Why are these Fora so overwhelming Conservative

[AlanFromWichita]

The overwhelming percentage of thread-openers in Moral Theology concern matters below the navel, and whether any Catholic of any age or conversion status wants to accept it or not, the morality of sexual behavior in the Catholic moral guide does not include a lot of gray area, and (in that sense) could be defined as “conservative.”

I’ve seen a lot of that, too. Some of the threads read like a daily diary of disgusting behavior. One day we pray, same evening we violate. And they get move-by-move guidance from a gaggle of soul-saver wannabees. It’s pretty amusing.

What a judgmental thing to say, and how would you have any idea which CAF posters do and do not

Relax. I’m talking about the way posts come across, and the ways the posters describe themselves and their own prayer lives. Often they are very busy and spend many hours on vocal or meditative prayer. I’ve never seen a poster come across like this, who engages in contemplative prayer forms btw – that goes for conservative and not.

That is judgment of individual spirituality, which violates forum rules because it violates charity, and is explicitly mentioned to be a violation.

That’s funny. I say "I wonder if … " and you say I’m judged. Ma’am, back where I’m from they refer to this as “pot calling the kettle black.” Or if not judged, at least quick to jump to negative conclusion.

People who are theologically educated know how to judge good from bad because they understand the principles involved in that theological judgment.

So were the Pharisees. And look what Jesus had to say to them.

There is either a consistent framework of terms and reasoning or there isn’t. Not to mention, it becomes obvious who is a critical thinker and who is not. There are shallow fads in theology, just as there are in politics and journalism and education.

Regardless of your intellectual framework, you either are being guided by the Spirit or you aren’t. You either love and respect others like you would Jesus Himself or you don’t. Nothing wrong with being a theologian. And btw, yes of course there are conservatives who vary from the general observations I make.

Alan

 

[sw85]

Just for clarification: does this refer to non Catholics, Catholics who have serious questions, or devout unquestioning Catholics, however they got there?

It refers to the sort of person identified in the OP, “a person seeking for religious truth [who] would be put off the Catholic religion by some of these fora” because they’re so “conservative.”

But irregardless of any of that, what you and others appear to entirely miss is what faith is.

No, I don’t. Faith is the adherence of the will to truths revealed by God and apprehended by reason. It’s the act of a man who forces himself to board a plane, knowing his fear of it crashing is basically irrational. It’s trust. Like trust, it requires not just an object but a motivation.

And this is why it is nearly impossible I find to engage sometimes with some Catholics. Because you can believe you speak for Jesus only by first putting faith in a God and in the NT story of Christ. Then faith in the Catholic Church’s interpretations of Herself, faith in Her intepretations of ECFs, faith in the Magesterium, faith in Her interpretations of those 2000 yrs and history you speak of, and of time before that.

First, who is claiming to “speak for Jesus”? Jesus speaks for Jesus, and the Church speaks with His authority on Earth.

Second, what is it you’re trying to say here? I get that you want to reduce Christianity to an irrational, arbitrary, personal, solipsistic, and phenomenological value preference. But why in the world should I endorse this radically ahistorical view which you are peddling for suspect reasons (i.e., to invent a “Christianity that doesn’t exclude nor drives liberals away”)?

Saying “other people believe different stuff!!!” is *obviously *not an interesting objection to me. It’s not even relevant to that what I’m saying, which is not “everyone believes Catholicism” but “there is no good reason not to believe Catholicism.” Saying “other people believe different stuff!!!” doesn’t make a dent in what I’m saying. What I’m saying is they believe different stuff for bad reasons, in my experience typically ignorance and (rarely) malice.

Thank you, very much, for your testimony. I too can point at myself for trying to justify a few things in my life but by God’s grace, I am finding obedience to be the road to travel.

You’re very welcome. It’s amazing what we will willingly do to blind ourselves to the truth. At several points in my inexorable conversion process I simply resolved not to dwell on the issue any more, to put it out of my mind forever, so deep in me was that mysterious hatred that crucified Christ.

It is doubtful whether a person seeking for religious truth would be concerned with the more specialised aspects of the Catholic Faith. Philosophy and Apologetics are the most logical places to start.

This is kind of what I was getting at when I said earlier that anyone turned off from Catholicism by the supposed “conservatism” of CAF (which I think is laughable; anyone who thinks this place is conservative simply lacks historical perspective) was probably not seriously seeking in the first place. Suppose someone comes here, finds out that some Catholics support the death penalty, and runs away scandalized. Is that a loss? Probably not. That person came here with the attitude that Catholicism must validate his or her prejudices. S/he left because it didn’t. That’s not an attitude conducive to sincere and genuine conversion, which is nothing less than totally giving oneself over to Christ.

Because I find your statement to be completely wrong. I find Catholic theology and scholarship to be extremely self-critical and reflective, particularly after Vatican II. The “apologetics” movement is in fact a reaction to this–the Catholic elites were unfortunately so busy nuancing things that they didn’t bother communicating to ordinary Catholics just why Catholicism was worth while in the first place. So the gap has been filled by triumphalistic rosary-waving.

Edwin

Hah! This is an excellent comment, and I commend you for it. Kind of better expresses what I was saying in another thread about Catholic elites willfully debasing the stores of knowledge of the Catholic faith and plunging the laity and priests into chaos, confusion, and uncertainty.

It also reminds me of something a friend of mine said about internal Church politics; he likened Catholic conservatives (what he called the “EWTN wing”) to the Church equivalent of neocons: “conservative” only by a radical stretch of the historical imagination. “Triumphalistic rosary-waving”… love it.

Really, on a day to day basis, it shouldn’t matter what Jesus said specifically under a particular circumstances. Like I once said, it isn’t “What Would Jesus Do,” as much as “What Would Jesus have Us do?” Jesus didn’t come to program us for robotic good behavior; if that were the case Jesus’s own program would have been faulty because He did not even follow the written rules of His own church. (I guess that makes Him a liberal, or a “cafeteria” worshiper?)

This is the old “Jesus was a revolutionary” shtick, refuted long ago (e.g., bonald.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/was-christ-a-revolutionary/).

The “Jesus didn’t come to program us for robotic good behavior” line is especially interesting because it betrays how your worldview hinges on a conflation of distinct concepts. The statement above is obviously true, in that Jesus didn’t come to “program us for robotic good behavior.” The program/robotic part is false. The good behavior part isn’t. Scripture abounds with Christ exhorting us to cease sinning and warning us of the consequences if we don’t. This isn’t robotic, but it doesn’t follow good behavior is irrelevant or immaterial to His mission and ministry. If I come to dinner because mother called me, it doesn’t change the fact that I chose to come to dinner. Is this “robotic”?

That’s because I see the Bible as a training manual, not as a cookbook. No written system of rules can cover all cases of what is right and wrong in any given situation.

Who, anywhere in the world, believes this?

We know that because such a system would not require the Holy Spirit to even exist. A Kung Fu master doesn’t get out the books or go through exercises when there is a battle to be won; by the time he reaches for his books he would have lost. We need guidance on a moment by moment basis; we are supposed to become born again and receive knowledge of the kingdom and be guided by the Holy Spirit. And the Church’s main job is to help us come to that point. It may be pretty scary for someone who follows recipes exclusively and doesn’t know how to substitute using the ingredients at hand.

This is borderline solipsism. Incidentally, your metaphor doesn’t even support your solipsism: of course a kung fu master doesn’t need books, he already knows the material, i.e., because his sensibilities have been trained. And he knows the material because he forced himself into a habit of obedience to the extremely rigid lifestyle which kung fu demands, so that it’s become second nature to him. Really, first nature – the kung fu master, whatever else he is, will always be a kung fu master, and nothing can change that. He doesn’t rely on the spirit of kung fu to guide his fists and legs in any given moment. The spirit of kung fu works through his obedience to the movements he has already learned. Just so with Catholicism.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

This is the old “Jesus was a revolutionary” shtick, refuted long ago (e.g., bonald.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/was-christ-a-revolutionary/).

I don’t do shticks. I make up the stuff I say, as I go. I don’t want to read a blog, but I suspect somebody’s opinion differs from mine. :yawn:

Scripture abounds with Christ exhorting us to cease sinning and warning us of the consequences if we don’t.

“Abounds?” Really? I’m sure you’re going to tell me about the prostitute He said He did not condemn but to sin no more.

Seriously, for every example of Jesus calling down a sinner you can show me, I’ll show you an example of Jesus calling down people who called down sinners.

This isn’t robotic, but it doesn’t follow good behavior is irrelevant or immaterial to His mission and ministry. If I come to dinner because mother called me, it doesn’t change the fact that I chose to come to dinner. Is this “robotic”?

NEI.

You could come because you want to eat, because you want to obey Mom, because you’re afraid of Dad, because yes you are just programmed by habit and don’t even think why. So it can go either way.

Who, anywhere in the world, believes this?

Show me a written code of conduct that can be unambiguously discerned and objectively followed in every possible situation that has ever come up or will ever come up in all of human history, and maybe I’ll be the second one who doesn’t.

This is borderline solipsism. Incidentally, your metaphor doesn’t even support your solipsism: of course a kung fu master doesn’t need books, he already knows the material, i.e., because his sensibilities have been trained. And he knows the material because he forced himself into a habit of obedience to the extremely rigid lifestyle which kung fu demands, so that it’s become second nature to him. Really, first nature – the kung fu master, whatever else he is, will always be a kung fu master, and nothing can change that. He doesn’t rely on the spirit of kung fu to guide his fists and legs in any given moment. The spirit of kung fu works through his obedience to the movements he has already learned. Just so with Catholicism.

Yes, he is trained because the art is written on his heart. Just like we are with sin. The Bible activates and calibrates it.

Alan

 

[edwest2]

It refers to the sort of person identified in the OP, “a person seeking for religious truth [who] would be put off the Catholic religion by some of these fora” because they’re so “conservative.”

No, I don’t. Faith is the adherence of the will to truths revealed by God and apprehended by reason. It’s the act of a man who forces himself to board a plane, knowing his fear of it crashing is basically irrational. It’s trust. Like trust, it requires not just an object but a motivation.

First, who is claiming to “speak for Jesus”? Jesus speaks for Jesus, and the Church speaks with His authority on Earth.

Second, what is it you’re trying to say here? I get that you want to reduce Christianity to an irrational, arbitrary, personal, solipsistic, and phenomenological value preference. But why in the world should I endorse this radically ahistorical view which you are peddling for suspect reasons (i.e., to invent a “Christianity that doesn’t exclude nor drives liberals away”)?

Saying “other people believe different stuff!!!” is *obviously *not an interesting objection to me. It’s not even relevant to that what I’m saying, which is not “everyone believes Catholicism” but “there is no good reason not to believe Catholicism.” Saying “other people believe different stuff!!!” doesn’t make a dent in what I’m saying. What I’m saying is they believe different stuff for bad reasons, in my experience typically ignorance and (rarely) malice.

You’re very welcome. It’s amazing what we will willingly do to blind ourselves to the truth. At several points in my inexorable conversion process I simply resolved not to dwell on the issue any more, to put it out of my mind forever, so deep in me was that mysterious hatred that crucified Christ.

This is kind of what I was getting at when I said earlier that anyone turned off from Catholicism by the supposed “conservatism” of CAF (which I think is laughable; anyone who thinks this place is conservative simply lacks historical perspective) was probably not seriously seeking in the first place. Suppose someone comes here, finds out that some Catholics support the death penalty, and runs away scandalized. Is that a loss? Probably not. That person came here with the attitude that Catholicism must validate his or her prejudices. S/he left because it didn’t. That’s not an attitude conducive to sincere and genuine conversion, which is nothing less than totally giving oneself over to Christ.

Hah! This is an excellent comment, and I commend you for it. Kind of better expresses what I was saying in another thread about Catholic elites willfully debasing the stores of knowledge of the Catholic faith and plunging the laity and priests into chaos, confusion, and uncertainty.

It also reminds me of something a friend of mine said about internal Church politics; he likened Catholic conservatives (what he called the “EWTN wing”) to the Church equivalent of neocons: “conservative” only by a radical stretch of the historical imagination. “Triumphalistic rosary-waving”… love it.

This is the old “Jesus was a revolutionary” shtick, refuted long ago (e.g., bonald.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/was-christ-a-revolutionary/).

The “Jesus didn’t come to program us for robotic good behavior” line is especially interesting because it betrays how your worldview hinges on a conflation of distinct concepts. The statement above is obviously true, in that Jesus didn’t come to “program us for robotic good behavior.” The program/robotic part is false. The good behavior part isn’t. Scripture abounds with Christ exhorting us to cease sinning and warning us of the consequences if we don’t. This isn’t robotic, but it doesn’t follow good behavior is irrelevant or immaterial to His mission and ministry. If I come to dinner because mother called me, it doesn’t change the fact that I chose to come to dinner. Is this “robotic”?

Who, anywhere in the world, believes this?

This is borderline solipsism. Incidentally, your metaphor doesn’t even support your solipsism: of course a kung fu master doesn’t need books, he already knows the material, i.e., because his sensibilities have been trained. And he knows the material because he forced himself into a habit of obedience to the extremely rigid lifestyle which kung fu demands, so that it’s become second nature to him. Really, first nature – the kung fu master, whatever else he is, will always be a kung fu master, and nothing can change that. He doesn’t rely on the spirit of kung fu to guide his fists and legs in any given moment. The spirit of kung fu works through his obedience to the movements he has already learned. Just so with Catholicism.

I cannot judge others, but the evidence is clear: Why can’t Catholics allow this or that liberal idea? And many, if not most of these liberal ideas involve justifying sin. Or the “can’t we find common ground?” argument. As Catholics, we should make sure that any poster is definitely saying what they mean, since some resort to convoluted and complex diatribes regarding their position and we may unintentionally misunderstand them.

But if one uses the following definition of Liberal:

“Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.”

Then the problem becomes clear, especially as it regards clear Church teaching. There are absolutes but the Liberal approach appears to be: We want change, change and more change. Not all change is good. And as Catholics we must be wary whenever we encounter new words that don’t mean anything and often hide the truth. For example, “reproductive rights.” What does that mean? Everybody has the right to reproduce, but what it actually means is we are for abortion.

Inclusive: We approve and promote gay (LGBT) behavior.
Diversity: We approve and promote gay (LGBT) behavior.

I think the following is another aspect of Liberal thinking:

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.
William F. Buckley, Jr.”

My final comment to all is this: If you know the correct answer then there cannot be another correct answer.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Elizabeth502]

[The Kung Fu master] is trained because the art is written on his heart.

No. Not nearly as ephemeral as all that.

Anyone who engages in a physical discipline (which includes, by the way, dance and playing a musical instrument) and is as rigorous about that as a Kung Fu master is, is patterning his body to be able to repeat the routine because it has become part of his muscular response. The entire point of practicing a performing art is based on this experience, through the centuries. (It’s just that we may understand it better now.) You are physically programming your body to respond on cue.

This is what the great masters of spirituality (especially the Saints) relate to us: the path to gradually conquering sin is the repetition of virtue, which becomes habit. Virtue is not just a positive set of traits, it (they) are weapons against sin, nourished through daily discipline and practice, like muscles.

Yeah, I know, virtue is just so… well, Yesterday. So “conservative.”

 

[PRmerger]

All of them. Whatever for me comnstituted the faith.

I’m not going to catalog my library shelves for you, PR. There are many books thereon, with imprimatur and nihil obstat and without. Mostly without. While the Church, in my opinion, loves to defend itself, it does not like to look at itself.

I wonder how acquainted you are with Catholic theology and scholarship, as opposed to the strident apologetics favored by folks on this forum?

I have wondered the same thing, Edwin.

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t know so much exactly what Jesus said and did, but for my part I make inferences useful to my own understanding from other sources as to what else or different it is possible He might have meant by the words attributed to Him, as far as they might be accurate.

Does that not sound to you like creating a god in your own image, Gaber?

 

[PRmerger]

And if I did do such an inventory for you, we’d go into, I’m sure, your opinions about the validity and truth of what I read. I’ve no interest in going there. But I’m sure you understand that simply reading something does not constitute agreement, only research.

Yes, we’d have to consider the validity and truth of what you’d proffered as your evidence for what you believe Christ said.

For example, if you have on your prodigious bookshelves the Gospel of Thomas and have read it–is that a source you use? And if so, do you believe that Jesus actually turned clay animals into live ones?

You base your belief of its veracity or falsity on what?

 

[PRmerger]

That’s funny!

Not so much, but there are questions, yes? You don’t have to agree or dis, but there are questions, ones you clearly dismiss. And maybe you are doing that in an area which may not be so deserving of such eye rolling. The gif reminds me that some of our trainings in disaster mitigation and such included the emphatic warning that the first nearly intractable human response in the face of disaster is denial. Go figure. I mean, how useful is that?

If this is your paradigm: “there are questions, yes?” then you ought to be consistent and apply it to all things, yes?

-do you question whether there was duplicity among “insiders” regarding 911? Have you considered the Truthers’ arguments? What say you?

-what about the moon landing? Do you consider the arguments that it was all fabricated?

Just wondering…

As for me, if I happen to sit next to a person on a plane (after doing absolutely NO RESEARCH into whether the pilot is actually licensed to fly the plane, because I have faith in the airline ) and he happens to start a conversation with me that goes like this, “Are you aware that there are some* trumpet blasts around the world--it says this will happen in Corinthians 15:52!–that are indicative of the end of the world?”

I will nod politely and then excuse myself to take a nap.

If you want to engage all the conspiracy theories and consider each one, more power to you, Gaber! But, I will say, frankly, that I really don’t believe that you apply this paradigm.

I think you dismiss them, just like I do.

*Disclaimer: the video has one bad word that I heard.

 

[aragonjohn1]

because most of us may try to be " authentic catholics"

SHALOM
GOD BLESS

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, you make a useful distinction and a good point. I am way more acquainted with the “strident apologetics favored by folks on this forum” and " triumphalistic (! ) rosary-waving" than current reflection within the scholarly considerations of the Church.

Yes. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you from the very beginning, Gaber. You are not quite familiar with the scholarly considerations of the Church. :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

Seriously, for every example of Jesus calling down a sinner you can show me, I’ll show you an example of Jesus calling down people who called down sinners.

So, Alan, I am curious as to what your position is regarding sin and sinners. How is it that Christians are to react to sin and sinners?

My position is that the Catholic Church has it exactly right: we are at war with sin, but not with sinners. We hate the heresy but love the heretics. We condemn the immorality but love the immoral.

Now, if we are not permitted to “call down sinners”, how is it that we are to battle sin?

How do you deal with the hateful white supremacist without “calling him down” for what he believes?

 

[PRmerger]

Again, a great example. You are wonderful at this! No I don’t make such inquiries. I trust from observance of commonality, despite knowing, being interested in aeronautics, that accidents happen, even huge course variations resulting in disaster.

'zactly, Gaber. Exactly.

You somehow trust your very life, putting your existence into the hands of a complete stranger!–without making a single inquiry…

yet for some peculiar reason require an inordinate amount of evidence for religious things.

Why?

 

[PRmerger]

If this is your paradigm: “there are questions, yes?” then you ought to be consistent and apply it to all things, yes?

-do you question whether there was duplicity among “insiders” regarding 911? Have you considered the Truthers’ arguments? What say you?

-what about the moon landing? Do you consider the arguments that it was all fabricated?

Just wondering…

As for me, if I happen to sit next to a person on a plane (after doing absolutely NO RESEARCH into whether the pilot is actually licensed to fly the plane, because I have faith in the airline ) and he happens to start a conversation with me that goes like this, “Are you aware that there are some* trumpet blasts around the world--it says this will happen in Corinthians 15:52!–that are indicative of the end of the world?”

I will nod politely and then excuse myself to take a nap.

If you want to engage all the conspiracy theories and consider each one, more power to you, Gaber! But, I will say, frankly, that I really don’t believe that you apply this paradigm.

I think you dismiss them, just like I do.

*Disclaimer: the video has one bad word (having to do with human excrement) that I heard.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, your thumbs up was in regard to people seeking Truth. Which by your posts I think you believe with certainty is found in your church.

But have I missed it or have you responded to these excerpts from an earlier post of Gaber’s? I’d be curious how you respond to these specific points beyond comparing the capital of the Phillipines with religous faith. Although I personally know that is a favorite of yours. I’m surprised though Fred hasn’t also come up in your discussion with Gaber.

Okay.

Excerpts from an earlier post of Gaber’s -

“you can claim inspiration, tradition, and divine guidance, but even a pure “message” from “the other side” has to go through the filter of interpretation… neither of us speak Aramaic of Greek, eh? So thereby we invite, due to distance in time, space, culture, intention, meaning, nuance, colloquialism, translation, the nature of witnessing, collections, canons, and a host of other factors, not just a few disciplines, including self knowledge, semantics, critical thinking, etc,etc, etc into the equation.”

This is quite consonant with Catholicism.

We all use our own noggin’ to come to an understanding, based on faith.

Fides quaerens intellectum.

" I’d say that you display an inordinate level of conviction given what is indeed at hand when anyone says “Jesus said____” and you assume with 1/1 certainty that you personally know exactly and without any iota of deviation what He meant."

I use only that which was provided for us by God.

“I can’t speak for Jesus. Perhaps you can, by third partying your understanding to the Magesterium. I can’t do that and be honest with myself or have integrity, other than to use that as included information.”

The only way one knows anything about Christ–if he’s honest–is through the Church.

So when anyone says, “Jesus said ____” or “Jesus wouldn’t _____” he is giving tacit approval to the authority of the Catholic Church.

Unless, in the example I provided earlier, he wants to say that he believes that Jesus turned clay animals into live ones. And if he believes that he’ll have to provide what canon he uses to declare something to be true and something to be false, regarding Our Lord.

“And I can question all that, because if one can experience, even for a moment, an emotional divorce from the inculcations of that or any belief system, one is in a radically different perspective of assessment.”

That’s like saying, “I want to divorce myself from the correct way to spell ‘inculcations’ and spell it ‘djh9jgiege’.” He could do that, but then he’d be divorcing himself from the truth.

"neither of us can claim “something about Jesus,”

Well, we both have the exact same tools to discern this “something about Jesus”.

What we might claim is an understanding we have arrived at either from experience, research, inculcation, faith, agreement, or whatever and their combinations. But neither of us does or can have direct knowledge of Jesus. We have no direct knowledge even of the totality of our personality, that showing itself in fragments and various masks according to situations, or even our dearest ones, beyond what we assume from our interactions. Or are you going to tell me that you have never misunderstood any of your beloved children, even a bit?"

I have no idea what this means, and what misunderstanding my beloved children has to do with this—but I will say that I have misunderstood my beloved children quite a bit.

“If yes, how can you or anyone be so blessed adamantly certain that they have a 1/1 knowledge of Jesus, His Teachings as He intended, and for whom He intended, personally or beyond? (Remember, you have Paul to thank for winning out against Peter about who can be Christian, eh? Lord, he went up against the first Pope, for heaven/s sake!) And, as I have often said, there is Mark 4:33,34, and some other related matters.”

Because I have met Him, firstly. Secondly, because I trust whom He sent.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

So, Alan, I am curious as to what your position is regarding sin and sinners. How is it that Christians are to react to sin and sinners?

sin <<< do not commit. if one commits mortal sin do not receive Eucharist before confessing it.

sinner <<< judge a fellow sinner and you will be judged by the same measure. Note this is not only my opinion, but our Savior’s:

Ref: Matt 7:1-2
“Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you."

My position is that the Catholic Church has it exactly right: we are at war with sin, but not with sinners. We hate the heresy but love the heretics. We condemn the immorality but love the immoral.

Oh, no. Not the old “sin but not sinner” argument. OK, show me a sin where there is not a sinner who committed it, and I’ll accept that you have judged sin itself, sinner-free. To say “I will not judge you but you did commit a sin” is logically flawed. You just can’t say someone committed a sin without saying that person is guilty of it. :whacky:

Now, if we are not permitted to “call down sinners”, how is it that we are to battle sin?

Call down sinners all day if you are moved to doing that; I’m not here to change your mind or limit your tactics.

I’m just discussing the actions of Jesus. He did not call down sinners. He called down the people who called down sinners. He called down the righteous because they thought they were better than sinners. Do you dispute that? Should I get biblical references, or do you know what I’m talking about?

How do you deal with the hateful white supremacist without “calling him down” for what he believes?

He can believe whatever he wants to believe. It’s when he speaks and acts on those beliefs where there might be a problem. It’s not my job to be my brother’s thought police. If I had to spend an hour with such a person, I’d probably spend at least the first half hour listening and asking questions, without even trying to actually say anything. Then I might carefully start asking more probing questions. Best I’m likely to do is to plant seeds, and those are usually best done by giving them questions to ask themselves rather than trying to tell them anything since they do not accept my opinion as authority. Plus I’ll be wiser for the experience in case I get a chance to meet again or meet another one of like mind. It also allows me to reflect on whether any of my own biases reflect those that are clearly repugnant, in any way. So when I see somebody evil it helps me do a very detailed moral inventory, right down to the thought and feeling level. I may be a king of abstraction.

Ref Rom 7 and it may help explain my last couple comments.

Alan

 

[CMatt25]

No, I don’t. Faith is the adherence of the will to truths revealed by God and apprehended by reason. It’s the act of a man who forces himself to board a plane, knowing his fear of it crashing is basically irrational. It’s trust. Like trust, it requires not just an object but a motivation.

First, who is claiming to “speak for Jesus”? Jesus speaks for Jesus, and the Church speaks with His authority on Earth.

Second, what is it you’re trying to say here? I get that you want to reduce Christianity to an irrational, arbitrary, personal, solipsistic, and phenomenological value preference. But why in the world should I endorse this radically ahistorical view which you are peddling for suspect reasons (i.e., to invent a “Christianity that doesn’t exclude nor drives liberals away”)?

Saying “other people believe different stuff!!!” is *obviously *not an interesting objection to me. It’s not even relevant to that what I’m saying, which is not “everyone believes Catholicism” but “there is no good reason not to believe Catholicism.” Saying “other people believe different stuff!!!” doesn’t make a dent in what I’m saying. What I’m saying is they believe different stuff for bad reasons, in my experience typically ignorance and (rarely) malice.

I’m still not sure you understand. Here’s why. First you had to put faith and trust and belief in a God. Then faith and trust and belief in the NT. Then you place faith and trust in all the Catholic Church claims and faith and trust not only in that She spoke but that She still speaks as Christ’s authority. I simply find that to be a lot of putting faith and trust into things for anyone to then speak with such certainty about “adherence of the will to truths revealed by God”.

What I know and respect is that you believe you are adhering to the truth because you have faith and trust in the Catholic Church. And as a result of your faith you believe you know. But believing and thinking one knows is not the same as knowing.

That is what I am saying. Not just about the Catholic faith. About all faiths that insist they are the right one. Faith is belief. It is not knowing with absolute certainty.

What I’m not saying is that there is no absolute truth. I’m not a relativist. Obviously with the many different beliefs, Catholic and other Christian and non Christian beliefs, everyone can’t be right on every single thing. I simply find too many people proclaiming they know with certainty what that one truth is when in reality it is they believe they know.

You don’t have to endorse a Christian faith where liberals are welcome. I’ve been driven further away from your church. But I’m not an atheist or non Christian. When it was blank someone thought I was an atheist. So I can’t leave it blank And I can’t put Jewish or some other non Christian faith because I’m not those either.

Anyway though now I get to the end of your post where you said “not everyone believes Catholicism”. So maybe you do understand it is a belief system. It might even be the right one. Or maybe no one has everything right. I don’t know. I guess in faith if Christ comes again, we’ll know at that time. In the meantime I’m not going to go around saying people who believe differently than you, do so for bad reasons, ignorance, or malice.

God bless you on your faith journey. You seem very happy with your conversion to Catholicism and I wish you nothing but continued peace.

 

[PRmerger]

sin <<< do not commit. if one commits mortal sin do not receive Eucharist before confessing it.

sinner <<< judge a fellow sinner and you will be judged by the same measure. Note this is not only my opinion, but our Savior’s:

Oh, no. Not the old “sin but not sinner” argument

Why are you opposed to this?

It’s like a Muslim criticizing a Christian by saying, “Oh, no–not the ‘Jesus forgave my sins!’ argument”

OK, show me a sin where there is not a sinner who committed it, and I’ll accept that you have judged sin itself, sinner-free.

What it means is: you have committed adultery. I do not condemn you. But you must stop committing adultery now. This instant.

That’s what Catholicism preaches.

And I’m not sure how you would approach that situation in any other way.

Is there some other possible moral way you would approach an adulterer, Alan?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m still not sure you understand. Here’s why. First you had to put faith and trust and belief in a God. Then faith and trust and belief in the NT. Then you place faith and trust in all the Catholic Church claims and in that She spoke correctly and still speaks as Christ’s authority. I simply find that to be a lot of putting faith and trust into things for anyone to then speak with such certainty about “adherence of the will to truths revealed by God”.

Without that, what you have is:
put faith and trust and belief in a God…
Then faith and trust and belief in the NT–wait! You can’t put faith and trust and belief in the NT without faith and trust and belief in the Catholic Church, which discerned for you this NT canon.

So if you reject the Church, you reject the NT, and what you are left with is faith and trust and belief in a God.

And without the Church to reveal what this God is and said, then what you have faith and trust and belief in is…

your own self, Matt.

You do see that, right?

Without a Church to tell you anything about God you are left with only your own conceptions of who God is.

And it’s nary a man who can say, “I believe, personally, that there’s nothing wrong with but I know that God believes that is wrong, so I must change my views.”

Never heard of any man saying this that rejects the Church.

For some reason, the God that this Church-rejecter believes in just happens to believe in everything that the Church-rejecter believes.

How is that possible?

 

[PRmerger]

He can believe whatever he wants to believe. It’s when he speaks and acts on those beliefs where there might be a problem.

And then when you address the problem, Alan, you will have “called down the sinner.”

Why do you reserve for yourself the right to do this, but not me, or the Church, or other Catholics?