V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
(George Orwell: 1984)
- Status
(George Orwell: 1984)
L
Lucretius
Guest
I’m not sure the analogy: are you saying God doesn’t treat everyone equally? Because I agree, and this is a good thing. Thank God God isn’t an egalitarianAll animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Christi pax.
F
Fiasco
Guest
Actually, it was “Animal Farm”.All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Now consign me to your “illustrious” group.
i won’t lose anything!
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
Yes. Thank you for correcting me. It was pretty late and I did not pay attention.Actually, it was “Animal Farm”.
E
Ender
Guest
I think your perception of justice and mercy is too constrained, given that you see them in opposition to one another. That may be your perception, but it is not how the church understands them.*Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it *(JPII)
Take your own criteria: the judge is to consider not just the act but all of the circumstances surrounding the act. Now if he imposed a punishment commensurate with the act (regardless of the circumstances), why would that not be a just punishment? For a punishment to be just it must be *“commensurate with the gravity of the crime”. *Do the circumstances that led to the act change the nature of the act? No, not really, but your argument is that considering the circumstances and imposing a sentence other than what the crime itself merits (which very well could be a merciful one) is a judge’s obligation.
Do you believe that mercy is contrary to justice because it is offered without justification? If you see the choice as either justice or mercy, a zero sum option of one or the other, then you fail to understand how the church understands them.
*We are guided by the paradoxical Catholic teaching on crime and punishment: We will not tolerate the crime and violence that threatens the lives and dignity of our sisters and brothers, and we will not give up on those who have lost their way. We seek both justice and mercy.
*Ender
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
That is the problem of the church. The difference between manslaughter, self-defense and murder is determined by the circumstances. Without considering the circumstances all you have is a “homicide”.
Of course they do. Without considering ALL the circumstances (mitigating and/or aggravating) the verdict will be arbitrary. The verdict can be too lenient, too harsh or exactly right.
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
I don’t believe I said anything about having a different opinion–did you really read what I said because it doesn’t appear that you did. You’re not responding to what I said. One of the things I said was “a reasoned decision that something is true–is not blind obedience.” That’s about coming to the conclusion that something is true, and if we’ve come to believe something is true – why would we have a different opinion? Many have come to the conclusion that Christ rose from the dead and that the Church is what it says it is. If that is true–and many believe that it is–then if we don’t fully understand a Church teaching–the fault lies not with the Church and it’s teaching, but with our ability to fully understand.Sure, you are allowed to have a different opinion. But you are required, mandated, commanded to follow what the church says - even if you disagree with it. Even if you investigated and researched the question in detail. That is called blind obedience. If you have a more precise phrase, I am interested to know.
Physics was very difficult for me in college–it’s just not something I truly understand–granted I wasn’t that interested in trying to understand–so part of that failure was a lack of effort on my part, but still there were many in the class who made great effort and studied very hard and still it just didn’t make any sense to them–they couldn’t get it no matter how hard they tried. Those students would not have been justified in throwing up their hands and claiming physics had it all wrong–that physics just was not true. The problem lies not with physics, but with the student.
You response to me is basically saying that the Church says 2 + 2 = 5, that I have studied and understand that 2 + 2 = 4 and yet I blindly follow the Church and profess that 2 + 2 = 5. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I am saying is that the Church, because of what it is, teaches 2 + 2 = 4 and I’d accept it even if I didn’t fully understand it. I’d know that the fault was with me, just like the students know that physics is true even if they can’t understand it or visualize it. That is not blind obedience–that’s obedience with eye’s fully open. You’re implying that we’re following something we know to be false and that is simply not true–we’re following what we know to be true.
The peace of Christ,
Mark
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
Why don’t you ask all those Catholics, who disagree with the official line that contraception is wrong, that women should not be ordained, etc… ? They are commanded to accept these teachings, even if they disagree, even if that disagreement comes from thoroughly investigating the question at hand.
When you have problems with something the physics teacher says, you can research the problem independently and find out if the teacher was right or wrong. There is no way to verify many of the teachings of the church, so you ether accept or deny the teachings. You are unable to verify them.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Indeed, there are cases where someone is ousted from the Catholic Church for heresy – Nestorius in the fifth century for instance. But most Catholics would agree that it would be wrong to force anyone to “abandon their heresy” e.g. with the threat of burning at the stake.Sure, you are allowed to have a different opinion. But you are required, mandated, commanded to follow what the church says - even if you disagree with it. Even if you investigated and researched the question in detail. That is called blind obedience. If you have a more precise phrase, I am interested to know.
P
Peter_J
Guest
You seem to be coming around … except I fear you’re going from one extreme to another. The idea is not to choose faith over reason; we need faith and reason (fides et ratio).
E
Ender
Guest
Are you saying you disapprove of mercy, and that you would never be merciful to someone because it is unjust?
Ender
N
neophyte
Guest
E
Ender
Guest
You keep trying to create a situation that in fact does not exist. The church teaches X. A number of Catholics disagree with that teaching. So? Should the church teach not-X because of that? In what way are those Catholics “commanded” to accept that teaching? They are told what is true; whether they can accept it or not is up to them.
We believe many things we cannot prove - the existence (or non-existence) of God for example. The fact that something cannot be proved doesn’t keep us from believing certain things are true. You believe morality exists (if only subjectively) yet you cannot prove it. Even physicists believe things that they cannot prove.
Ender
N
neophyte
Guest
No, they are called to remember that they may themselves be among the ignorant and unstable spoken of by St. Peter, and to thus agree with the teachings even if they don’t understand the reasoning. A faithful Catholic will do so, and to not do so is unreasonable.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
It all depends what you mean by the word “faith”. It is one of the most abused words. In Hebrews 11:1 it says: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” That is the description of “blind” faith, and it is categorically contradictory to reason.
One can use faith in the sense: “to accept something for which we have LESS than Cartesian evidence”. That might not be antithetical to reason, depending on the amount of evidence. Which one did you have in mind?
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
Why do you think that they do not understand the reasoning? They might very well understand it, but simply do not agree with it.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
I only say that mercy and justice cannot be fulfilled at the same time in the same relation. No approval or disapproval was implied.
N
neophyte
Guest
And how is it that they know that the Church is wrong and they aren’t, rather than knowing that they might be among the ignorant and unstable? Merely because their incorrect opinion makes sense to them? - That’s the problem, isn’t it?
Christ’s Church is the authority in matters of faith and morals, not me, and it’s that way because Jesus said so. If I disagree with a teaching of the Church, then my job is to realize that I’m wrong. I’d be more qualified to argue with Heisenberg or Feynman on a matter of theoretical physics.
L
Lucretius
Guest
Hey Vera_Ljuba, sorry if we are overwhelming you with posts. You are handling it quite well 
Christi pax.
Christi pax.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
We are talking about opinions here.
Even if they accept that Jesus founded the church, it is comprised of fallible human beings. And there is no sign that the “holy spirit” would correct the members if and when they veer off the correct path. I hate to rub your nose into it, but the whole church hierarchy defended the pedophile members, and that practice only stopped when the denial became impossible. Or does the holy spirit work through the media? That would be an interesting question to explore.
So we are back to blind obedience.
After all the basic message of Genesis is not “love”, it is “obedience”.- Status