Why Catholics Fail to Convince Modern People

[Vera_Ljuba]

Everyone knows what moral or immoral means.

In the abstract it means to adhere to SOME ethical system. And since there is no “globally” accepted system, there is no universally accepted “moral” behavior. Some Catholics assert that contraception is “immoral”. Other Catholics deny this.

Many years ago I had a co-worker (he was a protestant) who said that sex is immoral even between husband and wife, IF it is not directed toward procreation. According to his ethical system to have sex in the infertile period is “immoral”. Maybe you disagree with him. To paraphrase the old expression: “one man’s junk is another man’s treasure”. There is NO objective, universal ethical system… it is all subjective.

 

[Cheiron]

Do you still play Age of Empires? Or Rise of Nations? I could use a guy to play against…

I prefer the Total War series, but I have played AoE and Rise of Nations. The priest from Age of Empires could convert people by simply saying “wololo”. If only it was that easy in real life.

I think JP’s point is, however, that no one will consider even learning about what beliefs might be true if it does not also make a person more attractive, more intriguing.

And I would say, in some ways, secular minds such as yourself are resistant to attraction, intrigue, or curiosity about Catholicism - usually because, I believe, our goals are different, sometimes even contrary.

I think JP actually implied that I’m not inclined to believe Catholicism because I don’t like it. Though it is a fair concern, I don’t think it applies to me in this case because I’m aware of it.

There are forms of Christianity I’m not interested - such as the prosperity gospel -, but Catholicism would be the last one on the list. Catholicism makes me curious, because of its history, its power and its enormous impact on culture and politics for such a long time. Whether that impact was a good or bad thing depends on your views, but it is undeniable. If I were indifferent about Catholicism, I probably wouldn’t be here on this forum.

 

[pianistclare]

I find personally that when one puts in the work in understanding Catholicism and still disagrees with it that the person who puts in the work then gets labelled “obsessed” and is dismissed. It’s an unwinnable situation.

Only God decides who “wins” if that is even a consideration.

Be a good person and see if things don’t work out just fine. Catholicism can guide people on that path to holiness.
People want to take the harder route?
Fine for them. I prefer the truth of it. Why try to reinvent the wheel when we have teachings and guidelines to attain heaven.
People care too much about what others think.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Bradski]

I think it’s because today’s Western World is too obsessed with “democracy.” For all of the democracy’s positives, it has a dark side too: pluralism & relativism. Free societies attract people from all over the world, which leads to pluralism. And pluralism leads to relativism. Relativism leads to public increase of the 7 Deadly Sins.

Ah yes. Free societies and democracy. It’s been all downhill since we embraced those concepts…

Regarding the title of the thread: It may be that folks simply talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. The folks of any faith that I personally know may or may not know what their tradition teaches/believes but none of them that I’m aware of follow those beliefs past giving lip service to the tradition. They act no differently than anyone that I know to be a secularist, agnostic, atheist, etc… I’m speaking of people I know on a personal basis which may be different from others’ experience. Behavior is believable.

I think you’ve nailed it, puzzled.

The most compelling thing is not to prove God’s existence “beyond reasonable doubt”. The successful Christian missionaries over two millennia did not prove God’s existence by logic. Rather, they proved the validity of Christian doctrine by their life and by their deeds. So that the people saw the moral beauty and superiority of Christians, realized the deficiency of their own worldliness and accepted Christianity as the best way of life.

So anyone who leads by example has proved the validity of their doctrine. Sounds pretty straightforward to me (notwithstanding, as Cheiron has already pointed out) that anyone who is not a good example would then prove the invalidity of their doctrine.

Thank God for the No True Scotsman fallacy, eh? Funny how that only works in one direction…

 

[XndrK]

Ah yes. Free societies and democracy. It’s been all downhill since we embraced those concepts…

Hey, I don’t agree with that either.

I think you’ve nailed it, puzzled.

:sadyes:

Frankly, I wish that people who said they were Catholic but didn’t actually do what they’d say they do would either step up to the plate (preferred) or leave the dugout. I prefer an honest agnostic or atheist to a hypocritical “Catholic” any day of the week. “But of course, it’s better to be neither.”

So anyone who leads by example has proved the validity of their doctrine. Sounds pretty straightforward to me (notwithstanding, as Cheiron has already pointed out) that anyone who is not a good example would then prove the invalidity of their doctrine.

Thank God for the No True Scotsman fallacy, eh? Funny how that only works in one direction…

Yeah, that makes me uncomfortable too, but teaching by example works, which is why it’s so [expletive] frustrating that there are so many so-called “Catholics” who don’t live up to it! AUGH!

 

[TarkanAttila]

I prefer the Total War series, but I have played AoE and Rise of Nations. The priest from Age of Empires could convert people by simply saying “wololo”. If only it was that easy in real life.

lol.
They don’t in Age of Empires III, I’m afraid. Guess they’re trying to be more true to life lol.

I’ve only ever played Rome: Total War (and the expansions). It’s pretty good, too.

I think JP actually implied that I’m not inclined to believe Catholicism because I don’t like it. Though it is a fair concern, I don’t think it applies to me in this case because I’m aware of it.

Well… I read that into JP’s statement. But a life lived well makes people want to know why people lived it well. Even if their reasons are not normative or true, it makes sense to inquire as to why they are so holy, or happy, or at peace. Does that sound true enough?

There are forms of Christianity I’m not interested - such as the prosperity gospel -, but Catholicism would be the last one on the list. Catholicism makes me curious, because of its history, its power and its enormous impact on culture and politics for such a long time. Whether that impact was a good or bad thing depends on your views, but it is undeniable. If I were indifferent about Catholicism, I probably wouldn’t be here on this forum.

Well, good.

It seems to me you are a minority, welcome though you are here. Most atheists, when they take an interest, (at least on the Internet) seem to take an interest in Catholicism… insofar as they look for something to infuriate them, to disgust them, or to try to bring it more in line with secular goals. The modern memes regarding the Inquisition, the Crusades, or Galileo are excellent examples of, what seems to me, to be a desire to hate the Church, rather than to learn from her.

But I don’t hang with many atheists or non-Catholics. So you could better say whether that’s the case.

Ah yes. Free societies and democracy. It’s been all downhill since we embraced those concepts…

I think about something Chesterton once said: “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

Although America (as it is) is unsuitable for a monarchy, many countries have been because they found a truth and held onto it even with their political assent.

So anyone who leads by example has proved the validity of their doctrine. Sounds pretty straightforward to me (notwithstanding, as Cheiron has already pointed out) that anyone who is not a good example would then prove the invalidity of their doctrine.

Thank God for the No True Scotsman fallacy, eh? Funny how that only works in one direction…

As above, I think we can reasonably modify JP’s premise to say that someone who shows he knows how to live life is at least worth studying. He might be a flash in the pan. But he might know something true you do not.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

. There is NO objective, universal ethical system… it is all subjective.

The Catholic Church is far and away the largest universal ethical system. 2K years plus it’s roots in Judaism. It is worldwide and growing. The teaching is uniform worldwide despite some Catholics not wanting to follow certain teachings. There is an objective consensus for morality in the Church. There is no other system that even comes close.

To wait for every different branch of the God of Abraham(Jew, Christian, Islam) to get every detail the same would be a vain attempt by the ignorant who do not understand the concept of free will which God has given us.
It would also ignore the reality of everything that is anti-God or anti-truth. There is virtually no group of human beings in all of history, except for the last 100 years or so, that has denied the existence of evil spirits. Today, satan’s game is obvious to those who can “see”. He has managed to convince people he doesn’t exist, or isn’t a threat to their salvation.

 

[Bradski]

Yeah, that makes me uncomfortable too, but teaching by example works, which is why it’s so [expletive] frustrating that there are so many so-called “Catholics” who don’t live up to it! AUGH!

This is not meant to be a cheap shot, X, but could you include yourself amongst the Catholics who don’t set a good example?

In my experience, I see Catholics just like everyone else. Suffering from all the human faults which we all suffer from. I guess we all try to do the right thing, but if you listed 100 people I know, I wouldn’t have the faintest idea what religion (if any) they espoused. And it is no good pointing to the church itself and saying ‘look what it teaches’. I can look to see what any religion teaches and I’m not sure that there are any that suggest being immoral or causing harm or not loving your neighbour.

I judge the church by its members.

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:
The question is complex, containing as many assumptions as there are words.
These include:

1. The concept of Catholics. We are talking about people, a dogma, an institution, the catechism. As people joined in pursuit of the truth, of love, we come together as a Church which is in reality, the body of Christ. If used in this, the correct sense, the purpose is to spread the good news and help all to come to God. It acts as the heart of humanity. Atheists, among others, will go askew in formulating an answer to the question, seeing only the worldly manifestation of a sociopolitical institution and/or merely people conforming to the same opinions.
2. I am sure that pretty much every Catholic posting here has gone through a conversion. This along with seeing the turn-outs at World Youth Day celebrations, the strength of the church in societies that have not fallen under the thrall of consumerism or Muslim zealotry, and what most people really think in their hearts when not threatened with embarrassment for believing in things the media ridicules, it is these sort of things I observe that make me think there is no failure.
3. I also don’t think it’s a matter of convincing. One states one’s beliefs and another listens or does not. And, this leads to the next issue.
4. We are responsible for the openness or hardness of our minds and hearts. To know what is transcendent requires a stepping out of the box that is the world view that denies any truth that it does not contain. “Give me proof.” is heard over and over and over again, the proof being in every waking moment, hidden in plain sight. One cannot convince the unwilling. We do have free choice and some people choose not to hear.
5. Given that it is not a matter of convincing, it may also be that there is a failure to communicate. Words have different meanings. It is very difficult to do. Impossible actually without love, a giving of one’s mind to what is other and ultimately God. Which leads to . . .
6. Who is convincing whom. We are the medium, if anyone is causing a change of heart it is God Himself. We ourselves are not the “convincer”. It is God who causes our words to make sense to the “convincee”. I can imagine what this sounds like to someone who does not believe in God. That person cannot believe because (s)he does not know Him. (S)He does not know Him because (s)he is having difficulty travelling down that road that leads to the Truth (Love).
7. Modern people form a variegated group. Some are so lost, as someone once said, they no longer have an address that is home. That is what comes of giving oneself to the illusions and transitory goods of this world. They take us from what has true value, beyond all the ups and downs that we go through in our lives.
   Sorry, didn’t have the possibility of proof reading. Hopefully this makes sense.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

What were you hoping to win … the conversion of Catholics to atheism?

Only God decides who “wins” if that is even a consideration.

“You can’t win” is an idiom, and a fairly common one at that.

I’ll quote one online dictionary’s very succint definition:

Also, “you just can’t win”. Whatever one does is wrong or not enough, as in “Every time I block one of the woodchuck’s holes, I find another; you just can’t win.” For a synonym, see damned if I do, damned if I don’t.

Let’s say Bobby Sue is scolded by the PTA for not doing enough to help the students. She doubles her efforts and now those same people scold her for trying to “take over” the PTA. She can’t win!

So, no, I don’t mean win in any competitive sense but just how not accepting Catholicism no matter how greatly or little one delves into it will always be met with some derision by some who are confused as to why one won’t accept Catholicism.

Be a good person and see if things don’t work out just fine. Catholicism can guide people on that path to holiness.

I wouldn’t necessarily equate being a good person with holiness, but I do agree that Catholicism can lead one to be a good person. That is not to say that Catholicism isn’t without its flaws that can lead one to not do good. Nor does it demonstrate that just because there are good Catholics that one should naturally accept its tenets.

People want to take the harder route?
Fine for them. I prefer the truth of it. Why try to reinvent the wheel when we have teachings and guidelines to attain heaven.
People care too much about what others think.
Just my 2 cents.

The topic at hand is why some people today don’t accept Catholicism, so there is at least some concern from the original poster as to what others think and why. As far as whether the path to being a good person by means other than Catholicism is harder, I suspect there are good Mormons, Zoroastrians, and others who feel differently. Besides the difficulty of one’s journey to doing good is not a measure of its truth.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

So anyone who leads by example has proved the validity of their doctrine. Sounds pretty straightforward to me (notwithstanding, as Cheiron has already pointed out) that anyone who is not a good example would then prove the invalidity of their doctrine.

Thank God for the No True Scotsman fallacy, eh? Funny how that only works in one direction…

I think you may have misunderstood what JP meant. I think JP meant that in the absence of proof of doctrine, converts keep coming because of the way they are treated and the way missionaries are seen treating people. Caring for people whom cannot repay is not proof of anything but that love does exist. Moreover, abusing someone proves nothing more than the existence of malevolence.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

OTOH, perhaps Catholicism is attempting to deal with a timeframe we are not really used to thinking of at this point. The “secular world” so to speak values the now and the near future greatly. If we over simplify things it is almost like the Catholic position is to forgo that for sake of one’s eternal soul later on. But without convincing them that the Catholic way is true it is a tough sell to give up the nearly certain pleasures of now for the uncertain pleasures of eternity.

Well that and I get the feeling that there is a huge push that the Catholic Position requires one to accept a whole package of positions when most people are used to picking and choosing individual values in a more a la carte fashion.

 

[Cheiron]

lol.

Well… I read that into JP’s statement. But a life lived well makes people want to know why people lived it well. Even if their reasons are not normative or true, it makes sense to inquire as to why they are so holy, or happy, or at peace. Does that sound true enough?

Yes, that makes sense. And I’m willing to accept that people have converted to Catholicism because of the good moral character of some missionaries of clergymen. I don’t know if it’s true, but I’ll assume for it the sake of argument. It doesn’t prove that the reasoning is logical or valid. It proves that people have converted to Catholicism for the wrong reasons.

Well, good.

It seems to me you are a minority, welcome though you are here. Most atheists, when they take an interest, (at least on the Internet) seem to take an interest in Catholicism… insofar as they look for something to infuriate them, to disgust them, or to try to bring it more in line with secular goals. The modern memes regarding the Inquisition, the Crusades, or Galileo are excellent examples of, what seems to me, to be a desire to hate the Church, rather than to learn from her.

But I don’t hang with many atheists or non-Catholics. So you could better say whether that’s the case.

I can assure you that’s not the case.

Accusing some atheists of criticizing Catholicism in the service of fulfilling some kind of innate hatred of the Church is really far-fetched and unreasonable. But it allows you not to engage the arguments of those atheists, because you have found the Real Reason™. I think it’s rather presumptuous to think you can look inside someone’s head and then dismiss the actual argument on the basis of what you assume is the real reason someone is angry at the Church. I also think that the inquisition and the treatment of Galileo are perfectly valid complaints that should not be dismissed so uncharitably.

What really irks me is how you divert responsibility. Not the Church and it’s appalling behaviour in the past is the root cause of this anger and those memes; no, the fault lies with the atheist himself who has a natural tendency to hate the Church or want to be disgusted by something. You really shouldn’t exculpate the Church that easily.

 

[inocente]

So it seems to me the better discussions would be to question the secularist as to why we should care about his rubrics.

Is there any reason to care about non-Catholic measures of authority, progress, goodness, etc?

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger talks of the impression that “Christianity in the last 400 years has been a constant rearguard action as the assertions of the faith and of theology have been dismantled piece by piece” and says:

“It is on the many half-hearted interpretations of the biblical Word that can be found everywhere that a sickly Christianity takes its stand – a Christianity that is no longer true to itself and that consequently cannot radiate encouragement and enthusiasm. It gives, instead, the impression of being an organization that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say, because twisted words are not convincing and are only concerned to hide their emptiness.” - catholicbridge.com/catholic/ratzinger_creationism.php

I think he has a point. Christians on the defensive who don’t radiate encouragement and enthusiasm can’t complain when secularists and others do the opposite.

Here’s some non-Catholic measures of authority, progress, goodness, etc. Some might question the theology of the comments, but they radiate the basic idea, by my side, in my life, shining through me everyday - youtube.com/watch?v=e33zCUm1ZnY.

 

[puzzledtoo]

inocente: your post with the quote from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger brings to mind for me this from Sathya Sai–“The lights have to be switched on in the heart of man, rather than in the house where the image of the Lord is installed and worshipped.” This for me comes back to behavior is believable.

 

[Cheiron]

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger talks of the impression that “Christianity in the last 400 years has been a constant rearguard action as the assertions of the faith and of theology have been dismantled piece by piece” and says:

“It is on the many half-hearted interpretations of the biblical Word that can be found everywhere that a sickly Christianity takes its stand – a Christianity that is no longer true to itself and that consequently cannot radiate encouragement and enthusiasm. It gives, instead, the impression of being an organization that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say, because twisted words are not convincing and are only concerned to hide their emptiness.” - catholicbridge.com/catholic/ratzinger_creationism.php

I think he has a point. Christians on the defensive who don’t radiate encouragement and enthusiasm can’t complain when secularists and others do the opposite.

Here’s some non-Catholic measures of authority, progress, goodness, etc. Some might question the theology of the comments, but they radiate the basic idea, by my side, in my life, shining through me everyday - youtube.com/watch?v=e33zCUm1ZnY.

That is an interesting document. Joseph Ratzinger certainly doesn’t make it easy on himself. I was impressed by this bit about Genesis:

For when we are told that we have to distinguish between the images themselves and what those images mean, then we can ask in turn: Why wasn’t that said earlier? Evidently it must have been taught differently at one time or else Galileo would never have been put on trial. And so the suspicion grows that ultimately perhaps this way of viewing things is only a trick of the church and of theologians who have run out of solutions but do not want to admit it, and now they are looking for something to hind behind.

In the next paragraph, he is remarkably lucid too:

Along with this there is another disquieting consideration. For one can ask: If theologians or even the church can shift the boundaries here between image and intention, between what lies buried in the past and what is of enduring value, why can they not do so elsewhere – as, for instance, with respect to Jesus’ miracles? And if there, why not also with respect to what is absolutely central – the cross and the resurrection of the Lord?

I haven’t read everything yet, but already I’m somewhat surprised to notice that Ratzinger knows exactly what the problem is and how the reconciliation of religion with science can cast doubt on the credibility of the Church.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In the abstract it means to adhere to SOME ethical system. And since there is no “globally” accepted system, there is no universally accepted “moral” behavior. Some Catholics assert that contraception is “immoral”. Other Catholics deny this.

Many years ago I had a co-worker (he was a protestant) who said that sex is immoral even between husband and wife, IF it is not directed toward procreation. According to his ethical system to have sex in the infertile period is “immoral”. Maybe you disagree with him. To paraphrase the old expression: “one man’s junk is another man’s treasure”. There is NO objective, universal ethical system… it is all subjective.

So it must also be subjective that everything is subjective?

The fact that all people do not subscribe to the same moral system is not proof that there are not moral principles that could be universal. You are confusing what people accept with what is objectively moral or immoral. I think you may never get past this confusion as you have expressed it here and elsewhere. Atheists almost always seem to think you can vote on morality, and that proves there are no universally valid moral principles. But it has been demonstrated time and again that some acts are moral everywhere and some acts are immoral everywhere.

At the Nuremberg Trials the German judges on trial protested that everyone was a Nazi and that they were all doing their duty, even the ones who sentenced the Jews to sterilization or the death camps. That did not save them. The American judges at the trial held fast to the universal moral principle that all men are entitled to a universal standard of justice, and so the judges were found guilty of judicial crimes.

The movie *Judgment at Nuremberg *is a superb rendition of this lesson in justice.

 

[inocente]

I haven’t read everything yet, but already I’m somewhat surprised to notice that Ratzinger knows exactly what the problem is and how the reconciliation of religion with science can cast doubt on the credibility of the Church.

Read on, he un-casts that doubt. “The question about what the human being is finds its response in the following of Jesus Christ. Following in his steps from day to day in patient love and suffering we can learn with him what it means to be a human being and to become a human being.”

His key is that Christ is a living person, by my side, in my life, shining through me everyday, not a theory to be defended.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

it is a tough sell to give up the nearly certain pleasures of now for the uncertain pleasures of eternity.

It would be interesting to know what you refer to as “the certain pleasures of now” that Catholics do not also experience.

Are you speaking of things like pornography or abortion or adultery?

Please be more specific.

The life of a Christian is fully open to the legitimate pleasures of life.

The so-called “uncertain pleasures of eternity” are not to be lightly regarded, especially if it turns out that they are truly certain, and a good deal more pleasurable than one could have imagined.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

It would be interesting to know what you refer to as “the certain pleasures of now” that Catholics do not also experience.

Are you speaking of things like pornography or abortion or adultery?

Please be more specific.

It varies person to person, but I suppose abc would be an example. For the sake of argument presume we are speaking of a straight married couple. ABC allows the near certain pressure of intimate relations almost anytime with lower risk of pregnancy. This is a “near certain pleasure of now” for both parties. The Catholic view involves periodically denying these pleasures (by the very nature of NFP) for the purpose of eternal pleasures decades later.

The life of a Christian is fully open to the legitimate pleasures of life.

The so-called “uncertain pleasures of eternity” are not to be lightly regarded, especially if it turns out that they are truly certain, and a good deal more pleasurable than one could have imagined.

It is almost as if your position is asking society to think beyond a timeframe that they are used to dealing with. I was simply stating that there is a rather limited ability to forgo daily wants for future wants in today’s world. Examples include the last housing bust, pyramid schemes, diet supplement industry, etc.