that you consider unjust despite them being laws of the Church. After all, we follow the Church rules voluntarily, even if we don’t understand them or agree with them.

 

[Kleftiko]

Which should mearely spurr the believer to greater study in order to understand the Church’s teachings

Once upon a time, it did.

you have, in effect, gotten up from the table and left.

Left this culture? (Culture is what I was alluding to–my point is that with Church influence permeating the mainstream, I’m not really at liberty to leave.)

and so the only ones left who might be embarassed are those who do not know church teachings and so cannot defend them

As I’ve said, it’s not just the positions but the defences which are embarrassing. Even learning the defences, as many people have (myself included), they are faulty and unsatisfying. You can’t increase understanding ad infinitum; sometimes a distaste for the Catholic position is just because it isn’t a good one, not because we don’t understand it. This, as I mentioned, is poorly reasoned on your part.

If person X doesn’t like the Church’s position, then they clearly don’t understand it
Person X doesn’t like the church position,
Therefore, they don’t understand it.

Take another example:

If person X doesn’t like the atheist position, then they clearly don’t understand it
Person X doesn’t like the atheist position,
Therefore, they don’t understand it.

Doesn’t make sense, right? You’re allowed to not be embarassed by church teachings, but many people–Catholics and non-believers alike–are. Don’t consider it a chip out of your salvation because of it.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I also question the wording of the post title.

What about ‘Forcing Others Not To Murder, Rob, Lie, and Fornicate?’

Oh, wait, that’s just the rule of law. (Which happen to be based on the Ten Commandments).

And who’s complaining about that but a few anarchists and malcontents?

 

[Frankenfurter]

I just finished reading a book called “We look for a Kingdom” from the EWTN library. It’s a legit history book about the lives of regular Roman citizens just before, during and after Christ.

It is moving to read how the Christians changed a violent, paranoid government into one that formally embraced Christianity. There was no forcing of Christianity on anybody. It was done through example of how they lived which caused others to freely choose to follow it.

It seems to me there is no way to force Christian morality on anyone.

I think people are fascinated by the Catholic church’s views on issues when they take a very different stance than the modern secular government. These issues then present opportunities to explain to people why the church has certain moral teachings. But many Catholics don’t get the reasons right sometimes. So it’s best to dig into these things yourself before trying to explain them to others.

 

[kenofken]

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.’

“Natural law” is a cheesy dime store rubber mask that people try to stretch over religion to tell us it’s secular reasoning.

 

[Kleftiko]

Oh, wait, that’s just the rule of law. (Which happen to be based on the Ten Commandments)

That’s right. What a horrible time before the Ten Commandments where everyone raped and murdered in the streets; the way we are all tempted to but resist because of the ten commandments.

Clearly the OP is only referring to the moral principles adovcated predominantly by the Church. It’s not as if the CC has a monopoly on morality; people act in moral ways out of their nature.

 

[FightingFat]

As I’ve said, it’s not just the positions but the defences which are embarrassing. Even learning the defences, as many people have (myself included), they are faulty and unsatisfying.

What a generalisation! Is this Kleftiko’s objective truth?

You can’t increase understanding ad infinitum

Says who?

sometimes a distaste for the Catholic position is just because it isn’t a good one, not because we don’t understand it. This, as I mentioned, is poorly reasoned on your part.

Thus quoth the master of reason!

Why are you here Kleftiko? To show us faithful Catholics the errors in our reasoning? To preach your Gospel of anti-Catholicism?

 

[FightingFat]

people act in moral ways out of their nature.

This is Catholic morality 101, but you knew that, right?

 

[OrangeOwl]

Oh, wow. I got to bed last night and wake up this morning with 3 pages worth of posts. There’s so much to respond to that I’ll probably forget something. In absolutely no order:

I also question the wording of the post title.

What about ‘Forcing Others Not To Murder, Rob, Lie, and Fornicate?’

Oh, wait, that’s just the rule of law. (Which happen to be based on the Ten Commandments).

And who’s complaining about that but a few anarchists and malcontents?

Well, should we make fornication illegal? It’s certainly not the current rule of law. I suspect if we made that illegal, a few more people would be unhappy.

I’m going to give you a ridiculous hypothetical. Suppose you wake up tomorrow morning and find out there’s a vote in this country over whether to ban/illegalize fornication. How would you vote and why?
ANNIE 2:

Although this is not always followed by all Religious (as required in Church teaching) in the USA, - - -

The Church restricts itself in intervening in Social areas.

“The Church intervenes in by making a moral judgment about economic and social matters when the fundamental rights of the person, the common good, or the salvation of souls requires it”. Compendium - 510. (Also see CCC 2245, 2246, etc)

So it’s in these circumstances that the Church intervenes? So does that mean, when given the chance, that the Church would encourage the illegalization of fornication? Since, according to the Catechism, the salvation of souls requires abstaining from such…

FightingFat:

Exactly, as Wojtyla put it: “Her mission does not restrict freedom but rather promotes it. The Church proposes; she imposes nothing. She respects individuals and cultures, and she honors the sanctuary of conscience. To those whom for various reasons oppose missionary activity, the Church repeats: Open the doors to Christ!” (Redemptoris Missio 39).

While I sincerely think this statement is very lovely, I’m not quite certain how much it means to convey. After all, does this mean that I can support (or, at least, not directly oppose) gay civil unions, provided that gays are not permitted to marry inside the church?

Benidict:

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.

Ok, fine. Wrong phrase. I was never at any point saying that the Church should recognize gay marriage. I am asking, in a secular country, if I can support giving gay people the same legal rights that married people have.

Finally: I understand the Church position on morality matters like abortion and sexuality. I have read the Catechism. I understand “why” the Church has its views. I understand the “why”, but (1) I am not exactly convinced by the “why,” and moreover (2) I would not expect non-Catholics to be convinced by the “why.”