What does God make of feminism?

[Sair]

it is a sin to just stand by and not do anything when millions of babies are being murdered. I agree with Tantum ergo that there is no just reason to kill an innocent baby. You say that we don’t know others feelings or reasons. It doesn’t matter. It is still an intrinsically evil act that takes away the babies human right to live.

Applying moral absolutes to an imperfect world is problematic at best. There is no doubt that there are times when essentially good people are driven to evil actions by the press of circumstances. The phrase “the lesser of two evils” means precisely that - there is no good option, but one road must be taken. People’s choices must be seen in a compassionate light, even when we feel that their actions are reprehensible. How can we know what their options are? And whose life is it preferable to destroy?

To expand the point about moral absolutes - most people would agree that murder is intrinsically evil, yet apparently we are willing to permit it when the murderer is wearing army fatigues and doing the bidding of his government. To further illustrate: Would you be prepared to sanction the murder of adults in order to prevent abortions? Some antiabortionist activists have gone this far. Is that not substituting one evil for another?

 

[fix]

. …But nor do I presume to be in a position to judge others for the choices they make.

Not judge others conscience, but certainly judge their actions. Would you think it wise to say we ought not judge whether genocide is wrong?

 

[fix]

Originally Posted by Sair:

“Where is the virtue in choosing what is right when one is offered no choice?”

Thank you.

marietta

Where is the virtue in choosing evil?

 

[bullfrog543]

you might not find vurtue in evil however profane i find satan did a chore for god as i forgave him simple chores for god could be a vurtue couldnt it

ref - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=254278

 

[Tantum_ergo]

“Where is the virtue in choosing what is right when one is offered no choice?”

Virtue is its own reward, as has been said.

There is always a choice between good or evil. Murder is illegal but many people choose to do murder anyway. . . the ‘illegality’ of murder does not take away the ‘opportunity of choice’.

When abortion was illegal, people still had the choice to do it anyway and some did.

So your statement is incorrect in two ways: There is always a choice between good and evil. Always.

Second: Since there is a choice, there is always the chance to choose the virtuous right.

You have set up a strawman in attempting to claim that there is ‘no choice’ and thus since one is not ‘free’, choosing the ‘right’ is therefore not virtuous.

Incorrect.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I am still mystified as to how my original posts were assumed to be about my opinion regarding abortion. I had not so much as mentioned it, and was immediately jumped upon and accused of being pro-murder.

I wonder, are people genuinely scared that if women are allowed the same rights of choice and self-determination as men, the end result will be blanket abortions across the Western world? Or is the automatic equation of feminism with abortion merely the last line of defence for the embattled patriarchy?

Feminism, at its core, is about allowing women to be fully human - to allow them rights that men have taken for granted for most of Western history. It is unfortunate that feminism has become so closely associated with abortion activism that some people can’t separate the philosophy from the practices of certain individuals.

You don’t have to state your position. The mere fact that you question to any degree whatsoever the ultra orthodoxy expressed by some here is enough to paint you as “other”. Welcome to CAF. There are moderate voices here too, so don’t run away please. But pretty much, if you question what is considered as dogma in any respect whatsoever you are not a proper Catholic. Course, it’s always someone’s opinion of what is dogma, not necessarily what is in some cases. Feminism is deeply associated with only one topic here and that topic is abortion. If they could tie it to homosexuality that would be second. The two big agenda items here.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Virtue is its own reward, as has been said.

There is always a choice between good or evil. Murder is illegal but many people choose to do murder anyway. . . the ‘illegality’ of murder does not take away the ‘opportunity of choice’.

When abortion was illegal, people still had the choice to do it anyway and some did.

So your statement is incorrect in two ways: There is always a choice between good and evil. Always.

Second: Since there is a choice, there is always the chance to choose the virtuous right.

You have set up a strawman in attempting to claim that there is ‘no choice’ and thus since one is not ‘free’, choosing the ‘right’ is therefore not virtuous.

Incorrect.

You cannot substantiate the statement that one always has the choice between good and evil. That is simply untrue on its face. Common sense and logic make that most clear.

 

[wildleafblower]

SpiritMeadow, you state [msg.13], “And as to ABC [Artifical Birth Control], well, you are going to have a hard row to hoe convincing even men that this is a bad thing if you arent’ Catholic. 85% of catholics use it, and 98% of the pop. at large believes it is a good thing.” If you don’t have a source for that claim then you need to retract it. I think you have made a bogus claim. It would be impossible to determine through a survey how many people within the entire Catholic population, let alone all the people of the United States use ABC. The Central Intelligence Agency(CIA)website(1) states that within the United States the population is 303,824,646 (July 2008 est.) and 23.9% of the population are Roman Catholic. I honestly don’t think it would be possible to interview everyone let alone those who are Roman Catholic, which include babies and young children!

1. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

SpiritMeadow, I’m still patiently waiting for a reply from you pertaining to my message 200. Logically speaking with sound common sense, it would be fair for me to conclude if I don’t get from you a source or retraction then it was a bogus claim when you stated in your message 13, “And as to ABC [Artifical Birth Control], well, you are going to have a hard row to hoe convincing even men that this is a bad thing if you arent’ Catholic. 85% of catholics use it, and 98% of the pop. at large believes it is a good thing.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You cannot substantiate the statement that one always has the choice between good and evil. That is simply untrue on its face. Common sense and logic make that most clear.

Really? Now I consider that I have the average person’s ‘common sense’ and a rudimentary grasp of logic.

Please demonstrate to me by example any action, situation or thought where one has absolutely no choice.

 

[onmyknees]

Applying moral absolutes to an imperfect world is problematic at best. There is no doubt that there are times when essentially good people are driven to evil actions by the press of circumstances. The phrase “the lesser of two evils” means precisely that - there is no good option, but one road must be taken. People’s choices must be seen in a compassionate light, even when we feel that their actions are reprehensible. How can we know what their options are? And whose life is it preferable to destroy?

To expand the point about moral absolutes - most people would agree that murder is intrinsically evil, yet apparently we are willing to permit it when the murderer is wearing army fatigues and doing the bidding of his government. To further illustrate: Would you be prepared to sanction the murder of adults in order to prevent abortions? Some antiabortionist activists have gone this far. Is that not substituting one evil for another?

Sair, And whose life is it preferable to destroy? The Church teaches that it is never an option to kill any human life accept for in self defense and just wars(defending the country). If you mean destroy the women’s life by having the baby, I don’t agree that her life would be destroyed. She may have to suffer more and her life won’t be as she had planned. But God sometimes gives us the grace of suffering to bring us grow closer to Him. It is never right to substitute on evil for another. I go to the abortion clinics sometimes and pray the rosary. I do not judge the person for choosing abortion but like I said we still must hate the sin and that means doing something about it. We can’t just say that it’s their choice.

 

[onmyknees]

You don’t have to state your position. The mere fact that you question to any degree whatsoever the ultra orthodoxy expressed by some here is enough to paint you as “other”. Welcome to CAF. There are moderate voices here too, so don’t run away please. But pretty much, if you question what is considered as dogma in any respect whatsoever you are not a proper Catholic. Course, it’s always someone’s opinion of what is dogma, not necessarily what is in some cases. Feminism is deeply associated with only one topic here and that topic is abortion. If they could tie it to homosexuality that would be second. The two big agenda items here.

SpiritMeadow
I was wondering if you have read the 1990’s catechism of the Catholic Church. It is really beautiful, full of scripture, quotes from the saints too. Dogmas and doctrines are also in there. Jesus said to the apostles, the first bishops and the first pope, “What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven”. What do you mean by proper Catholic? If you don’t believe and follow the teachings of the Church than you are not practicing Catholicism. You are picking and choosing what you want to believe or not. It is like YOU are making up your own church. I am not giving you my opinion of what is dogma. It is the teaching of the Church started by Jesus Christ. Moderate voices do not teach the whole Truth. The Truth is what will set you free.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Really? Now I consider that I have the average person’s ‘common sense’ and a rudimentary grasp of logic.

Please demonstrate to me by example any action, situation or thought where one has absolutely no choice.

apparently you are unaware of forced feeding,and various forms of imprisonment. Plenty of things can give a person no choice. You can’t truly be serious about this. We are faced with No options situations almost every day. Please.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow
I was wondering if you have read the 1990’s catechism of the Catholic Church. It is really beautiful, full of scripture, quotes from the saints too. Dogmas and doctrines are also in there. Jesus said to the apostles, the first bishops and the first pope, “What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven”. What do you mean by proper Catholic? If you don’t believe and follow the teachings of the Church than you are not practicing Catholicism. You are picking and choosing what you want to believe or not. It is like YOU are making up your own church. I am not giving you my opinion of what is dogma. It is the teaching of the Church started by Jesus Christ. Moderate voices do not teach the whole Truth. The Truth is what will set you free.

I dare say I got one of the first copies that arrived at my parish for distribution and sale when it first came out. I have read it cover to cover twice I believe. It contains an amazing amount of information and is an excellent source.

There are some here on this forum who declare as church teaching things that i can find no authority for at all, and actually authority to the contrary. I am forced to conclude that some at least of what is claimed her as Church teaching is in fact fairly subjective interpretation. To those persons, those of us who disagree claim we are not proper Catholics. That is a kind way of putting it, they usually call us much worse and demand we leave “their” church.

And of course, everyone says they are only relating Church teaching. Yet when pushed, they come up with some strange sources and some strange interpretations of actual Scripture and authority.

Radical voices may not speak the entire true, but ultra orthodox voices do not as well. Moderates probably come closest to getting it right IMO.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Still choices.

Remember, we are considering here the choice between good and evil. . .that was part of the original statement.

You speak of two things: Forced feeding and imprisonment, in which you state the person ‘has no choice.’

Now: Forced feeding. If a person has an eating disorder, and will die without nutrition, his or her power of attorney or other guardian or family member can implement under hospital policies that the person be fed. Would a person deliberately starving himself to death be considered to be doing an evil act? Yes, indeed. The forced feeding becomes then a good act. The choice of the person then becomes this: To accept the nutrition, which will maintain health, and to go on to battle the disease of anorexia; or to fight the nutrition by, after being ‘force fed’, still continuing on with anorexic behavior and refusing to make the ‘good changes’ that would render the necessity of forced feeding moot.

Still choices.

Regarding imprisonment: Situations: Person has done an evil and is imprisoned–no choice of being ‘imprisoned or not.’ If the person has done a wrong, then imprisonment is a logical consequence, and the person has two choices: To accept the punishment and change his life so that if he is released, he will not need punishment again, or NOT to change his life and to fulminate and complain. Choices. Still choices.

If unjustly imprisoned, he has the choice to fulminate, to fight, to grow bitter. . .or to fight for justice, to accept that ‘this is what is now’, to demonstrate good behavior even in the face of injustice.

Every single situation: Choice.

Accept or reject. Learn, or ignore.

 

[Sair]

Still choices.

Regarding imprisonment: Situations: Person has done an evil and is imprisoned–no choice of being ‘imprisoned or not.’ If the person has done a wrong, then imprisonment is a logical consequence, and the person has two choices: To accept the punishment and change his life so that if he is released, he will not need punishment again, or NOT to change his life and to fulminate and complain. Choices. Still choices.

If unjustly imprisoned, he has the choice to fulminate, to fight, to grow bitter. . .or to fight for justice, to accept that ‘this is what is now’, to demonstrate good behavior even in the face of injustice.

Every single situation: Choice.

Sometimes demonstrating good behaviour in the face of injustice means accepting torture.

I’m pretty sure that would not be considered a ‘good’ choice.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Sometimes demonstrating good behaviour in the face of injustice means accepting torture.

I’m pretty sure that would not be considered a ‘good’ choice.

It is not worth the effort. We are talking about the real world and not logic games. Any rational person knows that we are all forced to accept non negociable situations every day. Choice is not meaningful. Of course anyone may claim choice and make up silly “choices” that are irrational. Some folks need to win arguments and aren’t truly interested in discussion. Thanks for trying, but it falls on deaf ears.

 

[Sair]

Some folks need to win arguments and aren’t truly interested in discussion. Thanks for trying, but it falls on deaf ears.

I remember a friend of mine from years back who was just like that - only her method of ‘winning’ arguments was to just shout down the opposition so that an alternative opinion didn’t even have the chance of an airing. One would think I might have learned by now that arguing with a black-and-white worldview is well nigh impossible - I suspect it is only through vanity that I persist. I really should fix that…

 

[goodknight439]

This thread is now officially OFF TOPIC! :twocents: :dts:

 

[Sair]

This thread is now officially OFF TOPIC! :twocents: :dts:

Um…it’s possible to argue, at this point, that since the thread originally was about feminism, and some of us have been arguing that feminism is about choice - the notion that women are in fact human beings and should be recognised as such to the same extent as men - that arguing the concept of choice is not necessarily off topic.

Sorry - that would be my vanity speaking again. :banghead:

 

[goodknight439]

Um…it’s possible to argue, at this point, that since the thread originally was about feminism, and some of us have been arguing that feminism is about choice - the notion that women are in fact human beings and should be recognised as such to the same extent as men - that arguing the concept of choice is not necessarily off topic.

Sorry - that would be my vanity speaking again. :banghead:

Feminism is a about choice? No one should be arguing that women are/should be recognized as human beings or equal to men in Gods eyes as his creations. My wife is my partner and my equal. That was not my choice nor her choice it was OUR choice to be joined together with God in the ministry of our marriage. If you mean feminism is about a choice to follow God that one makes herself- sure I’ll buy that. If you are saying that feminism is about choices as to which Church rules/laws one should follow and which laws/rules one can ignore to evade responsibility for one’s actions; then that is not feminism, that is cafeteria Catholicism/Christianity. If the latter is the case, I would agree it is your vanity speaking rather than you as a woman speaking.