If YOU could.change the Catholic Church

[Luce7]

Timothyvail, we disagree, it’s as simple as that.

I think you know that coma victims are a vast oversimplification of this issue, and mentioning the holocaust…well YOU came out with that one, NOT me. There is a world of difference between saving a woman’s life, or destroying a child which will have no quality of life, and the actions of a madman who executed six million people because he became unhinged. “Holocaust” is a hot key for most people and truthfully I feel like you only mentioned it as a shock tactic.

As for the rest, well.

Medication.

What if you can’t access or afford it? Besides which, medication is not the work of God either, is it?? And God did not make us with sexual organs so that we can abstain. Sex also bonds a husband and wife, it’s not just procreative. And what about cases where husbands won’t take no for an answer?

Sex

Sex is NOT always consensual. That’s a PROFOUND lack of understanding. 70% of the women I know have been assaulted or raped, including me, and many of them were young and not using contraception at the time. I was twelve, I hadn’t gone through puberty and I was a virgin. I know of girls as young as 8 who have been raped by older boys, girls and even family members! Not everyone who has sex does it out their own free will. Not every pregnancy is the result of consensual sex. What about forced marriages?

A woman can be a prisoner to her childbearing abilities if a man abuses her physically or psychologically, and gets her pregnant. Those sorts of men know the emotional and chemical weak spots of women and abuse them to persuade women to stay in abusive relationships that feed their own ego.

Homosexuality

My conscience also tells me that homosexuality is a form of love. As long as it IS loving, I see no harm in it whatsoever. And that is the truth by me.

Jesus and Prayer

Which rules did he break LOL? Why were the pharisees were so mad at him all the time?? Why do you think the was crucified? He made people angry because he proclaimed (what you consider to be) truth and it was NOT their truth! And he died for it.

As for prayer…TBH I think I made a typo LOL! I didn’t mean to say prayer. I must have typed something else and the autocorrect made it prayer!

Yes I do pray, every day. That’s where I get my guidance from LOL!

Anyway, this is an interesting conversation but I might not be able to reply again for a while as I have a large order coming in through work and I won’t have time.

All the best.

 

[anon65111186]

Besides which, medication is not the work of God either, is it?

Who claims that, not the Catholic Church.

And God did not make us with sexual organs so that we can abstain

He did not make them so we can do whatever we want with them either. Just because we have sexual organs doesn’t mean every person on earth has to use them or we have the right to use them if it contradicts God’s purpose.

What if you can’t access or afford it?

Then you find a way. This is not a moral justification for contraceptives.

And what about cases where husbands won’t take no for an answer?

That is a deeper problem not solved by contraceptives.

Sex is NOT always consensual.

I’m sorry to hear that you were raped, that is a horrible tragedy and the perpetrator was horrifically wrong and perpetrated a truly evil act to you.

Again, even in cases of rape, abortion is not an option because it is a human life. People abusing the marital act, having sex in ways not in keeping with true marriage nevertheless does not make contraceptives justifiable, because it always comes down to the attitude of contraception, sex without responsibility, anti-life mentality.

Why were the pharisees were so mad at him all the time?? Why do you think the was crucified?

There were a lot of reasons they were mad, mostly because Jesus called them out on their hypocrisy and lack of love. He was crucified for claiming to be the son of God, but that is irrelevant to your arguments for homosexual acts, contraception, abortion, transexual surgery etc. Those are two different kinds of rulebreaking.

Anyhow, I hope you continue to pray, and pray about these things even, and pray for me, because God knows I have a long way to go to be Holy.

Tim

 

[jfz178]

When I say “for ourselves” I mean exactly that. The offenses you mention involve us imposing our will on someone else, which is a whole other thing.

 

[jdavani]

sure, wedding dresses can be found for 50, but good luck finding a woman who would wear one

 

[anon65111186]

When I say “for ourselves” I mean exactly that. The offenses you mention involve us imposing our will on someone else, which is a whole other thing.

So you are saying murder is wrong only if we impose our will on the murderer? It isn’t wrong in and of itself?

Murder is wrong, not because anyone says so, it is wrong because there is an objective, natural law written in our hearts which speaks to us saying “thou shalt not murder”. God wrote that law into our hearts, so we know right from wrong.

We do not impose right or wrong, it already exists and no human imposition of the will can change it.

By sin, one can dull or ignore the voice of reason, the voice of conscience in a person, but can never fully extinguish it.

If you murder someone, you will never escape your own conscience, if someone doesn’t impose their will on you first and throw you in jail.

 

[DarkLight]

You do realize I’m female, right? As are many of my friends?

 

[jfz178]

Murder is a legal charge. It means, “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.” Here is a real example that occurred recently in my area. The relevant facts and legalities are correct and there are no hidden circumstances, but I have summarized for brevity. My daughter is a lawyer and knows all the lawyers and the judge involved.

Guy A (a small guy) honks his horn at guys B and C (big guys) who are drunk and blocking an entrance to a parking lot. An argument ensues. After some arguing, guy A backs off, leaves and goes home. Unknown to him, B and C follow him. They jump him at his home. A defends himself with a legally carried gun, killing B and wounding C. A is charged with murder, not because of excessive force, but because by the act of honking his horn and being a part of the argument, he participated in starting the fight and therefore can’t claim self defense.

So A committed murder in the eyes of the prosecutor. But did he do wrong? It is up to the court if he is a criminal, but are you saying that a secular court also determines if he is morally right or wrong in the eyes of God? I don’t think so. I think it will be his own conscience that has to tell him if he did wrong.

Similarly, soldiers who are captured in war by enemies who do not follow the conventions of war are often tried and convicted of murder by their captors. So are these soldiers morally wrong just because their unjust captors say so? Remember “murder” is a legal concept, not a moral one.

 

[anon65111186]

Interesting story, I don’t know the details of that case, how we may or may not have gone beyond legitimate self-defense or not. Taking another human life is still an evil in and of itself, nomatter th circumstances and intent.

Remember “murder” is a legal concept, not a moral one.

Moral refers to the study of “how we should act”, and murder most certainly pertains to things we shouldn’t do.

All civic laws (human law) should be or already are founded on natural law (in accord with conscience) and divine law (the Ten Commandments).

A law implies a lawgiver, and a law in your heart / conscience implies that God is the lawgiver that created that in you. This is just as God had explicitly gave the Ten Commandments to Moses. One of which is thou shalt not murder. (Kill is not the original hebrew)

Human laws take the natural and divine laws as examples, though many times they ignore or pervert conscience and make laws not in accord with conscience or reason.

Therefore, we are not lawgivers of the natural or divine law, but we can decide only human law to reflect natural and divine law. If we decide something against our conscience then that is called an unjust law, a bad law.

No person has the duty to follow unjust laws.

 

[jfz178]

No person has the duty to follow unjust laws.
So how does an individual decide if a law is just or not?

 

[anon65111186]

So how does an individual decide if a law is just or not?

Whether it is in keeping with divine and natural law. We don’t decide what is good and what is bad, we simply discover it.

We can know natural law through our reason. In its simplest form, it is “do good and avoid evil”. The good perfects us and completes us, while evil takes away from our goodness.

Life is good, death is bad. Murder is bad because it takes away life, which is good, and it also damages the perpetrator and takes away his goodness.

The nature of man is universal and unchanging. Again, you can’t decide man’s nature, it already exists. We don’t create nature, we discover it. The natural law is based on nature, so once we examine nature, we can understand the natural law more deeply.

 

[jfz178]

OK, say I change my statement to “we discover right and wrong through our reason.” We still have to decide whether what we have discovered through our reason is correct. “Reason” has led Catholics to burn heretics, witches and Jews, and clergy to approve of it, even though it was murder and morally wrong in my book. But my guess is they felt no guilt about it. They were proud of it.

So we’re back the individual deciding, no matter how you word it. Even the Catechism talks about the primacy of the conscience. If I truly and honestly decide my conscience is clear, I have committed no sin.

 

[Thorup]

Well it is funny to Think about - if you were the pope… Well a bit of practical things. I would put the age minimum of 35 for married deacons to 25. And then allow then to be ordained to Priesthood after 10 years of service. Then they would be mature and have experience in service of the church while having a family before going further with more responsibility. And I Think this would really help the Church with more priests. Right Now we share a polish priest in three parishes so we have mass Two times a week, the one parish only once. (How much time for evangelizing do you Think he has?) I would introduce mandatory Weekly cathecesis from the cathecism, bible and church fathers and a test for those for confirmation. And a monthly cathecesis with a monthly litterature (Like jehowahs witnesses have watchtower) and have evangelist Groups who could go door to door and Sharing this and invite people to mass. I Think if these Two things were to happen we would see the rebirth of christianity in the West

 

[PJM]

Hmmmmm:thinking:

How about the Commandments and the Moral Teachings i=of the RCC?

Blessings
Patrick

 

[jfz178]

The Church’s explanation of murder is more complicated than criminal law! This thread is is in the non-Catholic religions section and we have been talking in general terms. What if you aren’t a Catholic?

 

[PJM]

The Church’s explanation of murder is more complicated than criminal law! This thread is is in the non-Catholic religions section and we have been talking in general terms. What if you aren’t a Catholic?

Hi, I’m the OP of this STRING

I placed in it the non-catholic forum, precisely ti incite, non-Catholic-Christian responses

So please do feel free to share your thoughts

God Bless you,
Patrick [PJM} here om CAF

 

[anon65111186]

We still have to decide whether what we have discovered through our reason is correct

Yes, and how do you think we decide, by looking at what Christ and His Church teaches in regards to morality. This is because Christ is God and created us and knows all things. He knows what is best in the very specific concrete circumstances because He can see the whole picture, which no human can.

“Reason” has led Catholics to burn heretics, witches and Jews, and clergy to approve of it

Catholics did a lot of evil throughout the centuries, but mostly it was the civil government, not the Church that did the burning. It was church teaching to hand over heretics to the civic government and they would judge them guilty or innocent.

In general I can’t say all cases of burning were wrong or right, because I just don’t know the particulars of the circumstances and their alleged crimes.

Burning was a cruel and unusual form of capital punishment. Capital punishment was common in all civic governments up until modern times, and in some circumstances in accord with natural and divine law, when there is no way to protect society from criminals.

But my guess is they felt no guilt about it. They were proud of it.

How could you know that? Which case are you talking about?

So we’re back the individual deciding, no matter how you word it. Even the Catechism talks about the primacy of the conscience. If I truly and honestly decide my conscience is clear, I have committed no sin.

Each person has a duty to inform their conscience, and although you can have a misinformed conscience, a clear conscience does not absolve one from murder or any other evil act.

If you went to court after murdering someone, and said “my conscience is clear, therefore I’m not guilty” and tried to convince them of your personal morality based on your own authority, the judge and the jury would throw the book at you, and depending on where you are you might get the death penalty.

The standard of right and wrong does not come down to man, it comes down to God. It is unchangeable, universal, objective.

 

[jfz178]

I can’t say all cases of burning were wrong or right, because I just don’t know the particulars of the circumstances and their alleged crimes.

Really? You think there is the possibility it may have been right? I am truly flabbergasted by that.

If you went to court after murdering someone, and said “my conscience is clear, therefore I’m not guilty” and tried to convince them of your personal morality based on your own authority, the judge and the jury would throw the book at you, and depending on where you are you might get the death penalty.

You are jumping back and forth between secular justice and spiritual morality. Sorry, I have a hard time arguing both issues at the same time. What you describe happens all the time. The real question is, is the person whose conscience is truly and honestly clear guilty of sin?

 

[anon65111186]

Really? You think there is the possibility it may have been right? I am truly flabbergasted by that.

The Church doesn’t teach burn heretics, so whatever Catholics did, they were not following Catholic law or the natural law if there were no other legitimate crimes.

You are lumping together a vague mass of burning perpetrated by Catholics, all I am asking is for you to give me a concrete example, and I’ll tell you one way or another if it was wrong.

It is impossible to say without knowing the details, that a heretic didn’t also murder and rampage around at the same time or do something legitimately deserving capital punishment.

You are jumping back and forth between secular justice and spiritual morality

Secular law is founded on the natural law, which is in turn based on divine law, so they are not necessarily separate. Murder as a secular crime is in accord with murder as a natural law and divine law crime “sin”.

The real question is, is the person whose conscience is truly and honestly clear guilty of sin?

In the case of the person who murdered someone, objectively, yes. Nomatter their conscience they are still guilty of sin. I could hardly imagine someone with such a conscience, but theoretically yes.

That is because objective and universal law exists, and either the individual and subjective conscience, thinking, feeling is in accord with that or not.

If it is not, it is not properly informed and formed by the informing law.
If it is, it is a properly formed conscience.

 

[jfz178]

…all I am asking is for you to give me a concrete example, and I’ll tell you one way or another if it was wrong.

Here’s the issue: I can’t imagine an example to give you, because I can’t think of that ever being right. There are plenty of examples of Jews, heretics and witches being tortured and burned. I would challenge you to give me an example of one of those, even if it were a hypothetical, of torture and burning ever being justified.

In the case of the person who murdered someone, objectively, yes. Nomatter their conscience they are still guilty of sin. I could hardly imagine someone with such a conscience, but theoretically yes.

If I take what you are saying literally, if you someone is convicted of the secular crime of murder, they are guilty of sin. I have a hard time with that. Take my example of a soldier who is captured by some “government” like the ISIS Caliphate, and convicted of murder even though he only did his duty. That soldier will have a clear conscience and I don’t think ISIS decides who is guilty of sin.

A less extreme example is the guy I described who shot two guys in self defense but then is charged with murder. Let’s say his conscience is clear. Is his sin determined by a secular state court? I have a hard time with that.

And if either of those examples does not lead to a conclusion of sin, then who decides? It also seems to me that a person with a clear conscience is cut off from forgiveness and thus doomed. How can he confess that which he does not recognize as a sin?

 

[anon65111186]

I can’t think of that ever being right.

You miss my point, if we are talking about historical people who actually lived, we can analyze their story and see if they committed crimes worthy of capital punishment, according to the standards of the time when they couldn’t protect society from dangerous criminals (murderers, thieves etc)

This is not a defense of or justification for capital punishment, as you may or may not know the Church almost never permits capital punishment, only in the case that there is absolutely no other way to protect society from the criminal, which with modern penitentiaries and so forth is a mute point.

Jews didn’t execute Jesus under religious law, they merely handed Him over to the roman secular government to be crucified. In the same way the Church never oversaw one execution, there simply is no Church law for execution of heretics.

if you someone is convicted of the secular crime of murder, they are guilty of sin.

Civic law finds its authority in natural law, which is not religious law per se, but the natural law coincides with God’s law. Not all civic crimes are sins, but all religious crimes are sins.

Not all civic laws are in accord with natural law or divine law either.

some “government” like the ISIS Caliphate

ISIS is in no way shape or form a legitimate government, only legitimate governments have the power to execute law.

the guy who shot two guys in self defense but then is charged with murder.

Again conscience does not determine objective guilt, because by its nature it can err, and is subjective. Divine law never errs, never changes, and exists outside of the person, not within them. The divine law is written in the human heart though, but people can fail to listen to that law.

Some people can be deceived, thinking that their conscience is clear, when really they are simply deceiving themselves. Due to the subjective nature of conscience, we cannot judge the internal interplay between a person and their conscience. We can however estimate according to the external law whether a person is guilty or not of a crime.

Some innocent people are in jail, and some guilty people are set free. Justice is not perfect here on earth.

And if either of those examples does not lead to a conclusion of sin, then who decides?

The Church would examine:

1. Serious (grave) matter: loss of life, the two men died, check
2. Sufficient knowledge: (you know it’s wrong or not) he probably knew shooting a gun would kill
3. Freedom: you had the freedom to not do it : Don’t know if he had other options

Another three conditions can help determine

1. Can you see (at least unclearly) foresee the evil effects which follow from the act?
2. Can you refrain from doing the act?
3. Are you obliged to prevent the evil act?

No sin is unforgivable, God is rich in mercy.