Strong morals, or elitism?

[Pug]

mike182d:

The only use of a condom would be as contraception in the sexual act

AFAIK, there is a moral use for a condom. It is used when a woman has a type of ultrasound of her female areas (to check for cancer, tumors, etc). It covers the device used. I assume they are used because they are cheap and suitable. I am leaving aside the consideration of giving that company money for their product.

Thinking on this topic has brought to the surface of my mind something I should have noticed before. The Church has not said much on the topic of remote/proximate or formal/material cooperation and what precisely determines them. I can point to St. Thomas Aquinas and such, but not to detailed magisterial stuff. Hmmm, let me know if I am wrong! I hope they do say something more specific, as the question of cooperation is rampant in our culture:

The busdriver (or taxi) who answers the call button everyday to let women off at planned parenthood.

The clerk for the city of X who has to fill out the application or stamp “approved” on the building plans for a new planned parenthood.

The truck driver for the grocer who sells condoms. They unload the boxes and then the stockboy stocks them. Once purchased, the bagger bags them.

Almost anyone who works where they sell magazines, videos, or books.

Admission workers in a hospital who assist in registering the people who are there to get sterilized.

The guy who runs the film developer machine at the photomat.

Clerical workers who have to type up forms for evil requisitions or to “not record” certain transactions.

The teacher who works in a school and she has too many kids in her classroom to meet fire code.

The electrician who fixes the broken lighting in the operating room used for abortions at the local hospital.

The list of possible problems to consider is endless.

 

[LSK]

JeffAustralia:

I tend to compare it with, say, a Jewish person getting a job in a butcher shop…and then refusing to sell pork. Or a baptist getting a job in a pub, and then refusing to sell all but non-alcoholic drinks. Supermarkets in Australia sell condoms. Full stop. She knew this. She shouldn’t work there if that’s the case. As I said already, your average non-catholic (and I used to be one, so I understand) has NO idea about the reasons for this teaching, and are not going out of their way to be wicked. They should be shown compassion…and I saw none whatsoever in the way this matter was handled. Imagine the embarrassment? Was it deserved? I don’t think so.

I agree with your premise, but I also wonder how truly humiliated the customer was if they went to the media. I would bet they are not so much humiliated as angry. Two different things.
And I question the young lady’s job choice…surely, as a good Catholic, she would have made herself aware of what the store was selling before taking the job?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

VonMrs:

But Paul was speaking to BELIEVERS, people who had chosen to follow Christ. Where do we draw the line in what we force on other non-believers? Not going to mass is a sin. Should we go around berating non-Catholics for not attending mass on Ash Wednesday? God gave us free will. Who are we to manipulate the actions of others?

Here is what I see that this girls honorable options were, given her moral qualms about the purchase:

1. Not take a job at the supermarket.
2. Excuse herself during the sale and ask someone else to ring up the purchase.

She had no right to humiliate the customer.

That’s right.

In Illinois (way back when, anyway) a person had to be 18 to work in a liquor store but 21 to sell liquor. The system did isolate “sale” though as “completing the sale.” Therefore, the young woman or man working would ring everything up, having checked the customer for ID, and then asked the customer to reach over and press the button to complete the sale.

This way the person was still carrying on the work of the store, but was technically out of the loop of the sale.

Asking someone else to ring it up – without trumpeting this girl’s sins – would have been the far superior thing to do. The only thing better is for her to talk to her employer – the person with whom she actually has the beef. If the employer won’t take the products off the shelf, then this person needs to find a way to deal with her incredibly advanced morals without herself being a judgmental oaf.

Alan

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Liberalsaved:

I can’t navigate that maze of colors for what to quote, so I’ll say, if it were a Catholic store then it wouldn’t be an issue, well, because they wouldn’t be selling them. But yes, it wouldn’t bother me then.

It’s only 1 color, other than the white background.

---

**Your previous post was not in reference to the business being catholic, but in it just being christian. **

---

If we want to refine it to saying she should go work somewhere that is a catholic establishment, well that’s basicly saying the girl should never be employeed if she lives in my state.

---

Many christians see nothing at all wrong with having such items for sale in their stores.

 

[setter]

Then she should find a job at another store. She’s not being made to work at that one and as long as she makes the choice to work there, she has no right to deny a customer a sale.

Despite the cries that our little piece of American society is beset upon, there is no end to the Christian places that she could work. Bookstores, grocery stores, restaurants, tons of them run by and in some cases even catering to Christians and Catholics. If she works at a secular store she is expected to sell the things the customers want to the customers who want them, as long as it is legal and carried by the store. That’s the only issue.

Funny how cultural trends determine what is “correct” and socially acceptable. Prior to 1930, this 16 year old would never have had to confronted this moral dilema. In the year 2006, now she is being criticized by fellow Catholics for having the indignation to bring her morals to the marketplace. I am reminded of the story of the frog in the kettle of water who does not notice the water (of immorality) heating up until …“wait, I’ve been had, I’m being cooked alive!!”

Time for Catholics to take back the culture and not allow the culture to dictate to us how we must accommodate the culture of sin and death engulfing us?

Whether a product is “legal” or not is not the only thing that’s at issue here. What is at issue is that society has lost it’s sense of sin and gets offended when someone is offended by sin. Having this Catholic teenager find another job is not the solution here. She is part of the community where this store sells and profits from the citizens. How about working out a mutually satisfying solution in deference to co-existing values?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

mike182d:

No, that’s a horrible misinterpretation. Both letters to the Corinthians are simply Paul pointing out their sins and telling them they need to cut it out. Was Paul a “viper?” Would Jesus have scolded Him for doing so? Apparently not, as the Church sees fit to honor his letters as authoritative.

What are you talking about? I was talking about the Gospels, not the letters of St. Paul.

You seem to forget the actual charges made by Christ, namely: honoring God with their lips but not their hearts and placing undue burdens upon people that they refuse to do themselves. That sounds a lot more like modern day Democrats who honor God with their lips while promoting every secular evil out there and placing undue burdens on America by taxing them into oblivion to help the poor when they don’t pay a dime into those very same taxes.

If anything, the girl was more like St. Paul than a Pharisee.

Paul, Saul, I see how those two are easily confused.

Anyway you seem to forget the actual context of the outside of the cup criticism. Righteous people were accurately accusing Christ’s followers of failing to perform the required ceremony. It was not the failure of His people that angered him, but the accusations against His people – even though those accusations are true.

When are we going to learn that Jesus did not come to save us from sinning, but from suffering the consequences of sin? He taught us how to avoid some of the most terrible sins that are hardest demons to drive out – and one is the spirit of pride and judgment.

Where in the Gospel does Jesus say its wrong to tell someone their sins?

Nowhere. He did, however, suggest that those who publicly accuse others of sins – and try to condemn them – ALL ACCORDING TO THE LAW – that they had better be without sin. Once having cleared out everybody who wasn’t, He himself refused to condemn her.

Two thousand years later we still have a “stone the whore” mentality and we still cheer each other on for each others’ good aim in this regard.

There are a *multitude *of passages in the New Testament that encourage us to do so. What Christ warns against is *judging *people and, thanks to liberals, we’ve managed to blend correction and judgement into the same thing and this is absurd. If my child thinks 2 + 2 = 5 and I correct her and tell her that its really 4, that’s not judgement. If I tell her she’s stupid for thinking 2 + 2 =5, *that *would be judgement.

Catholic teachings about contraception perhaps apply to everyone, but they are not binding on everyone.

Besides, limited thinkers who like to give me this math problem don’t understand the richness of mathematics. I could make a case for 2 + 2 <> 4 quite easily. You only believe it is foolish because most of the time under conventional limited universe, it is true that 2 + 2 = 4. In other words, it isn’t always true, but in most contexts it is not questionable.

Correction and judgement are two different things but we have become so oversenstive or scared to tell people the truth that we would rather sit back and watch someone wallow in their own sin then help them out of the pit their in because “we don’t want to hurt their feelings.”

That’s the furthest thing from Christ teachings.

That’s why it disturbs me that this girl is being cheered on so, as we are teaching her to have a hard heart and to make public spectacle out of others’ sins.

Maybe she needs to take a job at a porn shop where she can really tell some people what’s what.

You’re right. Its much better what we’re doing now: teaching them to be tolerant of everyone’s beliefs and never correct anyone in fear of rocking the boat. That’s worked wonders for the moral fortitude of our society.

sarcasm which misrepresents…
(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)

Show me the passage where Christ condems this girl and I will give you plenty that support her. You’re misintepreting Scripture.

Did Christ even speak of this girl?

OK, OK, again I point you to the “stone the whore” parable.

The thing Christ worked to stop was people condemning each other in our hearts. He did not come to stop sin from happening, or he would have erased – not forgiven – the original sin. Unjust judges (that would be anyone who is not perfect) were his primary target.

Yes, he did. Does “am I my brothers keeper?” ring a bell? Furthermore, if people have figured out that they need to fix their sins of the flesh, why is it that we’ve descended so far into sins of the flesh? With pornography as the leading industry in the world and abortion and pre-marital sex rampant, you give society too much credit.

What? Am I my brother’s keeper applied to a situation in which two brothers were arguing about which one was right. Christ was much less concerned with who was right than with their quickness to judge each other.

Who made the spectacle? The guy could have quitely walked away to another register and the conversation could have just been between him and the cashier and maybe a customer behind him, no one would have to know what had happened (for all they knew he could have had incorrect change or something). The only person making a spectacle out of it is the person trying to buy the condoms by going to the press.

Yes, this cashier kept doing the same wrong thing and most people – out of kindness or expedience – let her get away with it. We don’t know if they bought condoms or not, and we don’t know if the store was gradually losing business because of this, without her boss’s knowledge. The person who raised a fuss was the only one kind enough to deal withthe issue, and to save this store from being robbed and pillaged by her ostensible Supreme Authority.

Why is it that embarassment is a worse sin than fornication? Let’s say this cashier and the guy buying condoms are dead and before Christ. Is Jesus going to be upset at the girl for embarassing the guy trying to buy condoms or is He going to be more upset that the guy was trying to fornicate and abuse His wonderful gift of human sexuality?

Judging and condemning others is a sin that others’ fornication does not give us the right to engage in.

I honestly think Jesus would be upset at both issues, except that I’m not sure Jesus would have necessarily bought off on Catholic teaching on condoms. For this argument I am assuming that is entirely valid.

Which one would be enough to get Jesus angry and get his attention? The fornicators, like those he hung around with and let wash his feet, or the Pharisees and lawyers, who judged such friends?

No doubt in my mind that in this scenario, Jesus would have been more inclined to speak against the presumptions of the girl than against the presumed sin of fornication. Whether He would have actually done so, of course, is nothing we will know because he didn’t show up there in person to show us.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

mike182d:

Scripture?

OK
John 8:

Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. 4 They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. 2 So what do you say?” 6 They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him because they knew Jesus was a liberal wussy and didn’t think anybody should have to be told about their sins, much less punished for them. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger.7 4 But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him. 10 Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more.”

Here, Jesus did not say the woman didn’t sin. He just prevented others from condemning her.

I’m not claiming, for this argument anyway, that the customer didn’t sin. (Again if purchasing or owning condoms is a sin we haven’t established but let’s just assume the girl was right about the intent for the condoms.)

If we assume that buying condoms is tantamount to being a known adulteress, then the analogy applies.

Let’s try rewriting this a bit based on the apparently sense of values this girl is extolling:
John's Gospel according to the cashier:

Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle.

They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, The Church commanded us to bring her out in public and make sure they are known, and then to stone such women. 2 So what do you say?”
They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. 3
But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Again he bent down and wrote on the ground.
And in response, they became enraged one by one, beginning with the elders. They became very indignant and said, "this man is not of Moses. We do not need this person to tell us what the law is. We know she is guilty and she will be stoned. Is there not a witness to this fact? A young girl spoke up, “I saw her to try buying condoms at the store, but of course I stopped her.”

That was all the additional evidence the crowd needed. They stoned the woman to death, and then carried the girl on their shoulders and celebrated her courage with a feast.

As the woman was stoned. Jesus wept. He said a prayer out loud, “heavenly Father, forgive these people for they do not know what they do. They have not heard my message, nor can they because they have ears that do not hear. Please spare them eternal suffering.”

Jesus talked to no one else that day, although some heard him praying to God. He was deeply troubled, and asked, “When, Lord? When will you please open their eyes so that they may see?”

Alan

 

[Vintagecoils]

Christ acknowledged we will have to live in this world. Since it was her christian views and not the customer the customer had the right to be served and not ordered about the store. All she had to do was say she would step to another cash register and another attendant would wait on the customer. She could have made previous knowledge of this to her boss and made arrangements. It would be no different than selling alchohol. Some resturants and stores can not let their under age workers be the one to sell the alcohol or cigarets, to the customer.

It is not that difficult to live out your Christian beliefs.  The responsiblity is on us Christians to make our beliefs known to our perspective employers and either gain their coorporation or seek other employment.  I am sure another cashier would assist this young lady in living up to her values. 

Think of how Christ would have done it and often the answer is not so confrontational.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Consecrated:

Umm, this sounds more judgemental to me than what the girl is described as doing. If the girl was wrong to “judge” the person buying condoms because she can’t know the customer’s heart (as she can’t), then how is it right to judge the girl’s intentions through her perceived reactions to this brew-ha-ha?

The girl is the one who chose to make it public, so we are judging her public behavior.

I do not condemn her for what she did any more than the customer. I am trying to explain that what she did was not intrinsically noble and in itself her behavior was sinful matter. Of course, as a child and as a product of brainwashing, she is not likely culpable because, as Christ prayed, “they know not what they do.”

Alan

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

Vintagecoils:

Christ acknowledged we will have to live in this world. Since it was her christian views and not the customer the customer had the right to be served and not ordered about the store. All she had to do was say she would step to another cash register and another attendant would wait on the customer. She could have made previous knowledge of this to her boss and made arrangements. It would be no different than selling alchohol. Some resturants and stores can not let their under age workers be the one to sell the alcohol or cigarets, to the customer.

I think that’s a very sensible solution to the dilemma.

Otherwise, the girl should pick a different type of business to work for; perhaps a Catholic bookstore.

AlanFromWichita:

Why is it that when people act as people did before Christ came – judging each other and the like – they think they are serving Christ? For those Catholics “admonish the sinner” is their very favorite work of mercy, driven to do so not by love, but by judgment and pride.

If this forum had a size-15 font, I would use it to say “AMEN!”

Crazy Internet Junkies Society
Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag

 

[mike182d]

AlanFromWichita:

What are you talking about? I was talking about the Gospels, not the letters of St. Paul.

I am talking about Scripture. Apparently you see a disconnect between the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament.

When are we going to learn that Jesus did not come to save us from sinning, but from suffering the consequences of sin?

So, when Christ says “be perfect as my heavenly Father is perfect,” He was just whistlin’ Dixie?

He taught us how to avoid some of the most terrible sins that are hardest demons to drive out – and one is the spirit of pride and judgment.

How do people know what sins to avoid if we don’t tell them? Once again, correction and judgement are **not **the same thing. Nowhere did this girl judge or condemn this man.

Nowhere. He did, however, suggest that those who publicly accuse others of sins – and try to condemn them – ALL ACCORDING TO THE LAW – that they had better be without sin. Once having cleared out everybody who wasn’t, He himself refused to condemn her.

Yes, that’s condemnation. Where, again, did the girl condemn the man to death by stoning? Where is the judgement? I repeat, **correction is not the same as judgement or condemnation. **The Jews were going to kill the prostitute by stoning her to death for crying out loud. That’s what Jesus was upset about, not the fact that they were calling her out on her sin.

Two thousand years later we still have a “stone the whore” mentality and we still cheer each other on for each others’ good aim in this regard.

NO, NO, NO, NO!!! THIS PASSAGE IN NO WAY HAS ANY RELEVANCE TO THE SITUATION AT HAND!!!

The girl wasn’t going to kill the man, she was saying what he was doing was wrong. Where did she condemn him to death?

Catholic teachings about contraception perhaps apply to everyone, but they are not binding on everyone.

You’re right. The whole of Catholic teaching is merely suggestion and has absolutely bearing on the objective state of the world.

Besides, limited thinkers who like to give me this math problem don’t understand the richness of mathematics. I could make a case for 2 + 2 <> 4 quite easily. You only believe it is foolish because most of the time under conventional limited universe, it is true that 2 + 2 = 4. In other words, it isn’t always true, but in most contexts it is not questionable.

So, you’re saying 2 + 2 = 5 or are you dancing around the issue?

That’s why it disturbs me that this girl is being cheered on so, as we are teaching her to have a hard heart and to make public spectacle out of others’ sins.

Man, it must *really *irk you then when the Pope comes out and tells the world that abortion is wrong. I mean, think of all the abortion clinic employees that are offended…

Maybe she needs to take a job at a porn shop where she can really tell some people what’s what.

That would be fantastic. Although it probably would be easier just to protest outside of it.

 

[mike182d]

AlanFromWichita:

OK

Thank you, again, for bringing up the same Scripture passage that is in no way relevant to the discussion at hand. Saying: “you really shouldn’t do that” isn’t the same as saying “I’m going to kill you for doing that.” The fact that you cannot tell a difference is very disturbing and a reflection of how oversensitive our society has become.

Here, Jesus did not say the woman didn’t sin. He just prevented others from condemning her.

Yes, he did prevent them from condemning her. If the girl we are talking about had condemned or judged the man then you would have an argument. But, as it is…

f we assume that buying condoms is tantamount to being a known adulteress, then the analogy applies.

If the girl was going to kill the man, then yes the analogy applies.

Finally, since you’ve mentioned the same irrelevant passage up several times: the stoning of the prostitute has ***nothing ***in common with this situation. Show me where the girl condemned this man to death for buying a condom or where she judged him.

 

[mike182d]

I’m just amazed how many people are more upset at the girl for not wanting to sell a guy a pack of condoms than at the guy trying to buy the condoms in the first place.

That’s like being upset at Paul for telling the Corinthians not to fornicate but not being upset at the Corinthians for being the one’s actually fornicating.

 

[mike182d]

Can anyone demonstrate where this girl judged the man or condemned him?

I doubt whether some of you even know what “judgement” means…

 

[JeffAustralia]

Can people please try to walk in a non-Catholic’s shoes for just a second? NO ONE other than Catholics understands (a) the authority of the Pope and the Church, and (b) the Catholic reasoning for not using contraception. Non-Catholics think this rule is (a) an attempt to stop married people having too much sex, or sex for non-procreation-purposes, or (b) an attempt to outnumber protestants with millions of little Catholics. Therefore they do NOT knowingly-sin when buying or using condoms. (The customer in this incidence was married anyway). They believe they’re being “responsible”. Therefore, what is gained by (a) publically shaming them, and (b) making no attempt to EDUCATE them? (And by the way, I know this girl and her family…and they consider non-Catholics and non-Latin-Mass-attendees to be beneath comtempt). This is NOT the same situation as the girl catching out her snot-nosed 15yr old Catholic cousin buying them for a quick roll-in-the-hay with his girlfriend!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

mike182d:

I am talking about Scripture. Apparently you see a disconnect between the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament.

Yes there is. The gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, three of which contains information I referenced. You responded something about letters of St. Paul, which are in the books following the gospels and Acts.

So, when Christ says “be perfect as my heavenly Father is perfect,” He was just whistlin’ Dixie?

No, and that’s why it is very difficult for me to speak strongly enough to get this message through to you without becoming judgmental myself. I do not see you as a sinner or as bad for believing the way you do; I have no doubt it is fully your intent to honor Christ. The fact that your behavior does not come across as being in line with His teachings – in my interpretation of course – does not make me right, but it gives me the obligation to try to correct you the same way you think it’s that girl’s job to correct the customer. The difference is the customer was not asking for a discussion or willingly participating in one, so I am not butting into your business by engaging in the discussion.

Yes, I do believe that you have an incorrect interpretation of the Christian way of life, such that it is likely to lead you – and others who think likewise – through a great deal more pain than is necessary than someone who just surrenders. It is my Christian duty to try to help you grasp that – even at the risk of losing you as a friend. I’d rather you listen to the Holy Spirit than me, and if my faith is to mean anything than I know that you do. This discussion, everything, it’s all good – all things work for the betterment of Christ. Who “wins” a verbal debate is not as important as that we are each touched by each others’ flavors of love, so that we may come to better appreciate God’s myriad ways of loving us beyond our very grasp.

How do people know what sins to avoid if we don’t tell them? Once again, correction and judgement are **not **the same thing. Nowhere did this girl judge or condemn this man.

No, she presumed that a customer was going to buy a product from a store where she supposedly worked to sell that product, and then go use it for sinful reasons. If that presumption were not there, which is a form of judgment, she would not have intervened.

The girl wasn’t going to kill the man, she was saying what he was doing was wrong. Where did she condemn him to death?

Sigh. Judgment and anger are the same thing as killing, at a spiritual level.

Long before Christ came, we knew enough to recognize killing someone physically, and we had a commandment against doing so.

Christ came to tell us that we have to let go of judgment and anger NOT ONLY physically, but in our very hearts. All we have to do is harbor lust against a woman or harbor anger against a brother to spiritually commit adultery and murder. That’s what Christ came to teach us – that these sins are to be avoided just as the physical ones.

Gosh, I have to go play music for Stations of the Cross now. I’ll have to get back to this.

Alan

 

[JeffAustralia]

She condemned and judged the (female) customer by closing her heart and deciding she was too unimportant to (a) treat with any level of courtesy and respect, and (b) not worth educating. When we love someone (as Jesus did/does), yes we may correct them. But we don’t correct them without trying to raise them up in the process. When you punish your kids, do you do so because they offend you? Or because you do so as part of a process by which you teach them to be a better human being? We can correct our kids because we do so with love, and because we care enough about their well-being to do so. If we choose to correct another human being for being sinful (and therefore harming themselves…which is the ONLY reason that God makes rules for us), and we DON’T try to help them to see the error of their ways, then yes…we’re judging and condemning them with our hard hearts.

 

[mike182d]

JeffAustralia:

Can people please try to walk in a non-Catholic’s shoes for just a second? NO ONE other than Catholics understands (a) the authority of the Pope and the Church, and (b) the Catholic reasoning for not using contraception. Non-Catholics think this rule is (a) an attempt to stop married people having too much sex, or sex for non-procreation-purposes, or (b) an attempt to outnumber protestants with millions of little Catholics. Therefore they do NOT knowingly-sin when buying or using condoms. (The customer in this incidence was married anyway). They believe they’re being “responsible”. Therefore, what is gained by (a) publically shaming them, and (b) making no attempt to EDUCATE them? (And by the way, I know this girl and her family…and they consider non-Catholics and non-Latin-Mass-attendees to be beneath comtempt). This is NOT the same situation as the girl catching out her snot-nosed 15yr old Catholic cousin buying them for a quick roll-in-the-hay with his girlfriend!

A child doesn’t understand electrical wiring, nor the high conductivity of a fork, but if they tried to stick it in an electrical outlet, you can guarantee every adult is going to rush to the rescue and do whatever they can to stop the child from killing themself by accident - regardless of how the child feels about it.

Is sin any less deadly?

 

[mike182d]

JeffAustralia:

She condemned and judged the (female) customer by closing her heart and deciding she was too unimportant to (a) treat with any level of courtesy and respect, and (b) not worth educating.

That’s a horribly inaccurate definition of judgement and, unless you can claim to know the cashier’s heart and what she was trying to do, your committing the very same judgement of her. How very judgemental of you.