Forcing Morality on Others

  • Thread starter Thread starter OrangeOwl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OrangeOwl said:
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?
Click to expand...
It means you can do whatever you like. That’s free will my friend!
 
FightingFat said:
It means you can do whatever you like. That’s free will my friend!
Click to expand...
Yes. And using free will can sometimes get people into Hell. 😉

So does it mean I can support/not oppose civil unions and still be in good standing with the Church?
 
FightingFat said:
What a generalisation! Is this Kleftiko’s objective truth? :rolleyes:
Says who?
Thus quoth the master of reason!
Click to expand...
Haha so much hostility. I was only giving you my take on how people are embarassed by church doctrine. We can argue about particulars in another thread. The main point is that embarassment isn’t a function of a lack of understanding. It’s possible to understand something fully and still dislike the position (as demonstrated). This is fairly intuitive.
Why are you here Kleftiko? To show us faithful Catholics the errors in our reasoning? To preach your Gospel of anti-Catholicism?
Click to expand...
To be a voice of higher justice and morality, the culmination of which is not Catholicism in my view. I am not specifically anti-Catholic though. I’m sure we share many common precepts on issues of social justice and morality, just not all. It’s natural that I will sometimes want to speak to those doctrines on which we disagree. Why, do you think I should scram? :bighanky:
 
kenofken said:
“Natural law” is a cheesy dime store rubber mask that people try to stretch over religion to tell us it’s secular reasoning.
Click to expand...
Tell that to Aristotle, the Stoics, the ancient Romans, famed jurists like William Blackstone, philosophers like Aquinas. Even the inventors of the now discredited Utilitarianism dipped into the basics of Natural Law to kick start their silly ethical system. Natural Law theory even underpins the foundational documents of the world’s great democracies.

Then along comes kenofken in all his wisdom…
 
OrangeOwl said:
Yes. And using free will can sometimes get people into Hell. 😉

So does it mean I can support/not oppose civil unions and still be in good standing with the Church?
Click to expand...
Why don’t you go read the Catechism and decide for yourself, instead of sponging knowledge off everyone else. Then come back here and tell us do you support the catechism or no.
 
John21652 said:
Why don’t you go read the Catechism and decide for yourself, instead of sponging knowledge off everyone else.
Click to expand...
Standing face to face, do you think that’s what Jesus would say if someone was making inquiries to him? “Dude, this is all in my Church’s catechism book; go away until you’ve read it.” Or do you think Jesus would speak a little more charitably?

This is a forum. Just a friendly reminder.
 
Kleftiko said:
Standing face to face, do you think that’s what Jesus would say if someone was making inquiries to him? “Dude, this is all in my Church’s catechism book; go away until you’ve read it.” Or do you think Jesus would speak a little more charitably?

This is a forum. Just a friendly reminder.
Click to expand...
I’m not Jesus and don’t pretend to be. I also know he didn’t mince words when confronted with the hypocrits in the temple either. Your none too subtle digs at Catholicism are even less Christ like. Anyway, have you ever read the Catechismn, and properly?
 
Rence said:
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.

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.

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.
Click to expand...
I forgot to thank you for your response. It mirrors very much how I feel on the issue, although I’m not sure if my feelings are in line with the Church.

(Edited)

I try very hard to do what’s right in the Church’s view. I struggle with things that most other people do not.

Although I understand why some Catholics have this defense mechanism when I ask these questions, it’s not warranted here. I am not here to be a troll, and – as I said in my original post – I’m certainly not here to change people’s minds.

I lurk on these forums almost daily. Whenever there’s a question of morality, I almost always know exactly what people will provide as answers. But I certainly don’t claim to know or understand it all. My question is something I have seen brought up occasionally, but never answered directly. Should I impose the Catechism on non-Catholics? If so, where do I draw the line?
 
John21652 said:
I’m not Jesus and don’t pretend to be. I also know he didn’t mince words when confronted with the hypocrits in the temple either. Your none too subtle digs at Catholicism are even less Christ like. Anyway, have you ever read the Catechismn, and properly?
Click to expand...
Hey, just food for thought; that’s something for you and the Big Guy to discuss–it doesn’t bother me. I was only letting you know because there’s nothing very charitable about disparaging people for their questions. Also, I’m not terribly worried how Christ-like I am; my world ends when I hit the dirt.

Anyway, to answer your question:
I was layed off once during the summer, and spent the entire season reading theological texts, the most memorable and the bulk of which was the Catechism, the Summa Theologica, and the Imitation of Christ. I had converted in my late teens and, being the only adult for the RCIA class, I did a year’s worth of studying and coorespondance with one of the priests at my parish.
 
In Europe religion is a private thing that you keep to yourself. A European politician can’t be onply religious (ex. Tony Blair).

In America it feels like the exact opposite. If you aren’t praising Jesus every five seconds as a politician in America you will villainized. It really gets on my nerves.:mad: I prefer a completely secular government built on the concept of separation of church and state. I sure as hex don’t want Catholics or anyone else pushing their morality on me.

Now as for gay marriage I support gay marriage, because everyone deserves equal rights.
 
Kleftiko said:
Boy, you just opened up a whole can o’ trouble with that there words what you just said.
Click to expand...
What he opened up was justice and human rights, and more people than not in this country agree with what he said to one degree or another, and every demographer familiar with the issue will tell you that that will increase, not decrease, with each passing year. There’s no putting that toothpaste back in the tube!
 
kenofken said:
What he opened up was justice and human rights, and more people than not in this country agree with what he said to one degree or another, and every demographer familiar with the issue will tell you that that will increase, not decrease, with each passing year. There’s no putting that toothpaste back in the tube!
Click to expand...
Haha I know. I was being facetious.
 
John21652 said:
Tell that to Aristotle, the Stoics, the ancient Romans, famed jurists like William Blackstone, philosophers like Aquinas. Even the inventors of the now discredited Utilitarianism dipped into the basics of Natural Law to kick start their silly ethical system. Natural Law theory even underpins the foundational documents of the world’s great democracies.

Then along comes kenofken in all his wisdom…
Click to expand...
Nobody in the “save marriage” movement even believes in Natural Law. Not when the rubber hits the road. They maintain that gay marriage has to be prevented by force of civil law because it contravenes natural law and its imperative of procreation. Yet so do most heterosexual practices and great, great many marriages of heterosexual people who employ artificial birth control or outright sterilization. Yet NOBODY is willing to get behind laws banning marriage for those folks. Natural law was also invoked to outlaw interracial marriages. Natural law in this debate is just an attempt to assert one’s own sectarian religion as “universal” and to put some fancy philosophical window dressing on movement driven by plain old ugly garden variety hate. People are seeing the “Emperor’s New/Vintage Clothes” for what they are…
 
kenofken said:
What he opened up was justice and human rights, and more people than not in this country agree with what he said to one degree or another, and every demographer familiar with the issue will tell you that that will increase, not decrease, with each passing year. There’s no putting that toothpaste back in the tube!
Click to expand...
👍
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
Who wrote natural law?
Click to expand...
Alright, I’ll bite: no one. While the conception of a natural law guides our thinking on ethics and morals, it is not binding, per se. Moral facts can’t be determined by looking at nature, even if we derive moral principles by our thinking about what happens in nature.
 
*Moral facts can’t be determined by looking at nature, even if we derive moral principles by our thinking about what happens in nature. *

Please give me an example of a moral principle that we derive by our thinking about what happens in nature?😉
 
Charlemagne_II said:
*Moral facts can’t be determined by looking at nature, even if we derive moral principles by our thinking about what happens in nature. *

Please give me an example of a moral principle that we derive by our thinking about what happens in nature?😉
Click to expand...
A hotly pursued topic on this forum: the majority of intimate/romantic/sexual relationships we encounter are heterosexual. The moral principle derived here is that heterosexuality is the only “natural” or moral orientation that can be practiced. Moral principles explain why homosexuality, for instance, is said to be wrong, but they don’t explain our thinking that it is wrong. In this instance, we have moral principles, but no moral facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top