Serious Catholics

[fix]

So, could serious mean or imply “Pharisee-like”, in some sense?

When I read the above post I thought of this piece:

Today it is remarkable how the mood in the Catholic Church has swung to the opposite pole since the days of the anti-Modernist movement. Everyone familiar with the contemporary world of Catholic religious education - whatever his or her own position on the theological spectrum - is aware that while few will deny in theory that heresy is both possible and (if real) harmful, the whole atmosphere, the social consensus, the emotional ambience, is strongly oriented towards tolerance of novelty. The heretic has been replaced by the “heresy - hunter” (or “right-winger”) as the source of division, the object of suspicion and ostracism. The favored words are “pluralism,” “openness,” “dialogue,” “flexibility”; and the attitudes most generally resisted and feared are “intransigence,” “ultraconservatism,” “fundamentalism,” “rigidity,” and “closed-mindedness.”…

…it is the heresy of hating “heresy-hunts” more than heresy itself. How very different is that pure and timeless Catholic spirit displayed by Cardinal Newman in his great Apologia: “From the age of fifteen, dogma has been the fundamental principle of my religion: I know no other religion; I cannot enter into the idea of any other sort of religion; religion, as a mere sentiment, is to me a dream and a mockery.”

 

[Newbie2]

I’m not sure what other sense you could take it. We’ve heard “Pharisee” used as an example by Jesus so often that we have largely forgotten what the word meant at the time Jesus used it. Here is just a snippet from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

They were ultra conservative Jews, focussed on utterly adhering to the laws of their faith. Jesus’ listeners would generally have thought of them as ultra devout and heros to their people. Samaria, on the other hand, was seen as an arch enemy to Judea, heathens set on destroying the faith (again, see the Catholic Encyclopedia for an introduction).

The Pharisees were also extremely xenophobic. Much of the friction with Jesus was seemingly over his message about welcoming the stranger. The Pharisees thought it was essential to seperate themselves and be distinctly identified as true jews.

So, if the definition of “serious Catholic” is strict adherence to Church law and the label itself is considered necessary, than the concept is at least somewhat “Pharisee-like” in a historical sense. But that does not nec. make it Pharisee-like in terms of Luke 18:9-14. That would depend on the individual, is meticulous adherence to particular Church teachings a source of pride and self importance, or just another step in reaching for Christ?

Your question on spirituality is a good one. It is seemingly at the core of that particular Gospel reading. Legal literalism does not do any good if one loses sight of, say, the Beatitudes, or proper perspective on one’s own true relationship to God.

Good thoughts. I was thinking along the lines of the Lukan reference for Pharisees.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

I don’t think, for the most part, the terms are used uncharitably, but if one was opposing a church teaching, I could understand how it could be taken that way.

When you say ‘what we disagree on’, what do you mean? Are you talking latin rite? If so, there is only one teaching and one authority.

No one likes to be told they are disobedient to a teaching in which they claim obedience.

It depends on what is related to “opposing” a teaching. Is taking it Carte Blanche the only acceptable solution? Part of the Church’s tradition is allowing discussion and debate on issues, usually of the present. Discussion and debate lead to growth spiritually, not just personally, but also institutionally.

 

[bilop]

It depends on what is related to “opposing” a teaching. Is taking it Carte Blanche the only acceptable solution? Part of the Church’s tradition is allowing discussion and debate on issues, usually of the present. Discussion and debate lead to growth spiritually, not just personally, but also institutionally.

Depends on the teaching. If it is doctrine/dogma, yes, we must obey, even if we disagree.

If it is a point of discipline, then we can debate.

God Bless

 

[SoCalRC]

Depends on the teaching. If it is doctrine/dogma, yes, we must obey, even if we disagree.

I would agree with that. But some of the posters who appear to be endorsing the “Serious Catholic” label have argued quite strenously against portions of Doctrinal Notes I have posted.

Similarly, the “Voters Guide” referenced by the OP appears to have a significantly different list of “non-negotiable” principles than the Vatican. In fact, it has been quoted on these forums in order to “refute” quotes from a Doctrinal Note prepared by our current Pope and approved by our last one.

So the quesiton would seem to be, does “serious Catholic” refer to embracing, say, the entire Catechism, cover to cover or just adherence to specific Doctrine and Dogma that “serious Catholics”, themselves, decide is important?

I’m not asking this to be mean, it just seems worth addressing. If we accept Dogma, then we have to accept this:

“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema” - Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3

Does that include Pope Benedict’s repeatedly connecting protection of the environment and combating climate change as fundemental right to life issues as obligatory?

Or does it have to be in writing, that is, must we fully accept CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI #38, where the Pope connected abortion to slavery, torture, and even deportation, as different examples of violations of the fundemental “right to life”? That one actually seems to carry the weight of the Second Vatican Council, which is quoted.

Or is the bar different, say a Doctrinal Note, where only a smaller list (ex. modern forms of slavery, socially just economic development, religious freedom, peace, and etc.) are listed with abortion as “fundemental and inalienable rights” which do not permit abridgement?

Some seem to argue that it comes down to infallibility, but it is not clear, even then, what they mean. Infallibility of the Pope would limit us to pretty much to ‘believe in the Assumption of Mary’. Infallibility of the Church potentially opens a huge number of teachings but, again, some of the same folks holding that prudential=optional argue that certain ecumenical teachings are not binding.

FWIW, my handle pretty much sums it up for me. Catechism cover to cover, deference to the Bishops (mine in particular), and disobey the Pope only as a matter of grave crisis of Christian concience. I fail, of course, but that is what I shoot for.

But many “serious Catholics” seem to have a different defination of “all”. I’m not saying it is right or wrong, just seemingly different. And I’d be curious how it is arrived at and how teachings are ranked and prioritized.

 

[fix]

So the quesiton would seem to be, does “serious Catholic” refer to embracing, say, the entire Catechism, cover to cover

I would say yes. Is there part of the CCC that the folks at CA reject?

Does that include Pope Benedict’s repeatedly connecting protection of the environment and combating climate change as fundemental right to life issues as obligatory?

Sure, does the Pope bind us in exactly how that is to be accomplished?

 

[SoCalRC]

Sure, does the Pope bind us in exactly how that is to be accomplished?

You’re seemingly evading the question. Let’s use a specific example:

This is a Doctrinal Note from the Church, distributed in 2002. It was prepared by then Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by then Pope John Paul II:

vatican.va/roman_curia//congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

It is addressed to the Laity, and the specific subject is applying Catholicism to public life, including voting.

#4 Reiterates the concept of “limiting the harm”, quoting JPII’s EVANGELIUM VITAE. The document then goes on to state that certain principles cannot be abridged in “political activity” because they represent the “essence of moral law”. Nine examples are then given, highlighted in the text.

You have argued that the principles are not all equal and that some can be abridged because of proportional means. Your theological basis for this argument is a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to the Bishops on what you consider a related subject (ex. you state that his reference to Catholic politicians can be extended to all Catholic voters). In addition, you provide your own interpretation of the same quote from Evangelium Vitae used in the Doctrinal Note approved by Pope John Paul II (author of Evangelium Vitae).

What, exactly, is the theological basis for this? In other words, how does a lay interpretation of a Cardinal’s letter to a different part of the Heirarchy supercede specific instructions from the Vatican on the responsibilities of the lay faithful on the subject at hand? Particularly since the instructions were written by the same Cardinal and approved by a Pope.

When I asked you this before, you curtly replied that I would have to understand moral theology. But I am unaware of any Dogma or Doctrine that places the opinion of a theologian above the express, written instructions of the Holy See to the lay faithful. As I have already noted, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church would appear to make even the concept anathema.

So any light you could shed on your concept of the distribution of the Gift of Authority in the Church would be appreciated.

 

[rpp]

It appears that the phrase “serious Catholic” is simply one that people use to differentiate those two overall groups of people.

There are those who take their faith seriously, strive to be informed about their faith, do their best to conform their conscience to what the Church teaches and apply it to their daily lives. A serious Catholic is neither politically conservative or politically liberal (referring to politics in the USA).
A “serious” Catholic is always a faithful Catholic.

There are others who are not informed, and are not interested in learning about the Church. Still others who disagree with church teachings on important matters or attempt to put their own spin on Church teachings in an effort to justify some personal attitude, which usually involves politically liberal or, occasionally, politically ultra-conservative positions. These are non-serious Catholics.

A “non-serious” is not a faithful Catholic. Whether such people are Catholic in reality is up to God.

Is it a divisive term? Only that people in the latter group do not like to be told they are not being consistent with Church teachings.

 

[SoCalRC]

There are others who are not informed, and are not interested in learning about the Church. Still others who disagree with church teachings on important matters or attempt to put their own spin on Church teachings in an effort to justify some personal attitude, which usually involves politically liberal or, occasionally, politically ultra-conservative positions. These are non-serious Catholics.

Again, how you make this distinction would be of great interest to me. In a thread where the subject of Euthanasia came up, you repeatedly accused me of using word games and gross distortions of Church teaching.

However, I quoted extensively from another Doctrinal Note from the Church, on the subject of Euthanasia:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19800505_euthanasia_en.html

Further, I quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Your one quote to ‘refute’ me matched, almost verbatim, my own explanation of the teaching that I had given earlier in the thread. The only other quote provided as ‘contrary’ evidence was a sentence fragment from the very document I was using. When the entire paragraph was quoted, it again matched, almost verbatim, one of my points you found so corruptive and misleading.

If extensively quoting the Vatican’s position on the proper application of Doctrine, on the subject at hand, is ‘spin’ and ‘distortion’, how, exactly, is the ‘real’ teaching arrived at? In other words, what is the criteria that “serious” Catholics use to derive real teachings from the, supposedly, misleading language of the Church?

Is it something ‘serious’ Catholics just ‘know’, or is there a systematic form of evaluation?

 

[joeybaggz]

As Bilop stated, if the point is dogma/doctrine, yes, if a point of discipline, its open.

Our judgment of whether someone is ‘serious’ or not can only be valid when discussing whether one takes ‘seriously’ the foundational doctrines of the Church. When we talk about disciplines or teachings on moral issues, we have no right to judge, because Church positions may evolve over time.

From something as simple as meat on Friday to something as seriously as slavery, the CC position has evolved over time. A good catholic in the Southern USA in 1815 could have been a serious Catholic and believed that slavery was morally permissable. Today that position is morally ludicrous and in conflict with Church teaching. Fifty years ago, ‘serious’ catholics wouldn’t go near a hotdog on Friday. Today, there are a lot of us at Outback on a Friday night.

Even something as serious as contraception fits. When Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, my recollection is that the majority of the bishops were in disagreement. And generally bishops are considered ‘serious’ catholics.

Judgment of the ‘seriousness or not’ of an individual Catholic has to be considered in light of the issue at hand.

My two cents.

 

[SoCalRC]

Even something as serious as contraception fits. When Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, my recollection is that the majority of the bishops were in disagreement. And generally bishops are considered ‘serious’ catholics.

You read my mind! I recall the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops issued the “Winnipeg Statement”, and there was significant disagreement expressed from all levels of the ordinary here in the US also.

Sacred Tradition on contraception is mixed, as even Pope John Paul II noted, and Holy Scripture is not a lot of guidance on the matter either. So the teaching is largely driven by Papal authority, principally Pope Pius XI, and Pope John Paul II (who seems to have heavily influenced Pius XI with his LOVE AND RESPONSIBILITY, from 1960 (before he was Pope)).

I’m OK with this, but how do self-described serious Catholics make a distinction between contraception and, say, the death penalty, another John Paul II teaching that is widely accepted by the Bishops?

 

[brianwalden]

You read my mind! I recall the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops issued the “Winnipeg Statement”, and there was significant disagreement expressed from all levels of the ordinary here in the US also.

The Canadian CCB is not the Magisterium. Neither are individual Bishops, even lots of individual Bishops.

Sacred Tradition on contraception is mixed, as even Pope John Paul II noted, and Holy Scripture is not a lot of guidance on the matter either. So the teaching is largely driven by Papal authority, principally Pope Pius XI, and Pope John Paul II (who seems to have heavily influenced Pius XI with his LOVE AND RESPONSIBILITY, from 1960 (before he was Pope)).

When has Sacred Tradition on contraception ever been mixed? When did Sacred Tradition ever call contraception good or even morally neutral before changing it’s mind with Humanae Vitae? If you can prove this claim, you’ll prove that the Catholic Church is either mistaken or fraudulent in it’s claim to the the Church that Christ founded.

I’m OK with this, but how do self-described serious Catholics make a distinction between contraception and, say, the death penalty, another John Paul II teaching that is widely accepted by the Bishops?

One quick and easy way is to check the Catechism. On contraception:

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

And on capital punishment:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

The doctrine of the Church is that contraception within marriage is intrinsicially immoral - every marital act must be open to procreation. Period. The doctrine of the church is that proper civil authority has recourse to capital punishment, however it should use non-lethal punishment if it can achieve the same ends of defending public order and protecting people’s safety while still allowing the criminal to live and hopefully repent. The prohibitions against the death penalty are dependent on the circumstances involved. We’re currently blessed to be have the means to incarcerate people for life, but that hasn’t been so for all of human history and it may not be so in the future. Catholics can in good conscience hold to this teaching of the Church while still believing that the conditions where they live require the death penalty in certain circumstances.

I think the death penalty is a lot like just war. The Church advises us of the moral principals involved, but the decision is ultimately up to the civil authority. I often wish it were different, but it’s not and so I don’t hold it against Catholics who believe that capital punishment is necessary in the US today or that the Iraq War is just - even though I don’t necessarily subscribe to these positions.

This got me thinking. While the “serious” Catholics in question in this thread sometimes go overboard, they for the most part stick to doctrine and allow for freedom of opinion on other issues. It’s usually people who dissent from the Magisterium who try to force people to believe things that aren’t doctrine.

 

[SoCalRC]

The Canadian CCB is not the Magisterium. Neither are individual Bishops, even lots of individual Bishops.

No one stated otherwise, I was just affirming the prior poster’s recollection. However, your mention of the Magesterium brings up an interesting point. The Church’s teaching on contraception is presumably not infallible. It appears that no Pope has spoken on it Ex Cathedra, and lack of universal agreement among the Bishops would rule out infalliblity of the Church (the basis that John Paul II used to declare direct abortion and direct euthanasia infallible).

When has Sacred Tradition on contraception ever been mixed? When did Sacred Tradition ever call contraception good or even morally neutral before changing it’s mind with Humanae Vitae? If you can prove this claim, you’ll prove that the Catholic Church is either mistaken or fraudulent in it’s claim to the the Church that Christ founded.

First of all, you’re being a little melodramatic. Church tradition on abortion is mixed, both on the gravity and nature of the sin, and on a long history of dispensations for saving maternal lives. But that in no way undermines the Church’s position or the legitimacy of our current unequivocal ban.

Second, I was thinking of only a few particular examples, such as Holy Scripture, where we pretty much only have the fate of Onan (Genesis 38:7-10), and it isn’t clear if it was the coitus interruptus or his failure to fulfill his obligation of levirate that incurred God’s wrath.

In tradition, I was thinking of the thelogical storm surrounding the Anglican split that presumably inspired Pope Pius XI to promulage CASTI CONNUBII in 1930. But although we have a large influence from St. Paul, who favored abstinance over marriage, and St. Thomas Aquinas, who seemed to consider sex a necessary evil for procreation, there are some dissenting voices in Catholic writing over the last two millenia. But, like abortion, lack of unanimous agreement and varying degrees in emphasis and priority in no way undermines the Church’s position or legitimacy.

I think the death penalty is a lot like just war. The Church advises us of the moral principals involved, but the decision is ultimately up to the civil authority.

I’m glad you mentioned this, because this is what I am asking. You’ve put three teachings on the table, death penalty, just war, and contraception. None appear to be infallible, but all have been addressed in Papal Encyclicals, all are important enough for inclussion in the Catechism, and the Holy See has given specific guidance on what it considers the proper application of all three.

I happen to accept that guidance on all three. The Bishops widely accept two and remain more divided on the third (although there is only one Vicar of Christ, consensus among the Bishops does matter, that is why ecumenical councils’ teachings carry so much weight). But many here accept only one as ‘serious’ and consider the other two to be judgement calls. I’m asking how that distinction is made.

You are saying that two are ultimately left to Civil Authority, but I don’t understand what you are basing that on. When the Church assigns ultimate responsibility for a complex moral decision, it is usually clear. For example, if you look at the Doctrinal Note on euthanasia I linked to earlier, you will see that it clearly asserts that the ultimate decision on end of life health care decisions should be made by the patient or the patient’s representatives. This is clearly reiterated in the Catechism where we are further instructed to respect that obligation.

In the case of Just War, proper civil authorization is simply listed as one of the mandatory criteria. It has no right to negate any of the other unconditional criteria listed in the Catechism. Even George Weigel, one of the few theologians arguing that Iraq meets the Catholic standard, has conceded in writing that a) he is at odds with Rome and b) ongoing torture of prisoners would automatically disqualify a campaign under Catholic doctrine.

The Catechism does not leave it to individual governments to decide what does and does not constitute torture, it notes that international standards and agreements must be complied with.

Regarding the death penalty, the Catechism only notes that, in theory, the death penalty might be licid in some cases. But, unlike end-of-life medical decisions, it does not note a final arbitor. It only states that such cases would be exceedingly rare, if not non-existant.

Or, in other words, how is following the Pope’s guidance on the application of Church doctrine ‘inventing’, while deferring final moral authority to civil authorities, when it has not expressly been given by the Church, ‘not’?

 

[SoCalRC]

Note: I stand corrected, CCC 2309 does place responsibility for determination on certain criteria regarding Just War on proper civil authority. I was going from memory in response to your post. I am sorry.

However, the subsequent paragraphs, like the provisions on the treatment of non-combatants and prisoners, do not.

Also, this would seem to substantiate my claim that the Church is generally clear in assigning such authority.

Regards

 

[Renton405]

“we must abide rather by the Pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he may be in Divine Scripture.”

I bet the Protestants just love that one, lol

In reality, its true. I can’t tell you how many different protestant churches Ive been to with conflicting interperatations of the bible. Its impossible to get any unified teaching from them. Its confusing and divided. one half says abortion is ok, the other dosen’t. One half approves of gay marriage. Then the thousands of rapture theorys.

 

[iamrefreshed]

It depends on what is related to “opposing” a teaching. Is taking it Carte Blanche the only acceptable solution? Part of the Church’s tradition is allowing discussion and debate on issues, usually of the present. Discussion and debate lead to growth spiritually, not just personally, but also institutionally.

It depends on what you are ‘opposing’. If you are opposing one of the churchs’ ‘non-negotiables’ then I believe it is wrong. It must be taken ‘Carte Blance’ or you are not following catholicism.

If you oppose, let’s say, the churchs’ stance on immigration, then discussion and debate is good.

There is no room for disscussion and debate on the ‘non-negotiables’. Period. To do otherwise is to stray away from our call to obedience.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I’m OK with this, but how do self-described serious Catholics make a distinction between contraception and, say, the death penalty, another John Paul II teaching that is widely accepted by the Bishops?

Why do I need to make a distinction? One is allowed for only the most extreme measures and one is completely forbidden.

Honestly, figuring out what to do to be obedient is the easy part. BEING obedient is the really hard part!

 

[fix]

You’re seemingly evading the question. Let’s use a specific example:

Does the Pope tells us how we must protect the ennvironment?

You have argued that the principles are not all equal

I have not argued that at all. I have argued that the church teaces we should limit evil. As archbishop Meyers said:

Thus for a Catholic citizen to vote for a candidate who supports abortion and embryo-destructive research, one of the following circumstances would have to obtain: either (a) both candidates would have to be in favor of embryo killing on roughly an equal scale or (b) the candidate with the superior position on abortion and embryo-destructive research would have to be a supporter of objective evils of a gravity and magnitude beyond that of 1.3 million yearly abortions plus the killing that would take place if public funds were made available for embryo-destructive research.

and that some can be abridged because of proportional means.

Again I never used the term propotional means. Proportionate reasons is how Cardinal Ratzinger used the phrase as is used in tradional moral theology.

Your theological basis for this argument is a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to the Bishops on what you consider a related subject (ex. you state that his reference to Catholic politicians can be extended to all Catholic voters). In addition, you provide your own interpretation of the same quote from Evangelium Vitae used in the Doctrinal Note approved by Pope John Paul II (author of Evangelium Vitae).

I provided the Church’s interpetation and you provide your private interpretation.

What, exactly, is the theological basis for this? In other words, how does a lay interpretation of a Cardinal’s letter to a different part of the Heirarchy supercede specific instructions from the Vatican on the responsibilities of the lay faithful on the subject at hand? Particularly since the instructions were written by the same Cardinal and approved by a Pope.

My intepretation is not the issue. I stand with the Church. How does your private interpetation of Church document supercede Cardinal Ratzinger and archbishop Myers?

When I asked you this before, you curtly replied that I would have to understand moral theology. But I am unaware of any Dogma or Doctrine that places the opinion of a theologian above the express, written instructions of the Holy See to the lay faithful.

I never said it does. You have not provided evidence your position proves that assetion.

 

[SoCalRC]

I provided the Church’s interpetation and you provide your private interpretation.

I quote from the Holy See, you paraphrase from individual Cardinals. How do you decide when authority rests with the Pope and when it does not?

My intepretation is not the issue. I stand with the Church. How does your private interpetation of Church document supercede Cardinal Ratzinger and archbishop Myers?

Please explain how this is so. Here is a small part of one of the quotes again:

“When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning…” (emphasis in original)

vatican.va/roman_curia//congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

The document is from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, in the form of a Doctrinal Note, signed by both the Prefect (Cardinal Ratzinger) and the Pope (John Paul II). It is addressed to the Bishops, Catholic Politicians, and the Lay Faithful.

The document represents direct instructions to all Catholics, world wide, on voting. Where in the paragrah above (or the rest of the document), is there the slightest suggestion that there is any room for abridgement of the nine examples that follow the above portion?

And, if you ignore something that the Church, with the full authority of the Pope, has declared a moral princple that does “not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”, with the stakes of compromise being “the essence of the moral law”, how are you not embracing evil, not ‘limiting’ it?

 

[Aquinas74]

One thing that this culture has gotten away from is obedience, whether that be the Magisterium or children with there elders. Too often in today’s society people try to rationalize disobedience, this is a serious problem that needs to be changed.