I don't get it...if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren't you a Catholic Christian?

[Cinette]

Okay, all of you on your high horses, come on down, class is beginning; It’s Not About You 101. Ther is as much animosity from catholics toward noncatholics, as there is the other way! Have you been in this forum long?

???(&%$#@"???

Have you ever read Karl Keating’s book Catholicism and Fundamentalism? He refers to many books about Catholic bashing - books that are BELIEVED by many non-Catholics. I couldn’t believe my eyes that anyone could be so vicious!! I also see how the media reports on the CC.

Whatever my beliefs I would never want to be part of a lie. I would never participate in spreading ugly lies and the bashing of Protestants no matter how much I disagreed with them. I am often hurt and very upset at the lies spread about the Catholic Church and would not want to do that to anyone.

There is a conspiracy by certain Media and this is dangerous. There are books I will not go near. I have now limited my viewing of the news - headlines is just about all!

I have never heard or come across a book or books by Catholics regarding Protestant bashing - ever! If anyone know of such a book I would like to hear about it.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe you can’t. But I could. I teach high school students. I am very practiced at having discussions with persons who change their minds, see things differently, or see a new side to a matter. Sometimes the same happens to me. I even say “thank you” when I change my mind!

Do you have a spouse?

Yes, I have a DH, and I have 4 DDs.

Did you segue from “having discussions with persons who change their minds” to “do you have a spouse” because, in your experience, spouses contradict themselves?
Seriously, where did that question come from?

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe you can’t. But I could. I teach high school students. I am very practiced at having discussions with persons who change their minds, see things differently, or see a new side to a matter. Sometimes the same happens to me. I even say “thank you” when I change my mind!

Do you have a spouse?

Yes, high school students typically cannot articulate their positions with consistency; they change their minds; they contradict their positions. Often they will vehemently argue their position without being able to fully extrapolate its logical consequences.

I can have a dialogue using this model, but I will view each posting a grain of salt. I will understand that you may not really mean what you say.

 

[PRmerger]

Once again you are wrong about me, my dear friend in Christ! The reason I have never converted is about attitude, not misconceptions! Almost every catholic that I know personally, displays an attitude of superiority and condescencion!

You ought to follow where Truth is, not by judging how people act. Firstly, you don’t know how they would be were they not Catholic. Maybe they’d really be crooked and wicked and Catholicism has lifted them up a bit.

There’s a story about a Catholic writer, Walker Percy, who was a curmudgeonly old soul. Apparently, after an encounter with a snippy woman in which he was gruff–and, perhaps rude, boorish, curt–this woman sniffed, “And you call yourself a Catholic!” to which he replied, “My dear, you should imagine what I would be like were I not a Catholic.”

One cannot make a judgment about whether a person acts like a “Catholic” or acts with an “increasing work of the Spirit” unless one could know what they’d be like if they weren’t.

Do not judge.

Secondly, if you won’t be a Catholic because of someone’s attitude, then why are you a Christian? Have you read any of Paul’s epistles? He kind of displays an attitude of superiority. He’s not a touchy-feely-kumbayah kind of guy, is he?

 

[PRmerger]

No, not all individuals agree with the morals of their communities.

Right. So we are agreed that one’s morals come from one’s mind? When society decrees “A” is moral but our “mind” discerns it’s immoral, we must obey our mind, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. Unfortunately so.

This makes no sense to me. The use of the adverb “unfortunately” tells me that you view infanticide as wrong.

If someone (who lives in a society which allows this) wants to kill their newborn baby with Down syndrome you’re ok with that?

 

[Cinette]

You ought to follow where Truth is, not by judging how people act. Firstly, you don’t know how they would be were they not Catholic. Maybe they’d really be crooked and wicked and Catholicism has lifted them up a bit.

There’s a story about a Catholic writer, Walker Percy, who was a curmudgeonly old soul. Apparently, after an encounter with a snippy woman in which he was gruff–and, perhaps rude, boorish, curt–this woman sniffed, “And you call yourself a Catholic!” to which he replied, “My dear, you should imagine what I would be like were I not a Catholic.”

One cannot make a judgment about whether a person acts like a “Catholic” or acts with an “increasing work of the Spirit” unless one could know what they’d be like if they weren’t.

Do not judge.

Secondly, if you won’t be a Catholic because of someone’s attitude, then why are you a Christian? Have you read any of Paul’s epistles? He kind of displays an attitude of superiority. He’s not a touchy-feely-kumbayah kind of guy, is he?

*I spent the last 5 years of High School in a Convent but most of the girls were not Catholic. Your post reminds me of that time because whenever someone did something naughty the girls would say “And she is Catholic!!!” They expected more from us. That was their perception.

:whacky:*

 

[larkin31]

Yes, high school students typically cannot articulate their positions with consistency; they change their minds; they contradict their positions. Often they will vehemently argue their position without being able to fully extrapolate its logical consequences.

I can have a dialogue using this model, but I will view each posting a grain of salt. I will understand that you may not really mean what you say.

You’re confusing insincerity with complexity of thought.

And salt is highly recommended for readings from many posters on this site.

 

[nhylan]

I don’t know if this has been brought up before in this thread but the link below links to a paper written by ARCIC (Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission). This particular article deals with Authority in the Church. Basically the Anglican Church agrees to examine the Bishop of Rome’s unique role while the Roman Catholic Church agrees to examine the idea of increased control at the local level (the increased use of synods etc).This gives a great summation of some of the issues that Anglicans and Roman Catholics wish to think about and what differs and keeps them in imperfect communion.
There are several articles on the site that elaborate further on these subjects. Often times in these articles Anglican and RC leaders agree on many statements but disagree on its implementation.

anglicancommunion.org/ministry/ecumenical/dialogues/catholic/arcic/docs/gift_of_authority.cfm

 

[larkin31]

This makes no sense to me. The use of the adverb “unfortunately” tells me that you view infanticide as wrong.

If someone (who lives in a society which allows this) wants to kill their newborn baby with Down syndrome you’re ok with that?

Assuming that I would have the independence of mind to not automatically follow the dogma I was taught, and assuming that I had been taught what I actually have been taught in my real life (that I have lived), then I would likely object to the killing of a child with Down Syndrome. But I am careful not to speculate on what I WOULD DO if I lived in a world or place OTHER THAN the one THAT I ACTUALLY DO.

 

[larkin31]

Right. So we are agreed that one’s morals come from one’s mind? When society decrees “A” is moral but our “mind” discerns it’s immoral, we must obey our mind, yes?

I object to the “must” requirement of your statement. It is too extreme, too absolute. Even Jesus tells his followers to obey their leaders, so the individual in a conflict of ethics with his society or other authorities is in a complex situation with no easy rules and no “musts.”

 

[PRmerger]

I object to the “must” requirement of your statement. It is too extreme, too absolute. Even Jesus tells his followers to obey their leaders, so the individual in a conflict of ethics with his society or other authorities is in a complex situation with no easy rules and no “musts.”

So we must not always obey our conscience? If our conscience tells us that it’s wrong to shoot a child, but our commander tell us to do so, who do we follow?

 

[PRmerger]

You’re confusing insincerity with complexity of thought.

I get that you’re sincere with each post you make. But you’ve been telling me that you could proclaim “A is true” and then turn around and say “A is not true” in the same day?

So each posting you make we must always keep that in mind.

 

[PRmerger]

Assuming that I would have the independence of mind to not automatically follow the dogma I was taught, and assuming that I had been taught what I actually have been taught in my real life (that I have lived), then I would likely object to the killing of a child with Down Syndrome. But I am careful not to speculate on what I WOULD DO if I lived in a world or place OTHER THAN the one THAT I ACTUALLY DO.

Fair enough.

You would not kill a child with Down syndrome.

Are you willing to say that someone who kills a child with Down syndrome is doing something wrong?

 

[larkin31]

So we must not always obey our conscience? If our conscience tells us that it’s wrong to shoot a child, but our commander tell us to do so, who do we follow?

How many one-line ethical scenarios are you going to quiz me on? Why don’t you simply make a declarative point about your own (or Catholic) ethics? I can’t even remember why you got started asking me these things. I have made my position on ethics known, but you still have not replied other than by asking me about these sketchy little scenarios. What is your point/purpose?

 

[larkin31]

Fair enough.

You would not kill a child with Down syndrome.

Are you willing to say that someone who kills a child with Down syndrome is doing something wrong?

see my comment just above

I don’t see your point, but maybe you can make it clearer.

I don’t have time for this any longer today. I can look later tonight for a response…

 

[tweetymom]

see my comment just above

I don’t see your point, but maybe you can make it clearer.

I don’t have time for this any longer today. I can look later tonight for a response…

Hi Larkin friend. May your day be great!!

 

[PRmerger]

How many one-line ethical scenarios are you going to quiz me on? Why don’t you simply make a declarative point about your own (or Catholic) ethics? I can’t even remember why you got started asking me these things. I have made my position on ethics known, but you still have not replied other than by asking me about these sketchy little scenarios. What is your point/purpose?

My point is to get you to see that you have not fully thought out your paradigm that there is no absolute moral truth.

You really do believe that there is an absolute moral truth.

 

[PRmerger]

So we must not always obey our conscience? If our conscience tells us that it’s wrong to shoot a child, but our commander tell us to do so, who do we follow?

So here’s the thing, Larkin. Even though you haven’t articulated this, you believe that it’s always right to follow one’s conscience.

You will not be able to provide any scenario in which it would be morally right to disobey one’s conscience.

Thus, one’s conscience is one’s moral authority.

That is the basis for Catholic morality. That is your basis, too, although you haven’t articulated it that way…(unless you can provide me with even one example in which it would be the morally correct thing to do to disobey your conscience.)

 

[pinay]

Stealing is taking what you have no right to.

A man who is starving in front of a banquet table overflowing with comestibles has every right to procure for himself that which will keep him alive. It’s his right. He is not stealing.

Addendum: There is no theft if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of good; clearly refusal to give food to a starving man is contrary to the universal destination of goods, and is contrary to reason. Any reasonable person can see that a starving man deserves food, and to withold it is gravely wrong. He has a right to that food.

Hello PRmerger. I will have to respectfully disagree with the entire concept.

This, I agree with: Any reasonable person can see that a starving man deserves food, and to withold it is gravely wrong.

That makes the person who withheld the food from the starving man a sinner.

This, I don’t agree with: A man who is starving in front of a banquet table overflowing with comestibles has every right to procure for himself that which will keep him alive. It’s his right. He is not stealing.

If the food belongs to someone else - he is still stealing. Nobody has a right to somebody else’s property. Otherwise, it will nullify the concept of charity.