S
- Status
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I’ve been trying my best but I guess I am just not a “well-read Catholic.” The only non-negotiable I was aware of was abortion and even that is complicated (was the death of the unborn child caused by an abortion or was it a horrific consequence of actions taken to save the mother’s life? Did you *drive *your daughter’s friend to an abortion clinic? Well, you’ve just excommunicated yourself!) - even abortion, an intrinsic evil, is complicated stuff.
I agree that the rest are non-negotiable but I have never found any Church teaching stating such.
I guess I’ll have to be reading a lot more before I’ll be called a “well-read Catholic.”
S
sedonaman
Guest
So your answer is we have NO one’s morality “imposed” on society? That’s a society without any rules or laws at all. How many times do we have to have this red herring dragged across our path? The fact of life is any organized society must have someone’s concept of right and wrong “imposed”.
Of course, there is always the possibility you are arguing for a society that is not organized at all, which seems to have been the case all along.
"The indispensable condition for our personal spiritual survival, is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we keep saying NO.”
W
Wardog
Guest
I don’t think that is what she was saying. Society can set its own rules. These are ingrained in the laws. But in today’s American society you will have to have something other than the Bible and the Catholic Catechism to back up your beliefs if you want non-Christians, atheist, agnostics, pagans, etc, all who are American citizens who can vote, to agree with you.
S
sedonaman
Guest
And,
"The indispensable condition for our personal spiritual survival, is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we keep saying NO.”
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
LS, it is only the term “non-negotiable” that is not expressly encased in formal Catholic teaching. That is all. How anyone who has been following any of the formal statements from the hierarchy of the last 10 years cannot know that the 5 principles outlined in the optional “Voter’s Guide” are part of essential Catholic teaching, I don’t know. You’ll have to answer that for yourself.
Forget the term non-negotiable. Michelle has it right in post 277 and her earlier post, regarding the absolute nature of the teaching. The term being discussed is one that was meant to guide Catholic voters in making decisions as a “bottom-line” indicator (again, if you read my earlier explanation of this in this thread). I repeat: as a practical matter, voters of all kinds and all moral traditions will be “negotating” their votes depending on who is being presented as political competitors in any given contest. As Catholics, generally that means more often than not we will be choosing “the lesser of [several] evils,” meaning the candidate who is likely to do the least damage to the Moral Absolutes proclaimed by our Church.
As to abortion, voters are not voting as to the morality of driving a woman to an abortion clinic (etc. – and all the other so-called “complications” you inserted into the essential, simple principles).
The 5 so-called (again, optional) “non-negotiables” are simply 5 Moral Absolutes proclaimed by your Church, over and over in the last 10-15 years, minimum.
W
Wardog
Guest
That is a very will written and thoughtful essay from the Pope. It is also political suicide for any American politician to say they will take political direction from the Vatican. This was specifically addressed by JFK in 1960. If your goal is to eliminate Catholics from political office, this is a good way to do it.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Trying to help people is good. I think everyone would agree with that. However, I take all scientific research and its conclusions with a grain of salt. My training is in research psychology and biology. I think you should know that scientific research cannot prove anything. It is limited by scientific method. There is *always *a chance that the results obtained were due to chance. That is true of all scientific research.
Whether homosexuality is a choice cannot be proven by any scientist. We can correlate appropriately, we can cheat and change the statistical method used *after *the research is concluded :tsktsk: ; we can do all sorts of things to make the research appear to support what we initially wanted it to support.
In other words, you can prove anything you want with statistics, except you can’t.
Homosexuality *may *be a choice. Or maybe not. Or maybe it is in some people but not in others. Maybe it is in females, but not males. Maybe it is in males, but not females, or in males under the age of 15 who live in rural areas where the average rainfall is 13.5 inches or more and who have parents who believe than sunbeams come from cucumbers.
Like abortion, homosexuality and its causes is complicated stuff. In fact, it’s probably way more complicated than abortion.
We really don’t know if it is a choice.
M
michelleds
Guest
but we do know, without a doubt, that acting on inclinations, desires, and wants IS a choice. period.
I will repeat what I said in another thread:
I believe that these discussions come about in large part because in the 20th and now 21st century, we came to believe that sex is some sort of inalienable right. subconsciously it would appear that we as a society believe that if someone is denied “the right to have sex” then that person will (a) explode, (b) die, (c) suffer physical and mental illnesses, and/or (d) become a pedophile. we equate sex with love and love with sex. if someone isn’t having sex, then they aren’t being loved.
the focus should actually be on God’s commandments, God’s love sustaining us, and “love others as I have loved you” meaning that the highest form of love is a pure, non-sexual love.
If someone were to ask me how I identify these days, my answer would be simply, “fully compliant with the Catholic Church” because I do not believe that anyone’s focus should be on sexuality, it should be on God and being not submissive to God’s will, but in full uniformity with God’s will. “Thy will be done, and because it is Thy will, it is mine as well.”
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Sedonaman, I recommend a course in basic logic. You are attributing to me a position I never held. Either this is an error on your part, or it is a falsehood, a bearing witness against me.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
St.A,
When you throw out provocative possibilities, clothed in secular premises (which was what sedonaman quoted from you), and then fail to contradict the expressed concerns of him (and similar ones from me, earlier, regarding these same quotes from you), you leave your debaters with the impression that you are in agreement with these secular premises, regradless of how they may contradict Catholic moral positions. (One of those premises would be that religious traditions and their followers should have no meaningful influence on a pluralistic society, and/or that to assert a moral position which has its roots in a religious tradition is tantamount to “imposition.”)
You may continue to say, to him, to me, to others, that what is implied in your statements is not in fact what you believe, but yet you fail to explain how your language does not imply consent to a premise contrary to Catholic thought. Simply to continue to accuse others of “bearing false witness,” “calumny,” “falsehoods,” and “lies” does not promote resolution of these contradictions. That also is very much assumed by logic. (Qui tacit consentit.)
I have not observed sedonaman to be lacking in logical skills.
When you throw out provocative possibilities, clothed in secular premises (which was what sedonaman quoted from you), and then fail to contradict the expressed concerns of him (and similar ones from me, earlier, regarding these same quotes from you), you leave your debaters with the impression that you are in agreement with these secular premises, regradless of how they may contradict Catholic moral positions. (One of those premises would be that religious traditions and their followers should have no meaningful influence on a pluralistic society, and/or that to assert a moral position which has its roots in a religious tradition is tantamount to “imposition.”)
You may continue to say, to him, to me, to others, that what is implied in your statements is not in fact what you believe, but yet you fail to explain how your language does not imply consent to a premise contrary to Catholic thought. Simply to continue to accuse others of “bearing false witness,” “calumny,” “falsehoods,” and “lies” does not promote resolution of these contradictions. That also is very much assumed by logic. (Qui tacit consentit.)
I have not observed sedonaman to be lacking in logical skills.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
It has something to do with probably being the most poorly catechized revert in the world who is trying to catch up and who has a truck-load of books and documents but perhaps is too addle-headed to understand much of what she reads for reasons which are not her fault. I’ve never seen this “Voter’s Guide.”
Actually I believe I stated that I agree they are non-negotiable (didn’t I?)
Without knowing everything they can about these non-negotiable principles (or essential or basic or simple or whatever) *Catholic *voters will be voting without understanding *why *they should vote for the pro-life candidate (if one exists). It’s sort of like they are only automatons voting. I’ve always been under the impression that the Church teaches us to question, to discuss, to debate. All information is important, especially if it increases our understanding of an issue. With more knowledge about why an issue is considered to be so important to the Church it becomes easier to make appropriate decisions about candidates and their platforms. As you have stated, it often boils down to choosing the lesser of several evils. Learning how to do that can be difficult. It becomes a more difficult task when a Catholic does not know why abortion or stem cell research or euthanasia is utterly wrong. Many have been sliding down that slippery slope for quite some time. The slope becomes more slippery when people vote in ignorance.
Please, I am only asking this as a personal favor, please don’t call it “your Church.” It is “the Church” or “our Church.” I’m sorry but I cringe every time I read “your Church.” It seems condescending to me, even if that isn’t your intent (and I don’t believe it is your intent).
Perhaps it would be a good idea if the Church made it clear official teaching - that these five “Moral Absolutes” were presented by the Magisterium as official Church teaching in one place, one document. Voters need all the help they can get.
And perhaps it would be a good idea if the level of hostility in this thread were lowered a bit? The tension here is so thick it could be cut with a knife and the few attempts at humor I have read have been mostly ignored (although one made me literally LOL).
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Sedonama read “Whose morality do you think should be imposed on the body politic in a pluralistic society? Islamic Shariah? Christian fundamentalist? Native American? Chinese Taoist?”
He concluded. “So your answer is we have NO one’s morality “imposed” on society?”
His conclusion does not follow logically from my question.
StAnastasia
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Do you think morality should be imposed on the body politic in a pluralistic society?
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I think you might be preaching to the choir here. My post was about homosexuality, not homosexual behavior. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear. We don’t know what causes homosexuality. Engaging in homosexual behavior is sinful.
What you have written about sexuality is true, unfortunately. I’ve read about it on the Catholics for Choice website. People say that not engaging in sexual behavior is dangerous, unhealthy, and impossible. And if that were true I wouldn’t exist because I offered up my celibacy to God many years ago and I’m still walking around, breathing, and at least somewhat healthy (and none of my illnesses have anything to do with sexuality in any way).
Obedience to God is the key to every door I have found locked to me.
Please pray for me because although I desperately want to be, I’m afraid I am not fully compliant with the Catholic Church. I’m learning and I’m trying but I am certainly not a living saint. Yet to become a saint and to help others become saints are my fondest wishes.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I sometimes say “our Church” (in fact, probably most often). At other times I say “your Church,” and only when people act surprised as if some kind of foreign entity is coming up with a concept they have never heard before. It is all 3: your Church, my Church, our Church. It would help not to personalize too much, when it is not intended as “condescending” or a personal statement.
Precisely because
is why Catholic Answers and several other groups/agencies compiled – from separate documents – the 5 “non-negotiables” (preferably, Moral Absolutes). And they chose these five issues because these are the issues likely to be voted on in any given election cycle. They are not “located in one place” because Rome, and the Bishops, address issues as they come up, first of all, and secondly because official documents tend to stick to certain themes at one time, as opposed to being “all over the map.”
Several of us have been attacked rather personally on this thread. We have a right to defend ourselves as long as we use civil language in that attempt. If you do not like the tone of a thread, it is your privilege and right to ignore the thread. I often do that myself. There are several threads which I feel now, or from time to time, are “too hot to handle,” or are unpleasant. I pass on those. That is also in keeping with Forum Rules, which suggest that you and me and everybody else should ignore and not visit threads which upset us or to which we cannot contribute except negatively. I cannot be accused of contributing only negatively to this thread. That is transparently not true.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Hopefully you already know that in terms of positions regarding sexuality, Catholics for Choice is not in communion with the magisterium, right? They may in fact include some legitimately Catholic viewpoints in their platform, but I wouldn’t worry too much about what they say about sexuality (acting on it, etc.) — not in general or as it applies to you personally.
You’ll be fine if you stick with authentically Catholic sources which have been proven trustworthy. There’s temptation and heresy all around us, requiring us to keep our moral rudders centered and not be too concerned with the many ways we can spin out.
S
sedonaman
Guest
You are arguing logic??? Did you get your teaching certificate from collecting cereal box tops? You are the one who leaped to the illogical conclusion that I was for the Inquisition and against the Bill of Rights.
You asked the question, “Whose morality do you think should be imposed on the body politic in a pluralistic society? Islamic Shariah? Christian fundamentalist? Native American? Chinese Taoist?” as though they were choices most Christian Americans would not want. You also used the word “imposed” which implies against our will. You left it hanging out there as proof that since few Christian Americans would want a foreign morality imposed on them, that they shouldn’t be so quick to impose Christian/Catholic morality on others. Assuming most would not want some foreign morality “imposed” and we can’t impose Christian/Catholic morality on society, one thing left is atheism. But then if it was atheism, that would be “imposed” on everyone. An alternative would be all groups do their own thing, which I cannot imagine being anything but chaos in a society of more than just a few individuals. There would be nothing left to call a “country”. The only thing left is nothing imposed, which is NO one’s morality, which is the complete absence of social rules and laws. QED.
If you don’t mean any of these things, then nothing follows logically from your question, which is what I suspect judging from the vacuity of your posts.
"The indispensable condition for our personal spiritual survival, is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we keep saying NO.”
T
TMC
Guest
I guess the problem I have is when the viewpoint of a particular group, be it Catholic Answers or any other group, is put forth as the Church’s viewpoint. The conflict between Catholic Answers’ list and the Church’s actual teaching is that neither the Church nor the bishops have ever set aside these five topics as “non-negotiable” (suggesting they are more important than other topics), nor is it true that the Church’s other teachings are “negotiable” or of lesser import than these five. If the bishops or the Church wanted to highlight only these five things they could do so, but they did not. Now some Catholics are suggesting that the bishops did set aside these five teachings as outweighing all others, or at least they are suggesting that “serious” Catholics should act as if they did. I think that serious Catholics should read what the Church actually teaches on the topic.
- Status