S
setarcos
Guest
ok, but to speak directly to the issue at hand…is it love to torture or force another human being to return that love?
- Status
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
Hmmm. This is interesting. A bit about this Fr. Drinan -
“Throughout Drinan’s political career, his overt support of abortion rights drew significant opposition from Church leaders. They had repeatedly requested that he not hold political office. Drinan attempted to reconcile his position with official Church doctrine by stating that while he was personally opposed to abortion, considering it “virtual infanticide,”[5] its legality was a separate issue from its morality. This argument failed to satisfy his critics. According to the Wall Street Journal, Drinan played a key role in the pro-choice platform becoming a common stance of politicians from the Kennedy family.”
Jesuits - - what the heck happened? I chalk it up to Bella Dodd’s exploits…
“Throughout Drinan’s political career, his overt support of abortion rights drew significant opposition from Church leaders. They had repeatedly requested that he not hold political office. Drinan attempted to reconcile his position with official Church doctrine by stating that while he was personally opposed to abortion, considering it “virtual infanticide,”[5] its legality was a separate issue from its morality. This argument failed to satisfy his critics. According to the Wall Street Journal, Drinan played a key role in the pro-choice platform becoming a common stance of politicians from the Kennedy family.”
Jesuits - - what the heck happened? I chalk it up to Bella Dodd’s exploits…
C
Curious11
Guest
The 2010s are probably much better than either of those decades. We should really be careful of rose tinted glasses when looking at the past.
C
Curious11
Guest
You mean that people were more moral before it? I disagree. Porn of the most depraved kind has always existed. Prostitutes, proto-erotic dancers and strippers, anything you can imagine has always existed.
The fact that it was more repressed means society was more repressed, not more moral.
Last edited:
T
TigerLily-1
Guest
I was young then and had a happy childhood growing up in the USA which can and does “color” memories. But I don’t think the 2010’s are any better. I know students are taught in school that things were just awful “back then” and we’re much more enlightened now but IMO, that isn’t not really true. Actually, it’s a mixture of the good, the evil, the beautiful and the ugly in both eras.
There was much good we had “back then” that we now lack and I’m not talking about technology or the availability of material things. E.g., feeling safe and able to trust people. Cultural stability. Of course there was crime, but unless one lived in a known high-crime area, no fear about random violence. No school shootings or terrorism. No drugs or drug-related violence. Optimism about the future, etc.
Of course, if I lived in any other country other than the USA, I might shudder at the thought of the post-WWII 1950’s being an era I would want to return to.
There was much good we had “back then” that we now lack and I’m not talking about technology or the availability of material things. E.g., feeling safe and able to trust people. Cultural stability. Of course there was crime, but unless one lived in a known high-crime area, no fear about random violence. No school shootings or terrorism. No drugs or drug-related violence. Optimism about the future, etc.
Of course, if I lived in any other country other than the USA, I might shudder at the thought of the post-WWII 1950’s being an era I would want to return to.
C
Cyril
Guest
People we’re nicer? Unless you were black or Hispanic or just a minority.
P
PetraG
Guest
I think a major reason is that the World Wars unleashed inhumanity in a way and to a degree and on a global scale that directly undermined the foundations of both faith and family. Technological advances that came after did not help.
Having said that, I think we do have a greater awareness of the world around us than we once did. A great many evils that were kept in closets are now laid bare. The problem is that this has lead in many cases to a desensitization concerning how bad these things are. When you go from condemning the sinner to not mercy but just not seeing sin as sin any more, that isn’t a spiritual advance. It has been widely seen as an advance, though. That is very bad. A broader awareness of how people were treated inequitably for totally arbitrary reasons like skin color, however, has been a major advance.
Having said that, I think we do have a greater awareness of the world around us than we once did. A great many evils that were kept in closets are now laid bare. The problem is that this has lead in many cases to a desensitization concerning how bad these things are. When you go from condemning the sinner to not mercy but just not seeing sin as sin any more, that isn’t a spiritual advance. It has been widely seen as an advance, though. That is very bad. A broader awareness of how people were treated inequitably for totally arbitrary reasons like skin color, however, has been a major advance.
Last edited:
C
Curious11
Guest
I would argue that depended on who you were and where you lived. People have always lied, cheated and committed crimes.
What do you mean by that? Back in the 50s, a lot of stuff was simply labeled subversive, so naturally there was more “cultural stability”
I don’t walk around scared of being shot in the street at any second, that’s because I don’t live in a bad neighborhood. Same thing in the 50s.
Again, that depends on where you lived. 19th century China was crippled by Opium Wars that created a huge amount of addicts in Opium Dens. So drugs definitely did exist.
Other than that, let’s suppose you did live better in the 50s than now, which I disagree with. That could only possible be true for middle class and above white people lucky enough to be able to live in cute suburbs. But the 50s was also the era where a US president has to deploy the NATIONAL GUARD so that a few black students could go to SCHOOL in Arkansas.
The 50s had their charm, all decades do, but that’s it.
And, of course, being from Spain I can tell you that my grandmother lived through the post-civil war era when Spain was isolated from the world and forced to subside on autarky. She lived with ration cards until the early to mid-50s and had to endure cold winters with no heating, not to mention the fact that one of her brothers died of suicide due to PTSD (he was a war veteran) and one of her sisters died as a child due to tuberculosis.
So, no, the 50s is not a decade I miss
Last edited:
L
laylow
Guest
It’s all relative, isn’t it?
L
laylow
Guest
It is mean-spirited to treat people poorly because of their race, gender, sexual preference, beliefs, socio-economic background, etc. The current administration seems to promote all of this.
Last edited:
G
goodcatholic
Guest
99% white in the small town I grew up in
C
ConfusedLucy
Guest
Surely it’s fair to say some things were better in the past while other things were worse.
C
Cyril
Guest
White Privilege is like that.
C
Curious11
Guest
That guy has incredible wit and humor. The British really do have a gift when it comes to humor.
He’s right in all he said, of course
He’s right in all he said, of course
C
Cyril
Guest
I’m going to go out on a limb and say no he isn’t and here is why. (I totally expect to be temp banned for this but Truth is greater then Mods comfort)
Your thoughts become your words and your words become your actions is a fairly common belief. Its held that for each boundary you break you make it easier to slip to the next low. While no an argument for the slippery sloop fallacy it feeds into the human need for permission and approval. Its alright we bend the rules a bit as we are only sinners a little indulgence now and again isn’t so bad.
Most of you are nodding along at this point I’d wager so I really hope I dont lose you on the next bit.
Understand how in a society that grants social licensee based on its accepted morality how as a minority the horrible things done to them the best course of action to curb that is to nix the thoughts and words in the bud before they give social permission to allow those atrocities again.
To you safe spaces may seem unneeded or extreme. “I should be able to display my displeasure of gays for instance without them thinking i’m going to beat them up.”
To them its everything because such call outs have been the preludes to beatings, job loss and evictions.
So maybe if we as a society had been more Christian in the past we wouldn’t need “safe spaces” and rules about what you can say to them or anyone else.
Your thoughts become your words and your words become your actions is a fairly common belief. Its held that for each boundary you break you make it easier to slip to the next low. While no an argument for the slippery sloop fallacy it feeds into the human need for permission and approval. Its alright we bend the rules a bit as we are only sinners a little indulgence now and again isn’t so bad.
Most of you are nodding along at this point I’d wager so I really hope I dont lose you on the next bit.
Understand how in a society that grants social licensee based on its accepted morality how as a minority the horrible things done to them the best course of action to curb that is to nix the thoughts and words in the bud before they give social permission to allow those atrocities again.
To you safe spaces may seem unneeded or extreme. “I should be able to display my displeasure of gays for instance without them thinking i’m going to beat them up.”
To them its everything because such call outs have been the preludes to beatings, job loss and evictions.
So maybe if we as a society had been more Christian in the past we wouldn’t need “safe spaces” and rules about what you can say to them or anyone else.
P
phil19034
Guest
Please don’t twist my words. Yes, sin has always existed, but people who did it and people who knew of people who did them didn’t pretend that they were not sinning.phil19034:
You mean that people were more moral before it? I disagree. Porn of the most depraved kind has always existed. Prostitutes, proto-erotic dancers and strippers, anything you can imagine has always existed.
The fact that it was more repressed means society was more repressed, not more moral.
The goal of the sexual revolution was to deny the sinfulness of sexual sin.
Today, many teens grow up thinking sexual sin is not sinful, vs years past. One of the poisonous fruits of sexual revolution was a rejection of traditional Judeo-Christian morality.
Last edited:
C
Curious11
Guest
How do you know? Maybe a lot of people didn’t care or suspected there was no God, and had ambivalence about why god would give us sexual lust if it was a sin, they just didn’t voice their doubts quite as loudly as today. The problem with a lot of Christians today and always is that they’re OBSESSED with the letter of the law and don’t pay attention to the spirit of the law. So they just think society was more moral and Christian before because people went to mass more. That means absolutely nothing, there has always been good and bad people, hypocrites and non-Christians who behave more like Christians than Christians do. Before the sexual revolution, society might have been more repressed, but not better or more moral, in fact I would argue it’s better now that we don’t make gay people feel ashamed of being gay because it’s natural and I’m sure God doesn’t care if he did exist, if he cares he’s just pure evil and not worth my time.
Last edited:
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
Look at the breakdown of American families.
- All those schools shooters were from broken families.
- Being born to a single mom is the number 1 predictor of child poverty.
- Social workers know that mommy’s boyfriend Is most likely to abuse a child.
- The poverty-industrial complex and sexual revolution has been very bad for American children.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
The Catholic Church is giving out a huge number of marriage annulments for reasons not allowed in 1929 when there were fewer than 10 marriage annulments in the USA. By giving out thousands of marriage annulments, the Catholic Church appears to be going along with the breakup of family life. Cardinal Kasper has implied that annulments are dishonest Catholic divorces. “This marriage was a reality, and to say it was canonically null and void does not make sense to me. This is an abstract canonical construction. It’s divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way.”
Last edited:
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
I have to disagree with this ever so cautiously. The reason is the Catholic internet has been bomblasted with shallow excuse-making and low-quality conscience reflections.
Anecdotally, I know too many people where an annulment is justified. In some cases, it’s painfully obvious the marriage vows were not made in good faith.
The larger point you make isn’t lost: We have a problem with the break-up of the family, but it’s not because of Catholic teaching.
There is a problem in the Catholic Church: It’s that many if not most Catholics do not even understand who and what the enemy is. Handing over the keys of the fine arts to Hollywood, the BBC and North American broadcasting corporations and riding a Protestant appeal to authority in the culture has caused considerable damage.
Anecdotally, I know too many people where an annulment is justified. In some cases, it’s painfully obvious the marriage vows were not made in good faith.
The larger point you make isn’t lost: We have a problem with the break-up of the family, but it’s not because of Catholic teaching.
There is a problem in the Catholic Church: It’s that many if not most Catholics do not even understand who and what the enemy is. Handing over the keys of the fine arts to Hollywood, the BBC and North American broadcasting corporations and riding a Protestant appeal to authority in the culture has caused considerable damage.
- Status