The only thing that scares me about becoming Catholic...

[Rau]

…In our modern day, our brave U.S. soldiers murder enemy combatants, sometimes from far away, and sometimes up close in hand-to-hand combat.

Were you aware that “killing” is not the same as “murder”? There can certainly be instances of killing that are moral, noting the word “killing” does not itself contain moral content. You would be aware of the killing that occurs in:

• capital punishment;
• self defence;
• defence of others;
• in a just war;

These are not murder if justly pursued, for the person killed is not innocent.

Soldiers, acting morally, may kill, but not murder. Soldiers can commit murder - for example intentionally killing innocent persons. I don’t believe US soldiers do this - but if one does, he faces both moral condemnation, and prosecution by his military authorities.

Murder is an intrinsic evil. Abortion is murder. Contraception, calumny, fornication, adultery…are all intrinsic evils. The meaning of that term has been explained to you many times. I believe your position is that there are no intrinsic evils.

I can hardly wait to hear your argument against the God of Israel.

The Church teaches on the “morality of human acts”. The morality derives from the relationship of humans to God.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Were you aware that “killing” is not the same as “murder”?

The examples cited were all clear cut cases of murder in the Bible. Moses murdered an Egyptian. He didn’t just kill the Egyptian, he murdered him in cold blood with his bare hands in broad daylight. He even went so far as to bury the dead body, hoping it would not be found.

Moses apparently had just cause, but it was still a murder. (Just ask the Egyptian’s family if it was murder or not.) It was such a heinous act that Moses actually left Egypt and ran away on foot for fear of being caught by the Egyptian authorities, never to return until after many, many years had passed.

You might choose to label it a “killing”, but then that would be semantic gamesmanship. The same is true for all of the other examples cited.

There can certainly be instances of killing that are moral, noting the word “killing” does not itself contain moral content.

One’s definition of “murder” versus “killing” depends on which side of the coin you happen to be. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Again, context matters.

Exceptions to murder – such as the ones you actually cite – do depend on context, because morality and law do not operate in a vacuum.

We can agree on the commandments, and still disagree on their application in real life.

I believe your position is that there are no intrinsic evils.

Yes, murder is “intrinsically evil”. No one would argue otherwise. But it is still justifiable under certain situations as I have already described.

My only position is that context matters. And that converts deserve compassion and welcome arms, not stumbling blocks placed before them.

 

[Rau]

Exceptions to murder – such as the ones you actually cite – do depend on context, because morality and law do not operate in a vacuum.

Read your catechism - it states explicitly that there is no exception to murder. The killings I outlined are not murder. There was no moral evil in their object. Murder - choosing to intentionally and directly take the life of an innocent is a moral evil, and there are no circumstances or good intentions that justify that.

Yes, murder is “intrinsically evil”. No one would argue otherwise. But it is still justifiable under certain situations as I have already described.

An intrinsic evil is justifiable? Not according to the Catechism. Please do 2 things:

• describe a justifiable murder that you could commit without sinning;
• define “intrinsically evil”

My only position is that context matters.

The Church teaches that Good Intentions and particular Circumstances can’t make an intrinsically evil act good.

 

[Moneyball]

An intrinsic evil is justifiable? Not according to the Catechism.

This is correct, the ends do NOT justify the means.

 

[Returner]

I’m trying to get back into being Catholic and I still struggle with the whole “No Contraception” and “No Sex before marriage” rules of the Catholic Church.

I am not getting married any time soon to my boyfriend, which I have been in a relationship with for 5 years already.
The whole “No Sex before marriage” would not work due to the natural flow of love between my boyfriend and I.

I don’t want a child either, so condoms work pretty well in that regard.

I try to be a good Catholic in every other area though.

 

[Moneyball]

I’m trying to get back into being Catholic and I still struggle with the whole “No Contraception” and “No Sex before marriage” rules of the Catholic Church.

I am not getting married any time soon to my boyfriend, which I have been in a relationship with for 5 years already.
The whole “No Sex before marriage” would not work due to the natural flow of love between my boyfriend and I.

I don’t want a child either, so condoms work pretty well in that regard.

I try to be a good Catholic in every other area though.

The biggest obstacle in my experience was properly understanding why the use of contraception is wrong. Growing up I always knew that masturbation and watching porn was against Church teaching, but since I didn’t know why or why it mattered I just kept doing it.

The good news is that the day I realised that watching porn was acting against God and against human dignity, I quit and never looked back.

It can be very uncomfortable to seriously challenge one’s own personal views on certain moral issues, but the best advice I can give you is to keep an open heart and give the Church an opportunity to change your mind (and heart).

 

[Rau]

…I am not getting married any time soon to my boyfriend, which I have been in a relationship with for 5 years already.
The whole “No Sex before marriage” would not work due to the natural flow of love between my boyfriend and I.

I don’t want a child either, so condoms work pretty well in that regard.

I try to be a good Catholic in every other area though.

5 years of the most personal and intimate relationship, and not ready to commit? What would it take? Do you prefer to keep your options open?

 

[Returner]

The biggest obstacle in my experience was properly understanding why the use of contraception is wrong. Growing up I always knew that masturbation and watching porn was against Church teaching, but since I didn’t know why or why it mattered I just kept doing it.

The good news is that the day I realised that watching porn was acting against God and against human dignity, I quit and never looked back.

It can be very uncomfortable to seriously challenge one’s own personal views on certain moral issues, but the best advice I can give you is to keep an open heart and give the Church an opportunity to change your mind (and heart).

I don’t watch porn or anything like that. I think porn is very unnatural due to the circumstances of two strangers being filmed having sex and not really being in love.

 

[Returner]

5 years of the most personal and intimate relationship, and not ready to commit? What would it take? Do you prefer to keep your options open?

We are very committed to each other, however we are intelligent enough to know that we are not financially stable yet to be married.
Marriage is just not feasible for us at the moment.

We are very much in love. Sometimes a committed couple doesn’t need to be married in order to be deeply in love.

 

[Rau]

We are very committed to each other, however we are intelligent enough to know that we are not financially stable yet to be married.
Marriage is just not feasible for us at the moment.

We are very much in love. Sometimes a committed couple doesn’t need to be married in order to be deeply in love.

I entirely understand the last sentence. Just not understanding why the commitment, and thus marriage, depends on financial stability. Two people can live more economically together than apart, and marriage does not add cost.

 

[Returner]

I entirely understand the last sentence. Just not understanding why the commitment, and thus marriage, depends on financial stability. Two people can live more economically together than apart, and marriage does not add cost.

It adds to cost when it comes to how the government taxes married couples vs “single” non- married couples.

My education is paid by the state, if we were married I would have to pay out of pocket…which would cost a lot and I wouldn’t be able to afford anything.

I don’t have a job, my boyfriend has a minimum wage job…barely getting by together.

 

[Rau]

It adds to cost when it comes to how the government taxes married couples vs “single” non- married couples.

My education is paid by the state, if we were married I would have to pay out of pocket…which would cost a lot and I wouldn’t be able to afford anything.

I don’t have a job, my boyfriend has a minimum wage job…barely getting by together.

So by “unstable”, what you meant was that you would suffer financially to marry. Does that situation come to an end upon completion of your education?

I don’t live in the USA and was not aware that the government penalised people - through the tax/social security system - for being married. That a single minimum wage job (one spouse) eliminates entirely a State contribution to education expenses for the other spouse seems extraordinary.

 

[Returner]

Your government tax policies are entirely “foreign” to me.

I’m trying to say that being married when in poverty isn’t a good idea due to gov’t policies when it comes to getting gov’t aid.

USA is strange like that.

I’d rather be unmarried with my boyfriend and without any children.

The women over here that get the most help from the government are:

• Single with children
• Illegal immigrants with children
• Single Pregnant women

 

[Rau]

I’m trying to say that being married when in poverty isn’t a good idea due to gov’t policies when it comes to getting gov’t aid.

I understand. Such policies strike me as extraordinary and needing to be restructured.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Read your catechism - it states explicitly that there is no exception to murder. The killings I outlined are not murder. There was no moral evil in their object. Murder - choosing to intentionally and directly take the life of an innocent is a moral evil, and there are no circumstances or good intentions that justify that.

The intentional taking of another person’s life - whether you want to call it “killing” or “murder” - is wholly justified under certain circumstances, such as in the act of self-defense. This is also quite clearly acknowledged in the Catechism, as well as in numerous instances in the Bible.

There are also numerous instances where God exterminated whole groups of people, including young children, as in the case of the killing of the firstborn of Egypt. I have already cited several references to the Bible where this is the case. You might argue that God murdered innocent children, but there is also a moral explanation that these children would have grown into a culture of violence and oppression against the Jewish slaves, which God wanted to end.

Again, we can all agree on the commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Kill” and “Thou Shalt Not Murder”. But, we can also agree that this commandment may be violated under certain unique situations.

An intrinsic evil is justifiable?

See above.

The Church teaches that Good Intentions and particular Circumstances can’t make an intrinsically evil act good.

See above. The Church allows individuals to act in their own self-defense, even if that means the destruction of human life. Yes, the destruction of human life is “intrinsically evil”, but permissible under certain circumstances, such as in the context of self-defense - as one example.

So, while we may agree that the destruction of human life is “intrinsically evil”, and may even label “murder” or “killing” as such, these acts may still be moral acts under certain exceptions - such as in the case of self-defense as described above.

 

[Rau]

…The Church allows individuals to act in their own self-defense, even if that means the destruction of human life. Yes, the destruction of human life is “intrinsically evil”, but permissible under certain circumstances, such as in the context of self-defense - as one example.

So, while we may agree that the destruction of human life is “intrinsically evil”, and may even label “murder” or “killing” as such, these acts may still be moral acts under certain exceptions - such as in the case of self-defense as described above.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The destruction of human life is not intrinsically evil, but murder is. Please describe a murder you could commit without sinning. Please define intrinsically evil. But do some study first.

 

[StGerardMajella]

You have no idea what you are talking about. The destruction of human life is not intrinsically evil, but murder is. Please describe a murder you could commit without sinning. Please define intrinsically evil. But do some study first.

Unfortunately, personal insults do not make for a sound refutation. It only shows lack of character unbecoming of a Catholic, and makes your arguments that much weaker. I have already provided numerous examples directly from Holy Writ and the Catechism which you have chosen to ignore, and which I need not repeat. And since the debate has devolved into personal insults, this is where our discussion will end.

Mature individuals can agree to disagree on moral and theological matters. You will not convince me of your arguments, but hopefully I have given you pause for consideration even though you may harbor disagreements about mine.

With all due respect, you really need to take a step back and reconsider how you are responding to potential converts. You really need to stop. Other converts on this thread have already pointed to the discomfort of your approach.

Please take some time to read their responses carefully, and consider how you might better convey your message without the legalisms.

We should be trying to win converts with compassion, caring, and understanding, and not trying to pontificate our own personal theological interpretations on others with harsh, condescending tones. We should not be driving away potential converts from the faith. We should welcome potential converts to the Church with wide open arms.

Read what God had to say about converts in Leviticus 19, verses 33-34, in the Hebrew Bible. It is highly instructive.

The plight of the potential convert is very difficult. They have many obstacles, the least of which should be adhering to tremendously obscure legalisms that few Catholics agree or even follow. They face family pressure, lifestyle changes, and more — all of which can be very difficult for the potential convert.

Pope Francis calls this year the Jubilee Year of Mercy. This would be a good time to heed that directive when it comes to potential converts. End.

 

[Rau]

Unfortunately…

What you have written on this thread has been demonstrated to be diametrically opposed to authentic Catholic teaching. Some would call it heresy.

Mature individuals can agree to disagree on moral and theological matters.

What you reject is not a matter that mature individuals, with any theological knowledge at all, could disagree on.

…really need to take a step back and reconsider how you are responding to potential converts.

My responses are directed to you - for it is you who express utter falsehoods and call them Catholic teaching. They are not.

We should welcome potential converts to the Church with wide open arms.

Which cannot be done by means of the falsehoods you pass off as Catholic teaching.

The plight of the potential convert is very difficult. They have many obstacles, the least of which should be adhering to tremendously obscure legalisms that few Catholics agree or even follow.

The existence of intrinsic evil is not obscure. It is among the most fundamental and deeply held convictions in Catholic Moral Theology. Murder, abortion, fornication, adultery, calumny etc - they are always and everywhere wrong to choose. No intention or circumstance can make them permissible.

You have proclaimed on this thread that there can be exceptions to intrinsic evils. Sometimes - you have argued - given the right circumstances, they are no longer evil. Pope St John Paul II teaches directly the reverse:

“67…the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.”

79. One must therefore reject the thesis, characteristic of teleological and proportionalist theories, which holds that it is impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species – its “object” – the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behaviour or specific acts, apart from a consideration of the intention for which the choice is made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

And here, the Pope expresses this teaching explicitly as it applies to a *particular *intrinsically evil act, viz. abortion:

*"62…Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, **always **constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. 73

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church." *
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

 

[Moneyball]

We should be trying to win converts with compassion, caring, and understanding, and not trying to pontificate our own personal theological interpretations on others with harsh, condescending tones.

Your point is well taken StGerardMajella, we sometimes forget that the goal is to win a soul, not an argument. It is also important to note that when we counsil those who are seeking the truth, that we don’t compromise it.

The Church is very clear that an intrinsic evil is always wrong and should never be permitted. To say that we can justify an intrinsically evil act would be to try to justify the unjustifiable… it’s a logical contradiction.

I think the confusion stems from the use of the words killing and murder… they are NOT synonymous.

 

[kptrs]

Exactly how contraception can prevent a death if none of the contraceptive methods are 100% effective? There are risks of getting pregnant with contraceptives.

BINGO

What all the contraception advocates are failing to mention is that birth control is not 100% effective. There are plenty of people who have gotten pregnant while on the Pill, using condoms, spermicide, IUD’s, you name it. I know of at least one person who got pregnant after a vasectomy. Nothing is infallible, except abstinence.

Sex makes babies. That’s not Church teaching - it’s a fact of life. If you are truly in a life-or-death situation where you can’t have a baby, then you shouldn’t engage in the act that leads to a baby because, like it or not, there’s always a chance it will happen, even with contraception.

Religion aside, those are the facts. They’re hard to accept, but they’re true.