So now there has to be a specific condemnation? You and I have analytical brains for a reason.
I am sorry, but this just does not do it. The Catholic Church would, at various times, cite examples as to what would constitute sin, and what would not. This is to aid and guide the faithful. The Catechism is a great tool, but it can be vague and confusing for many people, thus the Church guides in that regard. Having said that, putting your own notions and forcing it even if they do not apply in certain situations is simply having your own interpretation. Or, to be short, it’s simply your notion.
A catechism can not, and will never cite every example of right or wrong, but the general principals definitely are there.
Yes, the general principles are in the Catechism, but they should rightly be applied as well. In the instances you cite, they have been wrongly applied. I have yet to see your point for point refutation of my earlier post; I have given reasons as to why in your citation of the provisions in the Catechism is flawed, and thus cannot be applied.
I’ve seen plenty of fights on TV and it never bothered me…I like(d) the action, however, this thread got me thinking. It’s not as if I have had this anti-MMA bias all my life…I simply saw this subject and decided to read the catechism about it. I happen to see it applying very easily to some things.
Ah, see now where you’re getting at? Reread what I posted above. You are simply applying your own notions and forcing them on the provisions. You’re going through your own conclusions, not the Church’s. You make the mistake of saying, ‘The Church would disagree on such and such sport’. Where is the evidence of this? None. It’s all your notion.
No, it’s based on the principals laid down by the Church.
No, it’s simply in your mind. Not the Church’s. You are putting in words which neither the Pope, nor any bishop, has said. So one priest is against MMA. What does this mean? It might mean much, or it doesn’t mean anything. As it stands, it seems it doesn’t mean anything other than a view by one priest.
The Church has not “pronounced” anything against contact sports because every single instance is a case by case consideration.
So now you backtrack a bit and say it must be a case by case basis, whereas earlier you were almost adamant that it should apply in all contact sports.
The catechism deals with the issue of many types of serious violence (war, abortion, euthanasia), but it spends less time dealing with violence for the sake of fun probably for the reason that “serious” violence (listed above) is more detrimental to society.
Now you are willing to allow that contact sports is simply entertainment. It’s amusing how earlier you equate it to gladiatorial combat, as if opponents are out there to kill each other. As I’ve said earlier, the sports in question would not allow their contestants to join and be maimed or seriously injured.
Many sports, especially “fighting” sports and “extreme” sports…Not competetive swimming and golfing etc.
Unfortunately again, if we stretch your notion, we can actually apply it even in, say, swimming. Or even golf. Sports has its aspects of danger in one way or the other. Part of that rush is that thrill. This might be true for the more extreme sports, which appeals to our more basic instinct of survival.
I definitely see a difference between football and MMA, and that difference is the objective of the sport, which I have mentioned.
The object of football and rugby is to stop the other from reaching the goal, and to do that one has to tackle the ball carrier. It can involve serious risks in itself, sometimes even worse than one would get in MMA or boxing. As you can see, if we go and stretch your notion, we can include any kind of sport. Maybe chess might come in later as a dangerous sport as well?
You’re not picking apart my arguments because you haven’t even considered the fact that there might actually be something wrong with gratuitous violence
Would we say though that such sports are gratuitous in its violence? Perhaps it depends on what context we’re talking about here.
Subjective. Gimme a scenario and I’ll let you know if I’d watch or not. I’ve seen people practicing karate on the beach…by themselves.
Interesting. Now it becomes subjective? Why so? In judo, we see two men trying to pound the other to the ground. Taekwondo would involve kicks to the torso and legs. Yes, they do wear armor around the torso to soften the impact, but we still do see injuries nonetheless.