B
bingbang
Guest
Show me in the CCC where it says you must not attend an invalid marriage.
- Status
S
StTommyMore
Guest
I need to go to Mass now. I will get back to you on that
B
bingbang
Guest
Its alright…I don’t want you to go on a wild goose chase.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=167154
“the Church does not explicitly forbid Catholics from attending invalid marriages”
R
rwillenborg
Guest
I think if you polled Catholics and non-Catholics, theists and atheists, alike you would find 100% agreement on the statement ‘Should you love your neighbor?’ That’s not the hard question. The hard question, I think, is how does one BEST love their neighbor? So, I don’t want this to turn into a thread about abortion (really, really, I don’t) but unfortunately this is the best example that comes to mind for me right now.
Consider the pro-choice viewpoint. The BEST way to show a woman in a crisis pregnancy love is to allow her to terminate her crisis pregnancy at any time, therefore, they hope, ending her crisis. The pro-life viewpoint is that the BEST way to show a woman in a crisis pregnancy love, and to show love to the unborn, is to help her through the pregnacy. BOTH sides really and truly and absolutely believe they are each doing what is the most loving, and that the other side is not. And, I truly believe both sides are indeed working from love. Both camps really and truly believe they are being more loving. So, my point is, it is not the IDEA that one should love their neighbor that ever gets disagreement. It’s how that plays out in real life (and I meant it, I don’t want to derail your very good question. I only bring this up to make the point that two people can love their neighbor in completely different and opposing ways). So, again, the question is not SHOULD others be treated with love and respect, the question is HOW does one treat someone with love and respect.
And take for example, those who you say look down on others for not going to Church. I don’t know these people, I don’t know their hearts, and I would dare say you don’t either. But, why are you certain that the reason they are concerned about someone else’s Mass attendance is because they’re prideful? Could it be something else is driving them to encourage others to go to Mass, even to the point of being pushy? If someone follows the Catholic faith, and believes it with all of their heart, then they believe that the Mass, specifically, the Eucharist at the Mass, is the closest they can get to touching heaven this side of death. Why WOULDN’T someone who believes that the Mass is the source and summit of their lives push others to go to Mass, too? I can’t say their approach is any good, i can’t say it’s bad either, again, I don’t know the people of whom you speak, but have you ever asked them directly how they feel about people not attending Mass? I mean, directly asking them the question? What was the answer?
And indeed, there are people with various disorders which give them some skewed lenses through which to see the world. The problem is, of course, that NO ONE has ever thought THEY were the disordered ones. Have you ever listened to those interviews with the likes of Ted Bundy and other serial killers? Those people sleep JUST FINE at night. They don’t think they’ve done anything wrong. Not ever. So, how would you know if you are of the disordered sort or not?
In what way are the prayerful, Mass-attending Catholics disregarding moral teachings? Please understand, I’m not disagreeing with your statement, again, I don’t know these people and I have no reason to doubt what you are saying is true, but I am just wondering which moral teachings of Jesus these people are disregarding?
If I’m remembering correctly (which I might not be) the first word (if not THE first it was ONE OF the first) Jesus ever spoke in the gospels was ‘repent’, so, certainly, I would expect that those who are following the teachings of Jesus to, at some point, somewhere, and maybe quite often, call on others to repent.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
This is going to have to continue next week. I am in the process of moving, and I cannot remember which box my Catechism is in at any rate, I do not want to tear everything apart looking for it, and than have to repack. What I will tell you is that it is a general principle that consenting to a sin is participation in that sin. If a marriage is outwardly invalid (such as the case of homosexual marriage or divorce and remarriage) you can cause scandal by approving of said union. I do not believe that there is a paragraph in the Catechism that directly says that you cannot attend a celebration of an invalid marriage. After all, the Catechism is not a comprehensive list of sins. The Catechism provides principles which can be applied to various situations, which is what I will find and relate to you.
R
rwillenborg
Guest
I had several people not attend my wedding because they did not approve of it. It’s really not a big deal. Certainly a friend would understand that sort of a thing? It wasn’t even because of their religion - it was WAY less important reasons that that! LOL! If someone didn’t feel it was appropriate for them to be at your wedding, you’d really be upset about it?
But then again, maybe this actually goes back to your original point of how best to love one’s neighbor. If someone REALLY loved me, and they did NOT approve of my wedding, I HOPE they would have the backbone to decline my invitation. The last thing I need in this world is someone pretending to be happy for me when really they’re not. Whereas, with you, you feel it would best show love and respect to you to come to the wedding, despite and reservations the guest might have. I actually think this shows very well how difficult it is to best show respect and love to one’s neighbor.
M
mark_a
Guest
My simple answer: The former.
My simple answer: The latter.
As I’m sure others have pointed out, the two are not completely separable.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Hmm.
So a practicing gay couple or a ‘nasty Catholic family’ are going to live next door to me for what, 60 years or so?
And the practicing gay couple is always going to live in a sweet, loving way?
And the 'nasty Catholic family" is always going to treat its members in a mean horrid way?
I don’t know any person (let alone any couple or family) who has acted the ‘very same way’ all that person’s life long.
OTOH I know plenty of people who went through ‘phases’. You know, for a couple of years they’re really into feng shui and ‘mindfulness’ and going green and ‘we’re all one’. . .then they’re into some kind of social activism and because it’s for the ‘right cause’ it doesn’t matter that they say or do mean things because, hey, ya gotta break eggs to have an omelet, ya know? And then because no cause is ever ‘noble’ enough, it’s time for the phase of the cynic, the hedonist, the 'you people DESERVE to have rotten government etc., I’m out for #1". . .
Etc. Etc.
So if you lived next door to St. Greeny in the first phase above, you’d probably think he was a pretty nice caring guy.
If you had moved next door when he became Social Superhero, if you happened the share the same views you’d probably think he was great. If not, he might have turned into a pretty nasty neighbor. But hey, if you were agin him, you deserved any misery you got!
Finally, if you’d moved next door when he was “I gotta be me” grab and go, you might think he was a selfish monster.
Now. . .IF the gentleman had no ‘core’ (beliefs) and was just adjusting to societal and ‘personal’ cues, you might ‘perceive’ him as being either nasty or nice (depending on YOUR societal./ personal cues). . .but he would just be ‘reflecting’ his own personal morality. . .as reflected by society and either accepted or rejected to some degree by him.
IF the gentleman had a core religious belief throughout, then any of those phases would have been him either ‘accepting’ or rejecting his beliefs. This would be something that would be ‘beyond’ the societal ‘personal morality’ and in fact might show a very staunch adherence to those beliefs if society’s own bent was quite contradictory–indicating heroic virtue for adherence, and indicating anything from dissent to apostacy if rejecting said religious beliefs.
There is a big difference between living next to somebody who (right now in the U.S. in 2010) is reflecting a kind of ‘personal morality’ that is accepted by society and touted as even being more ‘moral’ that the ‘traditional religious moral’. . .but which can change depending not on absolute morality but on the relative beliefs of either the collective society or the individual to exactly the opposite behavior, yet still be called ‘good’. . .
And living next to somebody who might (for a time) be rejecting what he knows to be truth and acting contrary, but who has the knowledge of real and absolute truth so that he is capable of acting in a way which is going to ALWAYS be truthful, real, absolute and just, and knowing that this is truth.
I would definitely opt for the people who have the religious background. They know the truth even if they are ‘currently’ rejecting it. The other people apparently (according to the OP) have no IDEA of the truth and are simply going along with whatever some person or persons ‘judge’ good–at any given point–which can change to its opposite with no warning!
It would be silly to take the short term view that any person acting in behavior X is ALWAYS going to act that way as though giving him a label, be it atheist, religious, whatever, is what ‘informs’ the behavior and nothing else. . .
So a practicing gay couple or a ‘nasty Catholic family’ are going to live next door to me for what, 60 years or so?
And the practicing gay couple is always going to live in a sweet, loving way?
And the 'nasty Catholic family" is always going to treat its members in a mean horrid way?
I don’t know any person (let alone any couple or family) who has acted the ‘very same way’ all that person’s life long.
OTOH I know plenty of people who went through ‘phases’. You know, for a couple of years they’re really into feng shui and ‘mindfulness’ and going green and ‘we’re all one’. . .then they’re into some kind of social activism and because it’s for the ‘right cause’ it doesn’t matter that they say or do mean things because, hey, ya gotta break eggs to have an omelet, ya know? And then because no cause is ever ‘noble’ enough, it’s time for the phase of the cynic, the hedonist, the 'you people DESERVE to have rotten government etc., I’m out for #1". . .
Etc. Etc.
So if you lived next door to St. Greeny in the first phase above, you’d probably think he was a pretty nice caring guy.
If you had moved next door when he became Social Superhero, if you happened the share the same views you’d probably think he was great. If not, he might have turned into a pretty nasty neighbor. But hey, if you were agin him, you deserved any misery you got!
Finally, if you’d moved next door when he was “I gotta be me” grab and go, you might think he was a selfish monster.
Now. . .IF the gentleman had no ‘core’ (beliefs) and was just adjusting to societal and ‘personal’ cues, you might ‘perceive’ him as being either nasty or nice (depending on YOUR societal./ personal cues). . .but he would just be ‘reflecting’ his own personal morality. . .as reflected by society and either accepted or rejected to some degree by him.
IF the gentleman had a core religious belief throughout, then any of those phases would have been him either ‘accepting’ or rejecting his beliefs. This would be something that would be ‘beyond’ the societal ‘personal morality’ and in fact might show a very staunch adherence to those beliefs if society’s own bent was quite contradictory–indicating heroic virtue for adherence, and indicating anything from dissent to apostacy if rejecting said religious beliefs.
There is a big difference between living next to somebody who (right now in the U.S. in 2010) is reflecting a kind of ‘personal morality’ that is accepted by society and touted as even being more ‘moral’ that the ‘traditional religious moral’. . .but which can change depending not on absolute morality but on the relative beliefs of either the collective society or the individual to exactly the opposite behavior, yet still be called ‘good’. . .
And living next to somebody who might (for a time) be rejecting what he knows to be truth and acting contrary, but who has the knowledge of real and absolute truth so that he is capable of acting in a way which is going to ALWAYS be truthful, real, absolute and just, and knowing that this is truth.
I would definitely opt for the people who have the religious background. They know the truth even if they are ‘currently’ rejecting it. The other people apparently (according to the OP) have no IDEA of the truth and are simply going along with whatever some person or persons ‘judge’ good–at any given point–which can change to its opposite with no warning!
It would be silly to take the short term view that any person acting in behavior X is ALWAYS going to act that way as though giving him a label, be it atheist, religious, whatever, is what ‘informs’ the behavior and nothing else. . .
B
bingbang
Guest
You guys are funny. You make it seem like nice atheists will at some point become mean because they have no reason to stay nice. Is that really your argument here? Why would you assume that someone who is nice is going to turn mean and someone who is mean is going to turn nice based only on their religious beliefs. That is insane.
I have personally never met someone that was nice and helpful and then changed to being mean…and I know a few people that went from being Catholic to atheist, and the way they treated others did not change. You could argue that it could change, but I don’t see where that argument is coming from. People are ALWAYS going to value a kind and compassionate person.
Some of you are so blinded by religious beliefs that you can’t see what really matters. Paul said in Romans that Gentiles that follow the law are proof that the law is written on our hearts. So that shows that it isn’t just society that is guiding their moral compass, it is their conscience that was the product of God’s love. So if someone is an atheist and an extremely nice person, there is absolutely no reason to believe they will change.
I have personally never met someone that was nice and helpful and then changed to being mean…and I know a few people that went from being Catholic to atheist, and the way they treated others did not change. You could argue that it could change, but I don’t see where that argument is coming from. People are ALWAYS going to value a kind and compassionate person.
Some of you are so blinded by religious beliefs that you can’t see what really matters. Paul said in Romans that Gentiles that follow the law are proof that the law is written on our hearts. So that shows that it isn’t just society that is guiding their moral compass, it is their conscience that was the product of God’s love. So if someone is an atheist and an extremely nice person, there is absolutely no reason to believe they will change.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
You mean other than human nature? People change over time. At least they do in the world I live in…
B
bingbang
Guest
Yes, people change over time. But an atheist changing from a nice and helpful person to a mean person is probably less likely than a devout Catholic becoming an atheist. You guys seem to think that being a devout Catholic means someone will be a devout Catholic for life…that isn’t necessarily true. So really there is no guarantee either way.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Um. . .So you’re comparing a change in personality (nice to mean) to a change in beliefs (Catholicism to atheism). Isn’t that apples and oranges?
Or do you think that personality and belief have either nothing to do with each other, or have everything to do with each other?
It seems to me that you’re the one doing all the assuming of what we think. . .
I’ve asked you before and I’ll ask again, with respect:
Please discuss what we actually **say **and what we actually believe:
NOT what you ‘think’ we say, think we ‘mean’, or think we believe.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Just wait a minute there.
You are saying things that I think you should either clarify or contain.
D
DemetriusB
Guest
Considering that no one believes in the flying spaghetti monster and there are no philosophical arguments for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, it’s not hard at all to disprove. As a Catholic you have a duty to defend your faith against asinine Atheist arguments. Critical thinking is your friend.
S
Soler
Guest
The greatest commandment is to love God.
To love God is do do what He wants, when He wants, in the way that He wants, because He wants it.
Hypothetical situation:
Let’s suppose God has commanded everyone to write their surname on a piece of yellow paper three times every day, without exception, under pain of mortal sin (provided of course that they are able to do so).
You are walking down a dark alleyway. You have three things in your pockets:
*]A loaded handgun
*]A piece of yellow paper
*]A new ballpoint pen
You have not yet written your surname on yellow paper even once during the day, because you forgot completely about the requirement. It is twenty seconds to midnight. You suddenly see two thugs with their backs to you beating up a seven-year-old child. In the same moment, you remember that you have forgotten about today’s obligation, and also that you have the necessary materials for fulfilling it in your pockets.
You have two options:
*]Shoot the thugs in the legs and save the child, neglecting your obligation to God.
*]Take out the pen and paper and do your duty, leaving the child to be horribly beaten up.
(You will not have time for both before the day is over.)
Of course, the correct course of action is option 2, but I think you might have different ideas.
F
FairyGirl
Guest
I would say the morals are more important because those interpret your actions. Beliefs may affect what you do but not as much as morals would.
B
bingbang
Guest
You are right. This seems to be the same as Jesus healing someone on the Sabbath. Jesus had two courses of action: Either healing someone on the Sabbath, or technically breaking the law by doing work on the sabbath.
Looks like you sided with the pharisees.
S
Soler
Guest
Jesus is God. He can do what He wants.
We can’t.
B
bingbang
Guest
So I shouldn’t follow what Jesus did? I shouldn’t try to live my life like Jesus? What Jesus did was OK for him to do because he was God, but it wouldn’t be OK for me to do?
Great reasoning. Make sure not to do any work on the Sabbath though…
R
rwillenborg
Guest
Wow, am I part of that ‘you guys’? Is that the impression I gave in my posts, that somehow atheists aren’t ‘nice’? Yikes, I don’t know how, seeing as how that’s not what I believe, but, all right.
People change their temperaments for alot of reasons, and, I think temperaments change more frequently than beliefs.
You are suggesting that people are ‘always’ going to value a kind and compassionate person. Well, sure, they SAY they do…but how MUCH value do they place on that? What do they value MORE than that? I know plenty of people who place other attributes higher than kindness and compassion. I’m glad you live in some other place where that is not the case, but around here, that’s just not how it goes.
Also, I think it’s interesting that you use the term ‘blinded by their religious beliefs’. I’m impressed that you can know not only the beliefs of the people who have posted in this thread but also their motivation based on such little information available to you, Honestly, I am. I would not be able to draw such a black and white conclusion based on such little evidence presented to me.
- Status