But what if I say that to be a decent person, one must refrain from extra-martial sex?
In other words, how do you define “decent person?” And why is your definition better than mine?
Not at all. Your wife is not faithfully following the teachings of the Catholic church. She’s no doubt a fine person; I would not dream to pass judgement on her relationship with the amighty; and as** Bricker ** said, she’s “Catholic” if she was baptized. But she is not in accord with the church’s teachings, ergo she is not a “faithful Catholic.”
It is my entire moral code… in a sense.
Only because in Catholicism, the informed use of one’s conscience in reaching a moral decision is not only permitted, but required. So if I rely upon my conscience in reaching a moral decision, I am living up to what’s required of me as a Catholic.
This distinction is very unclear to me.
What if someone says, “I voted against same-sex marriage, because my opinion of homosexuality was shaped by my religion’s teaching of love.”
And somone else says, “I voted against the death penalty, because my opinion of taking a human life was shaped by my religion’s teaching of the sanctity of life.”
Which vote is impermissible, and why?
IOW, It’s okay if they agree with you, but not if they don’t.
The RCC teaches that life must not be taken, including the unborn => bad
The RCC teaches that life must not be taken, including the criminal => good
No. The entire “are you a Catholic?” discussion is somewhat of a red herring; as I said above, I don’t contend that only members of a religion may criticize it.
But since you asked, in my view only, as a layman, not as any kind of pastoral authority, is that if your wife were to consult her pastor, she would be told that she’s not in union with the Holy See.
I appreciate furt’s use of “faithful Catholic” to distinguish between a Catholic and a Catholic in union with the Holy See, but I like the slight more wordy" “practical Catholic in union with the Holy See.” A practical - not “practicing” - Catholic is one who recognizes the need to, and endeavors to live up to, the Commandments of God and the Precepts of the Church. One in union with the Holy See believes, as I detailed above, that which is required belief as promulgated by the ordinary magisterium.
I’d like to withdraw this paragraph. It’s absolutely inappropriate for a layperson to offer opinions on that issue; this is reserved for the clergy that are responsible for the soul of the individual. Your wife’s beliefs and status are between her and her confessor. What I said above was like a doctor trying to diagnose a patient on-line, or a lawyer offering legal advice based on a message board description. It just can’t competently be done.
Your definition ignores personal character in favor of imposing a definition based on superficial notions of ritual purity. Under your definition, no one in a same-sex relationship can be a “decent” person. You have taken such qualities as honesty, kindness, loyalty, compassion, courage, thoughtfulness, humor, humility, etc. and made them all completely subordinate to a requirement that it is not only superficial and ritualistic but is actually illegal for millions of people to meet.
In other words, I would say that the difference in what constitutes “decency” is in how a person’s behavior affects other people.
The difference is that your first example represents an attempt to make adherence to a personal religious code compulsory to everyone else while the second example does not. No civil rights are abridged by opposition to the death penalty.
Much better and, more importantly, correct.
On reflection, I think I need to restate my premise. Every church has every right to give moral guidance to its membership, which can include discussions of a political nature. What they do not have the right to do is coerce a vote or a positive action by threats to remove some valued privilege of membership. (Coercion to refrain from an action deemed sinful is, I think, acceptable; coercion to take a particular action is not.)
Consider the following: Jones is the majority owner and president of Jones Industries, which runs a company town. Jones is a rock-ribbed Republican, very staunch in his views. Jones has every right to post “Support our President” and “DeLay is Right” signs all over his property, including in the plants he owns and operates where they will be seen by his workers. He has the right to buy ads in the newspaper and time on the radio station to promote his political views. What he does not have the right to do is to tell his employees that if they vote Democrat, they will be fired, or the lease on their company-owned house will be terminated.
Translate that to Il Papa. As the supreme authority on belief (within the Magisterium) for Catholics worldwide, he has every right to make pronouncements on all matters of faith and morals, or to have his bishops do likewise. He might even be privileged to say to candidate X, “Support of that policy, which legalizes what we consider sin, is incompatible with being a good Catholic. Withdraw that support, or face ecclesiastical discipline.” He does not have the right to say, “Don’t vote Democratic, or Labour, or Social Democrat, or whatever, or you’ll be excommunicated.”
Do you mean “I don’t think he should have that right” or “He doesn’t have that right.”?
With all due respect Polycarp, I don’t see how those two are different. They both seem like coersion to me.
The cart is ahead of the horse here. In fact, the cart is so far ahead of the horse that to the horse, the cart is a dot.
You assume that there is a civil right being abriged. By entering into discourse about the law of the land should be, it is this point that we are attempting to prove (or refute).
You can’t point to this process and say, “You can’t use religion as a basis to abridge civil rights,” and then say, “Now that we have eliminated impermissible religious influence, let us codify that same-sex marriage is a civil right!”
Even the most die-hard opponent of Church meddling has to admit that what the Church does today is practically nothing compared to what it used to do. If the tactics Mother Rome used in the Middle Ages were still in use today, most of northern Europe, North America and parts of South America would be under perpetual interdict…
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
All I know is that I lived the lifestyle advocated by my Church and I never had a worry in the world.
[QUOTE]
Look, you could’ve made your point without this little gem:
This is a half-truth (at best) and you know it. Sure, you lived the Catholic lifestyle, but it’s not for lack of trying not to live it.
But excommunication is ecclesiastical discipline, so I don’t know where you want the line drawn, Polycarp.
There can certainly be political candidates or movements so vile and hostile to a moral and Christian life that support for them is grounds for such discipline. Pope Pius XII excommunicated Communists in 1949 by decree, in large part because Communists were persecuting priests and lay Catholics behind the Iron Curtain.
Was he wrong to do so?
Yes. :smack:
Actually, it was an assertion under Natural Law, which both Catholicism as a philosophical discipline (which it is among other things) and I adhere to. So under that premise, the second meaning. But in the context of a board where Natural Law is not a consensus premise, I should have meant the first.
I would contend that it IS a cvil right.
I would also contend that religious opposition to same-sex marriage is STILL an attempt to make a religious code compusory to all regardless of whether or not you recognize an inherent civil right.
There is no civil right to eat pork. That doesn’t mean that an attempt to codify kosher laws into criminal laws would not be seen as an attempt to interfere with other people’s lives and it would be absolutely fair for non-kosher people to bitch loudly about it.
Apologies for the long post.
The Vatican and their leaders have written documents and made speechs stating that condoms to not protect the users from AIDS. They have pointed to “studies” and “researchers” stating that HIV can pass through condoms, ignoring the WHO studies which say differently. They are either misinformed or lying, you decide.
There is a difference between the Church and individual Catholics or Missionaries, who I agree do incredible work. However I very much doubt the Vatician would approve of a Priest showing a classfull of teenagers how to use a condom. Yet it happens. There is a difference between sending a Cleric to recruit and a Cleric once there, deciding that the best way to save his parish, is to recognize that telling his parishers that condoms don’t protect against AIDS is false. Further unless they’re telling those people that condoms DO work, then they’re not mitigating anything…they’re just watching the dead pile up. This is from one of the cites you linked:
bolding mine.
Compare that to this:
Which statement is the the truth? Which statement allows a man who obeys the Word, to keep his family safe? Which comment bears more weight in the world, a Preacher in South Africa or Pontifical Council for the Family? Who speaks for the Church?
For the last time, this is not an issue of morality. Is this all you guys understand? Sin, is that it? I’ve posted link, cited quotes that show that AIDS in Africa is as much about tainted blood, untested blood, lack of medicine, education as it is about ‘dirty’ sex; probably more, yet time after time all you focus on is morality and sex.
Perhaps I’m not being clear. I’ll try again. Mr. Smith works in a mine. He is injured and requires a blood transfusion. He receives tainted blood, which is rampant in Africa. The ONLY method he has that will enable him to continue to have relations with his wife, and not infect her, is with a condom. How is this an issue of HIS morality, what sin has he committed…besides living in a poor country?
Try to grasp this. If Mr. Smith obeys doctrine, he will kill his wife. This particular doctrine no longer works; because of the nature of this disease. A disease is amoral, it doesn’t chose good or bad people, it just is. It’s in the blood supply, it’s in the hospitals, it’s in the instruments and anyone regardless of their morality can become infected.
Once infected, they have a responsibility not to infect others, but they can’t exercise that responsibility if they are fed misinformation or denied options. I shouldn’t have to be lucky enough to find a progressive Priest, when the Church’s pre-existing doctrine allows for the use of condoms…but they won’t talk about it. Instead they focus on sex, on sin, on everything else, except the one method that will help those already infected.
He is allowed, unless bricker is mistaken, to wear a condom to prevent illness. Yet I’ve not heard this mentioned by the Church. Why not? Shouldn’t the Church, the Vatican have a responsilbility in Africa, to say, “Hey due to the extreme conditions, a responsible Catholic husband and father, must ensure that he doesn’t make his loving wife ill. Until you receive an HIV test, please wear a condom or refrain.”
Radical? Sure, but it’s the truth and follows Church doctrine…unless the Church like most of you seem to be, is more concerned about sex, than anything else. Catholic doctrine teaches: if we can not avoid some evil to happen, we may choose to permit some lesser evil, in order to avoid the greater evil, on condition that we do not directly commit some evil ourselves.
Realistic and understanding, it makes sense. It realizes that situations are different and sometimes people are caught between the rock and a hardplace and need help, help that can’t be provided by standard interpretation of doctrine.
A quarter of a million children are infected with HIV in Africa and growing. What evil can be greater than that?
Of course he did.
http://www.cathnews.com/news/501/122.php
Jones runs for office and is elected, with, of course, the support of the local Republican party. One night, flipping through cable channels, he happens to catch the beginning of “Farenheit 911.” Transfixed, he watches the entire movie, and emerges a changed man. At the next meeting of the legislature, he introduces bills against private gun ownership, supporting public funding for abortions, and a resolution denouncing the war in Iraq.
The local Republican party chairman tells him, “If you continue in this vein, we will withdraw our fund-raising support from you, remove all the privileges of party membership you have enjoyed, and you’ll lose all the financial backing you had. In addition, we will actively fund a candidate to run against you.”
Kosher? Or coercive?
I contend it isn’t.
How do we judge which of us is accurate?