Secular morality vs Catholic morality

[SpiritMeadow]

I think secular people and Christian people have a great deal in common.

Unfortunately, it seems that many people like the OP are more concerned with what happens in my bedroom than what’s happening in Darfur. They’re more concerned with making sure that I can’t get married to who I want than making sure that people can get access to healthcare they need. They’re more concerned with condemning condoms than helping feed the world’s staving people or giving help to the poor.

Rail on all you like about how you don’t like how I want to get married to a same-sex partner. Go ahead. But at least be as passionate about feeding the poor as you are about making sure your sexual mores are adhered to.

Agreed, a noted theologian once said that it was truly said that the Church had gotten so deeply involved in the bedroom while neglecting the same outrage at all the social ills that face the world. What a different world it might be had they spent their time not worrying to death about masterbation and fornication and spent a bit more time decrying dictatorial regimes that bleed their people and countries dry of resouces and pocket all the money.

Sadly some of our Catholic bretheran have locked arms with the reactionary evagelical right and virtually the only two issues that they address are abortion and gay marriage. The moderate majority evangelicals are beginning to try to reclaim their good name emphasizing that so many other areas of social need require our attention. We can know as well that most mainstream Catholics do address those imiportant issues of healthcare, poverty and such rather than constantly obsess about what others are doing in their homes.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Spirit Meadow:

This is not true of those who go to Mass without fail, however. In fact, the more devout you are, the less likely you are to divorce, commit adultery, or cheat on your taxes.

May God bless you, Annem

I was not referring to Catholics per se but Christians as a total. Ironically the bible belt has the highest divorce rate of all. But then most baptists and other evangelical types place a good deal more emphasis on Paul than they do Jesus.

 

[estesbob]

I think secular people and Christian people have a great deal in common.

Unfortunately, it seems that many people like the OP are more concerned with what happens in my bedroom than what’s happening in Darfur. They’re more concerned with making sure that I can’t get married to who I want than making sure that people can get access to healthcare they need. They’re more concerned with condemning condoms than helping feed the world’s staving people or giving help to the poor.

Rail on all you like about how you don’t like how I want to get married to a same-sex partner. Go ahead. But at least be as passionate about feeding the poor as you are about making sure your sexual mores are adhered to.

Poor Ed- has touched the third rail of secularism. He dared suggest that not all sexual behaviors were moral. He will now be pummled, accused of bigotry, be derided as judgemental and homophobic as the homosexual apologists flood the thread.

 

[JonW]

Agreed, a noted theologian once said that it was truly said that the Church had gotten so deeply involved in the bedroom while neglecting the same outrage at all the social ills that face the world. What a different world it might be had they spent their time not worrying to death about masterbation and fornication and spent a bit more time decrying dictatorial regimes that bleed their people and countries dry of resouces and pocket all the money.

Sadly some of our Catholic bretheran have locked arms with the reactionary evagelical right and virtually the only two issues that they address are abortion and gay marriage. The moderate majority evangelicals are beginning to try to reclaim their good name emphasizing that so many other areas of social need require our attention. We can know as well that most mainstream Catholics do address those imiportant issues of healthcare, poverty and such rather than constantly obsess about what others are doing in their homes.

Sorry for the long quote. A couple of points occur to me. First, it is much, much easier to preach to one’s own flock about the value of living a holy life as Catholic individuals and warn of the dangers of falling prey to temptations and indulgence of the sinful practices of some contemporary secular mores than it is to demand of whole nations that they properly care for and feed their people; although I am proud to say that the Church does both, openly and honestly, as prudence permits.

Secondly, I think I can speak for everyone here when I say that we all want to see people around the world working for fair wages, being able to afford food, housing, education. This should be stressed constantly and we should all work towards making it a reality. Why should we ignore the other moral issues just because we all happen to agree on this one? You seem to be implying, if not outright asserting, that those of us who wish to discuss the other moral issues, on which the entire body of Christ is not always of one mind, are for that reason not concerned with all the moral issues. This is absurd on its face. Your reducing the issue of being one of “what people do in their homes” is evasion, not discussion. Also, your attempt at a wide scope condemnation on the social stance of the Church by putting contemporary and highly contested Church teaching in the past tense, as though the Church had spent hundreds of years on one issue while ignoring all others, resulting in the social evils we have seen (frankly since the beginning of time) of a government taking advantage of the masses for the benefit of a few, was neither clever nor convincing. The implication was obviously that, not only is the Church (some amorphous amalgam you have in your mind) directly responsible for all the social evils we see today, but we could be living in a paradise of a world if only we had not hooked arms with the “reactionary evangelical right.” This idea of the Church and its history is bunk, empty, and useless.

So, we’re “obsessed” with abortion and gay marriage because they are particularly pernicious and influential evils in our own culture and society, at this place and time in actual history, and we seem less “obsessed” with the other issues of social justice that you mentioned because we all agree on them, both in our own culture and in the Church. I’d be happy to discuss those with you as well. Are you really interested?

God Bless

Jon Winterburn

 

[BlaineTog]

I know this is a choir that loves to be preached to, but I really, really wish a lot less of it happened than does. I mean really, who’s going to read this and see anything they didn’t already know before?

I have no problem with you living your life as you see fit. Is that what you mean by “tolerance”? I don’t tell other people how to live as long as they respect the rights of others to live as they choose and no one is hurt or forced (I say this because people are always suggesting that sexual and physical abuse are “okay” with liberals, sex with minors, etc., so please note that I am saying as long as no one’s rights are infringed on - violently or otherwise).

So you do tell other people how to live, just not as much as others might.

In any case, it’s one thing to legislate that fornication be illegal, another to harass someone about it, and another to simply make the judgment. Making the judgment is a simple matter of filling in the formula. Did they have sex? Were they unmarried? If the answer to both is “yes,” then fornication has occurred. It’s a simple definition. The question of what to do with this information is a little trickier. If you are a good person, you will naturally want others to be good people as well, and you will want to help them whenever you can. If you see someone holding their hand against a red hot stovetop, well, you shout and run over and yank their hand away. Something similar can take place here. Of course, you should proceed with far more tact, and you shouldn’t physically force them to not have sex, but if the opportunity presents itself, it’s only just to try to warn them of the harm they are doing to themselves.

Now me, I’d only ever do this if I really knew the people involved very well and they were Catholic (or at least had a similar belief system). From a practical standpoint, those are the only people I’m going to have any real hope of helping.

I saw example of this secular theology in the new Indiana Jones Movie. There portrayal of the Soviet enemy was less than striking. They were more a shade of grey than anything else, nothing was fleshed out. Communism was and is an abomination. That should have been more clearly displayed in the movie imo

I think you’re overreacting. I haven’t seen the movie so I can neither confirm nor deny your assessment of the treatment of the communists, but frankly, it’s an Indiana Jones movie. It’s hardly up there to make a political statement.

 

[Flopfoot]

This slightly reminds me of a thread I made in the back fence which got no comments.

The “neutrally aligned” person, which is probably most of the secular world that doesn’t actively work for evil, has a very different view of evil than we do. They only care about evils that affect them directly, but in the case of other evils, they don’t really care and would rather than good people didn’t raise a fuss about it.

Here’s a link forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=243796

 

[Aquinas74]

I think you’re overreacting. I haven’t seen the movie so I can neither confirm nor deny your assessment of the treatment of the communists, but frankly, it’s an Indiana Jones movie. It’s hardly up there to make a political statement.

Perhaps, maybe it was the wacky premise and ending that made me think this way!! God Bless

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Sorry for the long quote. A couple of points occur to me. First, it is much, much easier to preach to one’s own flock about the value of living a holy life as Catholic individuals and warn of the dangers of falling prey to temptations and indulgence of the sinful practices of some contemporary secular mores than it is to demand of whole nations that they properly care for and feed their people; although I am proud to say that the Church does both, openly and honestly, as prudence permits.

Secondly, I think I can speak for everyone here when I say that we all want to see people around the world working for fair wages, being able to afford food, housing, education. This should be stressed constantly and we should all work towards making it a reality. Why should we ignore the other moral issues just because we all happen to agree on this one? You seem to be implying, if not outright asserting, that those of us who wish to discuss the other moral issues, on which the entire body of Christ is not always of one mind, are for that reason not concerned with all the moral issues. This is absurd on its face. Your reducing the issue of being one of “what people do in their homes” is evasion, not discussion. Also, your attempt at a wide scope condemnation on the social stance of the Church by putting contemporary and highly contested Church teaching in the past tense, as though the Church had spent hundreds of years on one issue while ignoring all others, resulting in the social evils we have seen (frankly since the beginning of time) of a government taking advantage of the masses for the benefit of a few, was neither clever nor convincing. The implication was obviously that, not only is the Church (some amorphous amalgam you have in your mind) directly responsible for all the social evils we see today, but we could be living in a paradise of a world if only we had not hooked arms with the “reactionary evangelical right.” This idea of the Church and its history is bunk, empty, and useless.

So, we’re “obsessed” with abortion and gay marriage because they are particularly pernicious and influential evils in our own culture and society, at this place and time in actual history, and we seem less “obsessed” with the other issues of social justice that you mentioned because we all agree on them, both in our own culture and in the Church. I’d be happy to discuss those with you as well. Are you really interested?

God Bless

Jon Winterburn

I’m sorry you have missed the rather lengthy and ongoing coverage of the middle of the road evangelical movement and it’s attempt to reclaim its name which it feels has been turned into nothing but a hanger for abortion and gay rights argument.

If you look at the threads on this forum, most of the other issues such as poverty, health care and so on are given short shrift. Many argue quite strenuously that there are few people who actually need or DESERVE help, most are simply lazy. They feel the few who are deserving can be met with simple Church charity.Additionally most here remain in favor of persuing this war which the Vatican has spoken quite harshly of. Moreover, most here support the death penalty although the CCC USCCB and JPII have condemned as practically a dead issue. So at least on this forum, there are but two issues that raise any kind of moral outrage–abortion and gay rights, directly in line with reactionary right evangelicals. The same folks, who I might add, consider the Church to be the great whore of babylon. Essentially there is a total lack of desire to be taxed in any fashion to secure the rights of our brothers in need. I invite you to examine the threads.

While you are at it, check out what is of singular importance? Constant and unrelenting questions about masterbation, and what I can and cannot do with my own spouse. Some here apparently think that they are in a constant state of mortal sin because the male mind apparently thinks of sex every 10 seconds. This bizarre obsession with sexual matters is highly disordered in my opinion an leads ot very unhealthy psychological states. Or at least so I am told by the psychiatric experts. Plenty of Catholic theologians also agree.

 

[annem]

Spiritguide said:

So at least on this forum, there are but two issues that raise any kind of moral outrage–abortion and gay rights, directly in line with reactionary right evangelicals. The same folks, who I might add, consider the Church to be the great whore of babylon.

Evangelicals should surely be regarded as our brothers in Christ, and not called names, even those few who consider the Church as the whore of Babylon.

This bizarre obsession with sexual matters is highly disordered in my opinion an leads ot very unhealthy psychological states. Or at least so I am told by the psychiatric experts. Plenty of Catholic theologians also agree.

Sexual matters concern just about all of us, so it’s hardly surprising they should be topics on this forum.

From the very start of Christianity they have been of great concern to Christians. This is because sexuality so directly affects the family, which is the core of society. Those husbands and wives who have strong marriages based on love for God and each other are most likely to produce healthy and loving children.

Why are you so upset by the Church’s teachings on sexual morality?

May God bless you, Annem

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I recall reading that Mary stated, in some apparition, that sexual sins are among the lesser sins, BUT they are the ones that send the most people to hell.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Spirit Meadow:

Quote:
Perhaps it might be well to remember that according to a particular evangelist, secular marriages survive at a great rate than Christian marriages do

Those who are both chaste and practice natural family planning have the lowest divorce rates.

The use of contraception leads to an increased incidence of divorce

Those who remain virgins until marriage have a much lower incidence of divorce

evangelizationstation.com/htm_html/Moral%20Theology/Sexuality/premarital_sex.htm

 

[RachelsAlumni]

… it seems that many people like the OP are more concerned with what happens in my bedroom than what’s happening in Darfur. They’re more concerned with making sure that I can’t get married to who I want than making sure that people can get access to healthcare they need. They’re more concerned with condemning condoms than helping feed the world’s staving people or giving help to the poor.
… be as passionate about feeding the poor as you are about making sure your sexual mores are adhered to.

The Catholic Church throughout the centuries has done more to help the needy and the poor than any other organization on the face of the planet.

These distinctions you make above are referred to as the corporal works of mercy and the spiritual works of mercy and they are not mutually exclusive. For Catholics it is a matter of both/and certainly not either/or.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church includes both Corporal & Spiritual works of mercy in the section on “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF” titled LOVE FOR THE POOR:

2444 “The Church’s love for the poor . . . is a part of her constant tradition.” This love is inspired by the Gospel of the Beatitudes, of the poverty of Jesus, and of his concern for the poor.235 Love for the poor is even one of the motives for the duty of working so as to "be able to give to those in need."236 It extends not only to material poverty but also to the many forms of cultural and religious poverty.

2447 The works of mercy are charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual and bodily necessities. Instructing, advising, consoling, comforting are spiritual works of mercy, as are forgiving and bearing wrongs patiently. The corporal works of mercy consist especially in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and burying the dead. Among all these, giving alms to the poor is one of the chief witnesses to fraternal charity: it is also a work of justice pleasing to God.

The spiritual works of mercy are oriented toward the soul. The corporal works of mercy are oriented toward the body. They are based on the teaching of Christ and on Church practice since apostolic times.

The Corporal works of mercy; seven practices of charity toward our neighbor as follows:

To feed the hungry;
To give drink to the thirsty;
To clothe the naked;
To harbour the harbourless;
To visit the sick;
To ransom the captive;
To bury the dead.

The spiritual works of mercy; seven practices of Catholic charity toward our neighbor’s soul are:

To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.

 

[JonW]

I’m sorry you have missed the rather lengthy and ongoing coverage of the middle of the road evangelical movement and it’s attempt to reclaim its name which it feels has been turned into nothing but a hanger for abortion and gay rights argument.

If you look at the threads on this forum, most of the other issues such as poverty, health care and so on are given short shrift. Many argue quite strenuously that there are few people who actually need or DESERVE help, most are simply lazy. They feel the few who are deserving can be met with simple Church charity.Additionally most here remain in favor of persuing this war which the Vatican has spoken quite harshly of. Moreover, most here support the death penalty although the CCC USCCB and JPII have condemned as practically a dead issue. So at least on this forum, there are but two issues that raise any kind of moral outrage–abortion and gay rights, directly in line with reactionary right evangelicals. The same folks, who I might add, consider the Church to be the great whore of babylon. Essentially there is a total lack of desire to be taxed in any fashion to secure the rights of our brothers in need. I invite you to examine the threads.

While you are at it, check out what is of singular importance? Constant and unrelenting questions about masterbation, and what I can and cannot do with my own spouse. Some here apparently think that they are in a constant state of mortal sin because the male mind apparently thinks of sex every 10 seconds. This bizarre obsession with sexual matters is highly disordered in my opinion an leads ot very unhealthy psychological states. Or at least so I am told by the psychiatric experts. Plenty of Catholic theologians also agree.

Thanks for your reply, Spirit. I regret to admit that I have in fact largely missed the coverage of the middle of the road evangelical movement.

Regarding your assessment of posters’ varied opinions on the proper application of Christian principles, I’m not sure that you’re being entirely fair, or that you’re not grossly oversimplifying others’ opinions. But I was guilty of something similar when I said that we all agree unequivocally on the issues. I think I should have said that we all agree unequivocally on the principles, but that whether or not a certain situation meets the criteria of their application can be more a matter of opinion or informed judgment. For example, I wholeheartedly agree with statements that have come out of the Vatican condemning our invasion of Iraq. I think it very clearly did not meet the criteria of a just war, even if it was simply a matter of faulty intelligence, since measures could have and should have been taken to ensure without reasonable doubt that it wasn’t, etc. However, maintaining a presence in Iraq in order to help ensure stability and safety for its people is not the same as “pursuing war.” We shouldn’t have invaded in the first place, but since we messed that up, it would be all the more irresponsible of us to leave the mess now. I’m just using this to illustrate my point since you did the same; I don’t mean to engage the issue substantively.

I’m with you on the death penalty issue, although I would hesitate to relegate any issue as “dead”, even only practically, especially since it is very clearly exercising our citizens a great deal.

I’m not sure what you hope to convey by inviting division between Catholics and “reactionary right evangelicals.” Why pick on them? Do you disagree with them on issues that are of utmost importance to you? What would those issues be? If they are solely concerned with abortion and same-sex marriage, I fail to see how they could even attract your attention, much less exercise your ire, since abortion and same-sex marriage are relatively unimportant issues to an enlightened sophisticate. But now I’m the one being disingenuous.

CONT’D BELOW:

 

[JonW]

Anyway, and this was part of my point, what has any of this to do with whether or not we should discuss abortion, same-sex marriage, masturbation, pornography, etc.? If you’re arguing that greater, or even just equal time, should be given to other issues of social justice, you might make an interesting case, and I’d be interested to see your argument. But, and I think this is crucial, people don’t come onto fora such as these in a spirit of balance and equal weight to all issues. They come to hash out ideas and notions which happen to have been exercising their attention in order to expand their vision on the topic, or come to a deeper and more considered understanding, or, I regret to say, to blast any and all who dare disagree. As it happens, some issues in our society have a simpler solution and are more obviously evil, or even more obviously more evil, than others. Naturally, these are the issues that will attract the most attention since the moral outrage is more simple and immediate. Other moral outrages are on a par, such as Darfur and Mayanmar, but the apparent evils attached to these events are more fleeting, and less a part of our immediate cultural experience. The reality of the evils underlying them might be every bit as pernicious and even perennial (in fact I have no doubt that they are) as those of abortion in the United States. But the underlying evils of Darfur and Mayanmar are not so stark and constant, and near, as that of abortion in the U.S. Now compound that with the fact that many in our culture wish to see the evils of abortion perpetuated and sewn into the very fabric of our culture. That’s more outrage, etc. It’s not hard to see why this would get more play on this forum than, say, Tibetan outrage at the Chinese government. Something like world hunger is definitely on a par, but it’s so heterogeneous and much more complicated, in many minds. Again, I’m quite sure that there are many psychological factors at play in the attention given to abortion, etc. As for masturbation and pornography, I completely agree with your assessment about the disordered nature of our culture’s obsession and consequent psychological problems. As a young male whose first introduction to sex was through hardcore pornography and masturbation and the entirely mechanical presentation given in “sex ed” along with further encouragement to masturbate more, and who was encouraged to have sex with and use as many women as possible before making the huge and antiquated and unenlightened mistake of getting married, I think I am in a good position to see why the topic comes up somewhat regularly on a public Catholic forum, and to feel the truly liberating effects of the message of chastity and the dignity of the person as contained in the T.O.B. and the Church generally. This might also help explain why people such as myself are concerned about sexual license and permissiveness, since we are constantly living with its legacy in our everyday lives.

God Bless

Jon Winterburn

 

[JonW]

Great post, RachelsAlum. Thanks for reminding us of the important stuff. I think sometimes we lose the forest.

 

[chaphenderson]

Dear ED,

You hit the nail on the head!! Unfortunatley, the vast majority of people in our society don’t understand the things of God. They lack discernment. They don’t know right from wrong. The following Scripture allpies to them.
1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Keep up the good work!!
Chappy

 

[peregrinus_WA]

We are living as Catholics in a world that very much does not want us to live as Catholics

Secular Morality: Do not shove your morality on us.

Secular Morality: You must “tolerate” (their mindspeak for “accept” and “embrace”) our morality.

Secular Morality is called Relativism. It is one of the greatest (if not the greatest) threats to todays civilization. If we do not combat it, society will implode from it. Therefore, I know it is time for new crusade.

From my blog: Is it Time for Another “Crusade”?

 

[Fitswimmer]

The interesting thing to me is how many feel that Christianity, and Catholic Christianity in particular is supposed to be the majority in the world and everyone is supposed to live by the teachings of our Church.

Would it be nice? Of course. Would it make life easier? Of course.

However, Jesus never promised us that we would be a majority in this life. He promised us quite the contrary, that we would always be a minority in society-always trying to hold that higher standard and be an example to others.

Those who had the greatest influence in my becoming a more faithful Catholic were not the people who lectured me, but the ones who quietly showed me by their actions that there was something better, not easier, but better.

 

[whatevergirl]

I recall reading that Mary stated, in some apparition, that sexual sins are among the lesser sins, BUT they are the ones that send the most people to hell.

Hi Joe–do you mean ‘lesser,’ as in ‘less grave?’ Mortal sins, but less grave …or venial? If they are not grave at all, or venial…how could lesser sins lead one to hell? Please explain…thanks!

 

[whatevergirl]

Those who are both chaste and practice natural family planning have the lowest divorce rates.

The use of contraception leads to an increased incidence of divorce

Those who remain virgins until marriage have a much lower incidence of divorce

evangelizationstation.com/htm_html/Moral%20Theology/Sexuality/premarital_sex.htm

Those are interesting stats…My one question is…are people being polled if they were practicing contraception, when they were getting divorced? Where does such information that is reliable come from to determine that contraception is leading to more divorces?