Why Catholics Fail to Convince Modern People

[PRmerger]

Oh, and just for clarification:

The above, as well as the next series of posts which I anticipate I will be presenting DO NOT REPRESENT MY PERSONAL VIEWS.

They are for rhetoric only, and to aid in discussion of morality without a theistic framework.

EDIT: as well as the next series of posts(on this tributary) which I anticipate I will be presenting DO NOT REPRESENT MY PERSONAL VIEWS.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Yes, each religion can define anything any way it wants.

Well, anyone can introduce “definitions” according to their own whim. They just have to realize that their “definition” will be disregarded (just like poor PR’s “relative absolute”. )

You say “within the civil code”, and of course that changes. Slavery was once in the civil code. Abortion is in the code now, and it is the direct taking of innocent life. You can’t offend justice any more than that.

Pulling up a carrot and eating it alive is also a “direct taking of an innocent life”. What could be more innocent than a carrot?

Justice is not simply what is legal. Legality is nothing but “might makes right”, for better or worse depending on how just the right is.
True justice is reference to some objective standard. If you don’t have that objective standard in sight, you don’t have consistency, and no one is safe.

Now we might get somewhere (though I doubt it). What is “legal” is not questionable, it is included in the codified list of law. One might disagree with some laws and assert that they should not be on the books, but there can be no disagreement if something “legal” or not. “Justice” is a whole different ballgame. There is no list to refer to. What is “just” in one person’s view, could be unjust in someone’ else’s opinion. The solution is to start a grass-roots campaign and petition the government to redress your grievances (in a civilized state), or start a revolution.

In other words, “justice” is subjective. You are also correct that the whole legal system is based upon the concept of “might makes right”, the strong imposes its views on the weak. As Mark Twain said: “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” By the way, I would like to remind you that there is “NO justice system”, there is only a “legal system”.

 

[inocente]

Yes, each religion can define anything any way it wants.
You say “within the civil code”, and of course that changes. Slavery was once in the civil code. Abortion is in the code now, and it is the direct taking of innocent life. You can’t offend justice any more than that.

So while some things are “in the civil code” they should be resisted because they are unjust. Abortion is one of those, gay marriage is another, walking by a starving person is another, polluting the environment with a not-yet-banned chemical is another.

Justice is not simply what is legal. Legality is nothing but “might makes right”, for better or worse depending on how just the right is.
True justice is reference to some objective standard. If you don’t have that objective standard in sight, you don’t have consistency, and no one is safe.

The opposition to equal marriage tried many arguments, including run for the hills no one is safe. Most people have a friend or family member who is gay. We don’t want them excluded, we’re don’t want them bullied or marked out, and this was one step on the road to justice. You may have some other, abstract notion of justice, but it Failed to Convince Modern People.

btw by saying within the civil code I meant that each religion can define marriage as it wants but that doesn’t allow a religion to marry a man to a ten-year girl, etc.

 

[inocente]

The bottom line in a very long discussion:

• Tolerance is anything but love.
• Marriage is a sacred institution bringing God into the relationship between a husband and wife.
• The modern trend is to make marriage illegal, replaced by a sham. What comes to mind is how after May 13, 1995, when the current Dalai Lama confirmed that a boy called Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was next incarnation, the Chinese Communist Party announced its own candidate, chosen after a mock Golden Urn ceremony. The choice of the current spiritual leader is under house arrest, while the pretender carries on with his duties under the control of the Party.
• One never knows, but it is rational to conclude that with prayer and God’s intervention, between two commited people of the same sex, a celebate, deeply loving relationship is the likely outcome.

Those views relate to your religion, and your religion is free to continue as it always has done. There’s no imposition as with your Chinese case, and as said before, the polls indicated that when you’re in church, a majority of those on the pews around you approved equal marriage.

Here’s our then Prime Minister summing up after the vote here in 2005.

*"There is no damage to marriage or to the family in allowing two people of the same sex to get married. Rather, these citizens now have the ability to organize their lives according to marital and familial norms and demands. There is no threat to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law recognizes and values marriage.

Aware that some people and institutions * profoundly disagree with this legal change, I wish to say that like other reforms to the marriage code that preceded this one, this law will not generate bad results, that its only consequence will be to avoid senseless suffering of human beings. A society that avoids senseless suffering of its citizens is a better society.

In any case, I wish to express my deep respect to those people and institutions, and I also want to ask for the same respect for all of those who approve of this law. To the homosexuals that have personally tolerated the abuse and insults for many years, I ask that you add to the courage you have demonstrated in your struggle for civil rights, an example of generosity and joy with respect to all the beliefs."*

You don’t agree with him, and the Church had tried very hard in Spain as it did later in Ireland but failed to convince a majority. The question is how come.*