Help me understand what's wrong with this reasoning

[St_Francis]

I’m not trying to put forward the examples as church teaching. What I’m trying to say is that, these were arguments that seemed Biblically supported, and I’m still not sure how to answer that. It’s not like upon being confirmed suddenly a light shone down and illuminated the difference between what we ought to do for our brothers and sisters and what’s going overboard and putting unnecessary restrictions on ourselves.

So I’m having trouble because while I understand that these things aren’t church teaching, it still looks to me like they ought to be logical conclusions of things the church does teach. And I don’t know where I’m going wrong, or where to even begin telling where the line is, and chalking it up to “prudence” or “common sense” or other things that don’t have an actual argument that can be used as a guide doesn’t help.

As a side note: how on earth are we supposed to practice prudence anyways? I don’t remember anyone ever going over it except as a thing we were supposed to somehow have. But no guidance on what it looks like or how one develops it or knows when one is or is not practicing it or anything, all I’ve ever heard is that we’re supposed to do it.

I wonder if they might not have been talking about balance in the virtues. The way virtues are set up is that there is a virtue, and then there is a vice of excess and a vice of insufficiency.

Courage is the one I have found to be the most clear in explanations. Courage is universally considered a virtue. Lack of courage is cowardice. Excess of courage is foolhardiness.

Prudence tells us when performing an action would be insufficient, just right, or too much. Imagine some people see someone drowning in a mild storm. Foolhardiness would be the guy who can’t swim going out to rescue the person. Courage would be the man who knows how to swim going out to rescue the drowning person. And cowardice would be the fully-equipped lifeguard refusing to go out to rescue the person.

Prudence helps us to find the balance between excess and insufficiency which is the virtue.

(These are natural virtues, btw. There is also supernatural virtue which is an amount given by God above the natural level.)

Does this help at all?

 

[wmw]

This one seems to have been missed by many and needs repeating. Well done “tee”.

Catechism:

1809 Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the will’s mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits of what is honorable. the temperate person directs the sensitive appetites toward what is good and maintains a healthy discretion: “Do not follow your inclination and strength, walking according to the desires of your heart.” Temperance is often praised in the Old Testament: “Do not follow your base desires, but restrain your appetites.” In the New Testament it is called “moderation” or “sobriety.” We ought “to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world.”

 

[DarkLight]

Catechism:

1809 Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the will’s mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits of what is honorable. the temperate person directs the sensitive appetites toward what is good and maintains a healthy discretion: “Do not follow your inclination and strength, walking according to the desires of your heart.” Temperance is often praised in the Old Testament: “Do not follow your base desires, but restrain your appetites.” In the New Testament it is called “moderation” or “sobriety.” We ought "to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world."

The bolded part is where I struggle. What is it other than the “desires of your heart” that inclines us to drink alcohol, or wear pretty clothing, or seek anything for pleasure? Every pleasure we have, we could be doing something for another instead. Every liberty we take could be an occasion of sin for another. What rational basis can we have for saying this is sin, and that is not?

 

[pianistclare]

Again, why? What you’ve given here is just a statement - I’m looking for the reasoning behind it. How would you respond to someone who said, well, the Bible teaches us that we should avoid tempting the “weaker brother” who is struggling, and so we should refrain from all alcohol. After all it’s not required that we drink and there’s always a possibility we could be tempting someone.

The reasoning is that we are never responsible for the actions of others.
It’s the basic purpose of free will. In today’s culture, we have turned to believe that everything is caused by someone else or something else. “I turned to drugs because my dad was mean to me as a child” and the like.
People do what they want. All the time. Even addicts. None of these addicts can be cured or released form their addictions until they find the inner strength to stop. Think about it: if we were all culpable for what others do, no one could even hope for a spot in heaven. :coffeeread:

God gave us all things to be used in moderation. Even the good stuff. No one would be obese if we only ate what we needed to sustain ourselves.
No one would buy too many “things” if we thought clearly about money and what to with it.

We do have an obligation to care for others. Absolutely. But you and I don’t control others. There’s a big difference. Some people refuse see what harms them. My late husband thought that because he was a quiet drunk he didn’t have a problem. Crazy.

 

[St_Francis]

The bolded part is where I struggle. What is it other than the “desires of your heart” that inclines us to drink alcohol, or wear pretty clothing, or seek anything for pleasure? Every pleasure we have, we could be doing something for another instead. Every liberty we take could be an occasion of sin for another. What rational basis can we have for saying this is sin, and that is not?

Ahhh, I think what you are finding is the teachings of the Church about the use of the will. What often happens is that peopl give in to the desires of their emotions, or the desires of their bodies. What God wants is for us to rule our emotions and hodies by our wills.

So, I go into a field and dig it up, come inside and know by my reason that I should eat to maintain my strength. So I decide to est. My body might clamor for chocolate! for a quick solution to the hunger. My reason will say no, I should take the few minutes to warm up something nutritional. My will should then decide to fix something nutritional and eat it.

My emotions may then be reminded that my boyfriend just broke up with me and I am really sad and clamor for more food for confort. Again, my readon should step in and say, No! The body has eaten a good meal and should not eat more. The will will then step in to prevent the eating of half a quart of ice cream while standing in front of the fridge.

Overall, we need to have control of our actions by our wills instead of by our emotions or bodily desires. Once we let the latter two get in charge, we are apt to go overboard.

 

[tabycat]

Again, why? What you’ve given here is just a statement - I’m looking for the reasoning behind it. How would you respond to someone who said, well, the Bible teaches us that we should avoid tempting the “weaker brother” who is struggling, and so we should refrain from all alcohol. After all it’s not required that we drink and there’s always a possibility we could be tempting someone.

The ones that say “don’t drink alcohol because it may cause a ‘weaker brother’ to fall” seems to forget that Jesus changed water into wine (alcohol) and Paul advised Timathy to ‘drink a little wine’ for his (Timathy) illness.

 

[tabycat]

They would say that the culture back then wasn’t what it is now, and that our modern culture around alcohol is so corrupt we have to apply different standards.

What would you say to the modesty version that I offered, if someone said that women should wear clothing as loose and covered as possible so as not to tempt men? After all in charity we ought to take whatever steps we can to make our brothers’ lives easier.

What type of clothing would you suggest a woman to wear? Remenber that some men will be tempted even by a woman in a burka.

 

[tabycat]

First, your examples do not seem like examples of balance, in fact, they seem rather odd to me. In your first example, it seems like women could always somehow make an outfit “more modest” until, as someone mentioned, we were all wearing burkas or some sort of balloon-shaped clothing that goes in at the neck and at the ankles, altho I hear the sight of ankles was a problem for Victorian men, maybe bell-shaped. Maybe just enormous umbrellas!

As for the second, we are never tk purchase or consume alcohol on the basis it might be a temptation for someone around us? That is most certainly not an example of balance!

So there are reasons for having true balance in many areas of our life: we should eat, because it nourishes us, but not too much, because it would be bad for our health. We should pray, we should work, we should have leisure–each are good for us, bit not to the exclusion of the others.

Wrt modesty, we should dress appropriately as well as modesty. Someone wearing a huge umbrella or burka or whatever, would actually be immodest by dressing so out of line with the norm because they would be drawing attention to themselves.

I agree ! !

 

[pianistclare]

What type of clothing would you suggest a woman to wear? Remenber that some men will be tempted even by a woman in a burka.

OH NO! Not another modesty thread!!! :banghead::bigyikes:

 

[cena]

What type of clothing would you suggest a woman to wear? Remenber that some men will be tempted even by a woman in a burka.

They would have to wear something the average male would not get tempted by

 

[DarkLight]

I think people are missing that the examples in the first post are just that - examples of the sort of reasoning under discussion, included for the sake of clarity. They’re not something that I personally am endorsing.

They’re examples of the sort of argument that the usual reply I hear to is “well we need to have some sort of balance.” Except that’s not really much of a reply, nor is it terribly useful for anyone trying to actually live out their lives who is unsure of how they should live. So I’m asking people what went wrong with those examples and what the actual principle at work is.

 

[St_Francis]

I think people are missing that the examples in the first post are just that - examples of the sort of reasoning under discussion, included for the sake of clarity. They’re not something that I personally am endorsing.

They’re examples of the sort of argument that the usual reply I hear to is “well we need to have some sort of balance.” Except that’s not really much of a reply, nor is it terribly useful for anyone trying to actually live out their lives who is unsure of how they should live. So I’m asking people what went wrong with those examples and what the actual principle at work is.

I think the main problem with my understanding what you are asking is that balance in Catholic thinking refers to some things but not all, and I don’t see how your examples relate to balance at all. They both seem to be extreme (or maybe Protestant with the drinking) examples of not putting stumbling blocks before our brothers. Are these examples from your Protestant youth or RCIA?

 

[DarkLight]

I think the main problem with my understanding what you are asking is that balance in Catholic thinking refers to some things but not all, and I don’t see how your examples relate to balance at all. They both seem to be extreme (or maybe Protestant with the drinking) examples of not putting stumbling blocks before our brothers. Are these examples from your Protestant youth or RCIA?

They’re examples of the type pf reasoning that the answer I get to is “well balance” or “don’t be so extreme.” Not examples of balance themselves. What I’m saying is that the only reason I’ve heard why that sort of reasoning is bad is “well we have to be balanced,” and that’s not really much of a reason.

Basically, they’re examples that as a Protestant I was taught follow from certain things - things that as far as I can tell we Catholics also teach; i.e. putting others first and not putting stumbling blocks in front of our brothers. I know that we Catholics don’t teach them, but when I ask why not the only answer I’m getting is “well you have to apply some balance.” And I’m not finding that to be a particularly thorough or useful argument.

 

[janiruchan]

I am of the opinion and based on experience…that balance is something one must discern for oneself…I used to get myself advance spiritually by fasting and working a lot…to the point of exhausting my soul and body…Then I found that wasn’t the road…the more I stumbled. Rest is not a familiar word to me, neither humor or recreation—but there now I find the strength to move forward…if God doesn’t allow one to practice the extremes, it is because it is not necessary.

 

[St_Francis]

They’re examples of the type pf reasoning that the answer I get to is “well balance” or “don’t be so extreme.” Not examples of balance themselves. What I’m saying is that the only reason I’ve heard why that sort of reasoning is bad is “well we have to be balanced,” and that’s not really much of a reason.

Basically, they’re examples that as a Protestant I was taught follow from certain things - things that as far as I can tell we Catholics also teach; i.e. putting others first and not putting stumbling blocks in front of our brothers. I know that we Catholics don’t teach them, but when I ask why not the only answer I’m getting is “well you have to apply some balance.” And I’m not finding that to be a particularly thorough or useful argument.

Ahhhh, those were examples of what is out of balance! I’m so sorry I misunderstood your post.

Each exhibits a situation in which there is no boundary. The first, modesty, is not just about protecting men from sexual temptation or we women would all be wearing space suits year-round. Modesty is more about maintaining one’s own dignity, which includes but is by no means limited to not turning oneself into a advertisement for sex. Going too far in the opposite direction of masking one’s gender altogether would be going too far in the opposite direction for inadequate cause.

Old-time Protestant theology (Calvinism) kind of has behind it a hatred for the physical, which is seen as tainted. And certainly anything from fallen humanity is totally worthless. So women are not only not allowed to be overly sexy, they must be frumpy.

This leads to a denial of the inherent dignity of a woman as a child of God. Her essence, her gender, must be covered up as inherently evil.

I heard a speaker whose name I forget explain the difference between a teetotaller and a person who gives up drinking for God: the teetotaller believes alcohol is evil and so stays away; the giver-upper acknowledges that alcohol is a good, but gives it up for something better (mortification).

Thus the Catholics you met were able to say it’s a question of balance but not able to explain further. There are many areas in which the Church must teach boundaries *on each side *so that we do not give in either to excess or insufficiency. So there is a boundary against looking like an advertisement, and there is a boundart on the opposite side, against looking like one is obliterating what one is. Going too far in the frumpiness direction leads to a rebellion as well.

(I realize I may not have explained this sufficiently… I’m off to find something by the person I learned some of this from.)

OK, this is an early written version of a talk I heard the recording of that was given some time after It is long, but totally worth reading (imo) or listening to if you can get the talk from (edited to correct name) Keep the Faith–used to be $1.50. (The Barren Harvest of Protestantism by John Rao) This explains better some of what I was trying to say above, but also a lot of other stuff. (Rao is very traditional but in union with the Pope.)

 

[oldburkes]

As a convert from a Protestant background, one of the things that drew me to Catholicism was the way they showed such a reverant appreciation of the gifts God gave us to enjoy in His Creation. Rather than denying myself the joy of finding the beauty of Creation for fear of becoming a stumbling block for Christian brothers and sisters, I found out how to enjoy the gifts of Creation in such a way that actually enhanced the faith of those around us.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in the little bit that I’ve read of his Summa Theologica, treats the things in Creation as precious gifts to be enjoyed, and although God is not in these things, they were made by Him for us. It’s not something that can be taught totally and sufficiently in RCIA. It’s something that’s revealed over time, day by day.

Please don’t misunderstand my opinion as a disregard for Apostles’ call for us to be good examples. In my earlier post, I talked about the difference between the extremes and moderation. I think we all know when we are going into the extremes.
In my opinion, the boundaries, that others here have so beautifully referred to, keep us on the path, mentioned in the Chaplet of St. Michael, of Christian Perfection.
My:twocents:

 

[JRKH]

I think part of the answer - in so far as balance is concerned is to not seek attention.
In the case of “modest dress” for instance the idea would be to dress in a way that does not attract attention - or undo attention. Obviously there would be two extremes to this and in both cases they would tend to attract attention.

I believe Jesus spoke to this in His lessons on praying and alms giving - Pray or give in secret - do not seek to attract attention.

Just a thought…

Peace
James

 

[backtocatholic]

This is a very good thread. As a parent of 2 teenage boys and since coming back to the catholic church I’m having great difficulty trying to determine where to draw the line in terms of occasions of sin without having to isolate them from their peers.

I live in Ireland and values here have changed. Modesty is gone out the window in terms of the way teenage girls often dress. However I feel that it would be totally wrong to try to isolate my sons completely from their peers.

Also most Irish families go abroad on holidays e.g to Spain where beaches are top optional. Last year as part of a sightseeing and beach holiday we went to Barcelona. We spent 1 day on the beach and as common sense parenting sat in the area of the beach with the least amount of temptation and did not draw attention to or dwell on any immodesty. It this all I need to be doing to avoid occasions of sin for my boys or do we need to avoid sun holidays altogether.

We are not going to the beach intending to sin. We can’t afford to travel to america where the beaches have higher standards of modesty. We’ve already holidayed in the rain in Ireland and

 

[DarkLight]

Please don’t misunderstand my opinion as a disregard for Apostles’ call for us to be good examples. In my earlier post, I talked about the difference between the extremes and moderation. I think we all know when we are going into the extremes.
In my opinion, the boundaries, that others here have so beautifully referred to, keep us on the path, mentioned in the Chaplet of St. Michael, of Christian Perfection.
My:twocents:

The difference is less obvious, I think, especially to those of us who grew up in the more isolationist portions of protestantism. A lot of times it’s a case where you ask five people and get seven different opinions if you want to know whether or not something’s out of balance and in what direction. (Take some of the modesty debates - you can get people on the same issue thinking it’s ridiculous that someone would consider a particular choice modest, and people thinking it’s ridiculous that someone would consider that same choice immodest.)

 

[oldburkes]

The difference is less obvious, I think, especially to those of us who grew up in the more isolationist portions of protestantism. A lot of times it’s a case where you ask five people and get seven different opinions if you want to know whether or not something’s out of balance and in what direction. (Take some of the modesty debates - you can get people on the same issue thinking it’s ridiculous that someone would consider a particular choice modest, and people thinking it’s ridiculous that someone would consider that same choice immodest.)

Yes, I understand what you mean. To that, I would defer to JRKH’s post. I like the point of view of not drawing attention. That would be, perhaps, a workable model in any culture or part of the world.