Is it just not to impose your morals?

[InJesusItrust]

Isn’t it throwing in the towel and saying that if a brother sins and goes to hell it’s not your problem? Is this charity?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Isn’t it throwing in the towel and saying that if a brother sins and goes to hell it’s not your problem? Is this charity?

Ezekiel 3:17-21
Son of man, I have appointed you a sentinel for the house of Israel. When you hear a word from my mouth, you shall warn them for me. If I say to the wicked, You shall surely die—and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade the wicked from their evil conduct in order to save their lives—then they shall die for their sin, but I will hold you responsible for their blood. If, however, you warn the wicked and they still do not turn from their wickedness and evil conduct, they shall die for their sin, but you shall save your life. But if the just turn away from their right conduct and do evil when I place a stumbling block before them, then they shall die. Even if you warned them about their sin, they shall still die, and the just deeds that they performed will not be remembered on their behalf. I will, however, hold you responsible for their blood. If, on the other hand, you warn the just to avoid sin, and they do not sin, they will surely live because of the warning, and you in turn shall save your own life.

 

[JMJ_coder]

On a tangent, when people state ‘do not impose your morality on other people’ - I wonder why is it wrong to “impose” Christian morality, but right to impose the secularist morality. For example,

• the moral judgement that taking the life of an unborn baby is a right
• the moral judgement that any two adults can be tied together by a new definition of marriage, and that this is also a right
• the moral judgement that thousands of humans can be debased and exploited in pornography for the depraved sexual gratification of others is a legitimate exercise of the freedom of speech
• the moral judgement that millions of humans can be enslaved and put in physical danger for the economic and financial well-being of others is just business as usual
• the moral judgement that everyone must materially and financially provide for contraception and abortion even if that violates their conscience is justice
• the moral judgement that forgiveness is a weakness and may even be treasonous
• etc., etc.

Why can these morals be imposed on us, but a moral such as ‘do not kill’ applies to everyone is just too much to bear?

 

[FrancisBenedict]

Isn’t it throwing in the towel and saying that if a brother sins and goes to hell it’s not your problem? Is this charity?

I think we should state what is wrong and what is right quoting from Jesus alone. Forgive 77 times. If they refuse to listen to you and you are quoting Jesus’ words ‘do not cast your pearls before swine’ and ‘shake the dust from your sandals’ and move on. It’s not for us to judge but God.

 

[bsroufek]

On a tangent, when people state ‘do not impose your morality on other people’ - I wonder why is it wrong to “impose” Christian morality, but right to impose the secularist morality. For example, …

Well, there are different kinds of law. Moral law, religious law, etc. Moral law, “don’t kill. don’t rape., etc.” must be IMPOSED on all of us, whereas religious law applies to adherents.

 

[Lancer]

Well, there are different kinds of law. Moral law, religious law, etc. Moral law, “don’t kill. don’t rape., etc.” must be IMPOSED on all of us, whereas religious law applies to adherents.

If by “religious law”…you mean disciplines and practices…you are correct…but if you mean moral laws professed by a religious group…namely the Catholic Church…

**applies to adherents [only] **

you are mistaken.

For your consideration…Catechism states the following.

Pax Christi

THE MORAL LAW

1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God’s pedagogy.** It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude**; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love.** It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.**

1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order,** established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator**.** All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all.** "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2

Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.3
​

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

 

[Usige]

I would say it is not just. The traditional teachings to “instruct the ignorant” and “admonish the sinner” seem to fall on deaf ears now adays. Europe and the west did not become Christian by the Church fathers saying “I personally object to X, but I can’t impose my beliefs on others.” I believe we will all be called to account by not just how we lived the teachings of the Gospel, but also by how we attempted to spread the Gospel and truths revealed by God. I am not sure how well “I was a good person, but I didn’t want to impose my beliefs on others” will go over.

 

[bsroufek]

If by “religious law”…you mean disciplines and practices…you are correct…but if you mean moral laws professed by a religious group…namely the Catholic Church… you are mistaken.

For your consideration…Catechism states the following.

Pax Christi

What I mean exactly is this: Catholic Doctrine is true for everyone, whether Catholic or not. But it isn’t IMPOSED (forced upon) anyone. One is free to believe or not.

Religious law applies to adherents, but MAY also apply to others, but mustn’t be IMPOSED on non-adherents – i.e., freedom of religion.

Moral law MUST be imposed by the State upon everyone, catholic or not.

 

[ccmnxc]

The statement that always accompanies this is the assertion that, “It is wrong to force your morals on me or someone else,” even thought they are doing the exact same thing and thus contradicting themselves. Moral correction is a spiritual work of mercy, so we,as Catholics, are called to do it. It must be done with love, compassion, and understanding, but we are called to correct others’ moral actions.

 

[Pilosopo]

I guess it could be just if by imposing one means threatening the transgressor that if he did otherwise, he’d get hurt. I think the Taliban’s quite well known for imposing their morals.

So how does this “imposing” on someone look like?

 

[Pilosopo]

The statement that always accompanies this is the assertion that, “It is wrong to force your morals on me or someone else,” even thought they are doing the exact same thing and thus contradicting themselves. Moral correction is a spiritual work of mercy, so we,as Catholics, are called to do it. It must be done with love, compassion, and understanding, but we are called to correct others’ moral actions.

I agree.

 

[FrancisBenedict]

Next Sunday is communications Sunday when we are supposed to communicate our beliefs…

Pax+

 

[edwest2]

We need to communicate our beliefs at every opportunity. Once we leave the Church building, we must live as God commanded the rest of the week. We must say it out loud, everywhere.

There are some who hide behind false ideas: “It’s wrong to force your beliefs on others.” And they want a secular/liberal country that is governed by those like them by force of law. Abortion, prostitution, the degradation of men and women in pornography is what they love. They want the world reformed to their image and likeness, and they want, if possible, as many Christians to join them as they can.

They are legislating immorality. They are forcing people to accept ways of living that degrade man.

You can’t force another person to love you, and God will not force you to love Him and neither will the Church. I guarantee that if you miss Mass on Sunday, a priest will not be pounding on your door on Monday demanding to know where you were.

Anyone who studies Church teaching will realize that the Church is the greatest truth-telling institution on Earth. And we should model Christ and act on our faith and act out our faith daily.

Peace,
Ed

 

[InJesusItrust]

It puzzles me how some Christians support things that are against their own teaching like pornography or gay marriage because they don’t want to impose their morals. It is almost as if they believe that being well liked by others is more important than these people going to hell.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Isn’t it throwing in the towel and saying that if a brother sins and goes to hell it’s not your problem? Is this charity?

Check out this source for when an obligation to fraternal correction occurs.

newadvent.org/cathen/04394a.htm

Don’t let extra charity interfere with your duties.

Some people will close their minds to the Gospel, usually it’s the elites or elite wannabes who are always looking over their shoulder for worldly approval.

Jesus had to deal that.

 

[SuperLuigi]

It puzzles me how some Christians support things that are against their own teaching like pornography or gay marriage because they don’t want to impose their morals. It is almost as if they believe that being well liked by others is more important than these people going to hell.

First of all, there is a big difference between the two. Here on CAF, it’s painfully obvious that people support so-called “gay marriage” for their own selfish reasons whether they realize it or not.

Supporting so-called “gay marriage” is way cooler than supporting pornography in this great new “modern” and “enlightened” era.

I oppose both pornography and so-called “gay marriage”, but I also think people on both sides need to carefully examine consolidating the power of the federal government or the courts to mandate policy.

It’s difficult to get that ball rolling on here because it seems certain people either want a Catholic theocracy or to pander to their progressive pals for worldly feelings and personal selfishness. :tsktsk:

 

[InJesusItrust]

I really do not see the difference. It is not caring whether or not evil is openly promoted by a government. Shouldn’t all Christians promote the gospel no matter how many people’s toes it steps on?

To not offend people is considered worse than losing their souls to hell!

 

[Oxford_Cleric]

It seems to me that Christianity should not be about political imposition, but spiritual transformation. Christ’s orders were to go make disciples of all nations, baptize them, and only then teach them all the things he commanded. If they are not in Him, they will perforce be fruitless vines no matter how much or how forcefully you attempt to teach or correct them, right?

What we have to do is to make them want to get in on what we have! I recall reading once that one of the things that drew many people to Christianity in the earliest days was the extraordinary lives that Christians seemed to lead compared to everyone else. They had love, joy, purpose, energy and a total lack of the fear of death, in a society that was sunk in pagan vice and empty speculative philosophy. We try so often to get those outside to fear Hell and themselves and what they’re doing to the society — they don’t care, they can’t care, without the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.

How do we do this? I don’t know; if I did, I’d be on TV or something. I do know that claiming to have a superior morality ain’t gonna cut it. Maybe lives of piety, dedication, service, love and joy might make an impression. Wash and kiss your neighbor’s feet. Every Christian become a Pope Francis. I’m talking a good game here, but I’m also first in line to say that I seldom have the strength to practice what I have the strength to preach. I hope perhaps some out there can do better.

On a side note, I’ve often wondered why people object to having this “shoved down their throats”: “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control…” (Galatians 5:22-23). I guess it’s that last one that’s a deal-breaker.

 

[Oxford_Cleric]

P.S. : I am also afraid…no…make that convinced that the New Paganism will require the blood of many new martyrs as the cure.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

John the Baptist always spoke without worrying if what he said was going to offend anyone.