posted
My roommate got arrested in the first month we knew each other.
AND
She's 5'3" and survived numerous mosh pits. She can take Diana on. She can take anyone on. *shadowboxes*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
OH Yeah!! Well my best Catholic friend is my MIL and she is in her seventies, she has lung cancer and well she's been dead since february, but she could still take on any of these other so called Catholics out there with one hand tied behind her back..
posted
From the horse's mouth (the Catechism of the Catholic Church):
quote: 2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."[137] "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."[138] To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.
That's the complete, authoritative statement of the church's position.
What individual catholics may or may not believe is, of course, widely variable.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
A lot of catholics, maybe even most catholics, don't follow the letter of church law on a wide variety of issues. Which, according to the church, makes them not really catholic.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which, according to the church, makes them not really catholic.
Well, JT, that's a matter of deep personal import to me at the moment, and one which I am still deciding. If you (or anyone else) have any thoughts on that I'd love to hear them...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is possible to count yourself as a true member of any church if you do not live and are not trying to live most, if not all, of its teachings.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anything involving a mortal sin falls into the category of "must be obeyed to be considered Catholic."
Using the name without trying to follow its teachings is being a cultural but not faithful member of the religion.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I'd go letter for letter with that, Kat, after all, Joan of Arc was burned as a witch before being canonized as a saint. But, then again, she had visions from God and gave her life in the cause to which she felt called... I'm just questioning some moral teachings because I've suddenly found myself on the back side of them.
I appreciate the candor and the absence of judgement in the way you've shared your thoughts.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you can take issue with whatever rules you would like. However, you can't be a faithful Catholic and not be living its teachings.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:A lot of catholics, maybe even most catholics, don't follow the letter of church law on a wide variety of issues. Which, according to the church, makes them not really catholic.
Not true. Many of our "best" Catholics departed from "official" church doctrine. Many of these have later been named cardinals; many of them have become saints. Faithful dissent has always been part of Catholic tradition and practice. And the "church" is not just the hierarchy or the Pope, but the whole body of Christ - in other words, all of us.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, no... there's points to be had for kmb there... Aquinas stood accused of heresy at one point because of his Aristotelean leanings. But his defense of Aristotle is precisely why Aristotelean philosophy dominates Catholic thinking to this day.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay - honestly. I think most issues taken up with doctrine regarding the acceptability of practices are taken up after the violation has already occurred.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
um... I'm neither talking specifcally about masturbation nor trying to compare anyone here directly to Aquinas. I'm saying that kmbboots is technically correct in that there is a history of faithful dissent in the church.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was actually making a larger point regarding dissent. I am going to assume that you didn't mean to trivialize my faith.
Jim-Me, if you are interested, I would recommend a couple of books: Faithful Dissent by Robert McClory and Why I am a Catholic by Garry Wills.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you mean your faith as in Catholicism, or your faith as in you? I definitely wasn't trivializing Catholicism, and I don't know anything about you so I wasn't trying to trivialize you.
I don't understand why someone would want to adhere to something that they beleive is mistaken and/or wrong. It seems like it's for reasons other than agreement with the teachings.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
and Katharina is right, at least with respect to me. My die is cast. What I'm wondering is if I have decided that the church got something wrong (and I have), do I have to toss the whole thing? or do I still get to listen to its wisdom and worship through its sacraments, which I *do* find grace-filled?
I really need to discuss the matter with a priest but, until such time as I can, I am listening to people's thoughts on the matter, too.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I don't understand why someone would want to adhere to something that they beleive is mistaken and/or wrong. It seems like it's for reasons other than agreement with the teachings.
Kat, if someone had taught you a whole slew of life lessons which had been of inordinate value, then they told you something you found out was wrong, would you just stop listening to them entirely?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My faith in Catholicism. Catholicism is considerably bigger than specific, current, teachings. This is especially true of relatively minor teachings like "onanism". And, yes, we do recognize degrees of importance. I'm right there with the big, important Catholic doctrines. And there have been plenty of times that the church (meaning the laity) has disagreed with official church doctrine even on big stuff. And been right.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
If I didn't decide they were wrong until I had violated some of the teachings, I would question my own motives. People like to think they are good; if there's a conflict between behavior and beliefs, one of them has to give. If I had those beliefs before my actions violated them, and I held them for good reasons, I'd like to think I'd change my actions instead abandoning the beliefs.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Any faith structure is bound to get things wrong from time to time. Especially one as big and old and stratified as the Catholic church. The Pope is not the church any more than you and I are the church. Hang in there.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Since you don't know me, I'll have to ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt. I believe that when I disagree with official doctrine it is for good reason and after careful, prayerful consideration.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my particular case it really is about the beliefs rather than the actions... and really this is common to Catholicism. As I said elsewhere, in Catholic Morality it is implicit and human that there will be sinning. If it's just a matter of actions then you go to confession and try to understand why you shouldn't do that again. Actions are easy to reconcile in the Catholic Church... it's the beliefs that are the tricky thing.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Do you mind my asking which beliefs? I would be happy to add whatever perspective I could. A lot of dissent has been about belief. The Arian controversy is a big example of this.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel this total superposition of states on this question. On the one hand, I know that faithful adherence means you are part of the covenant. I feel it deeply that it matters. I don't get to pick and choose.
On the other hand, I believe no church leadership is infallible. The more I learn about the history of the church, the more I understand that to be the case. Also, I do not believe we are meant to give up our moral agency to others ever. The process of moral growth and development absolutely requires that our own hearts, minds, spirits, consciences, and deepest selves be straining to understand, to puzzle things out, to put it into practice and see how it stands up, to test, probe, question, and learn daily, even hourly, every day of our lives (and beyond).
That's why my church leaders teach true principles and let people govern themselves. They specifically refuse to make detailed judgements on every issue. We are given the Word of Wisdom, for instance, and then we are told to put it into practice in the way it has meaning for us.
I can do this, I can use my own judgement, in an honest way or a dishonest way. It's up to me to decide which I want to do. Like kat I believe that if I use my own judgement to decide everything I'm doing now is perfectly fine and dandy, then I'm not gaining anything from my time spent on church, prayer, reading, and study. However, if I turn over my agency to someone else, be they ever so holy and wise, I am failing just as much if not more, in the task I'm appointed. God put me in charge of myself for a reason.
There's this superposition and dynamic balance that occurs sometimes, that to me seems to be the ideal state. I'm never 100% sure of what is right. I'm pretty positive about some things and less sure of others. I learn as I go. I learn by doing. And when the prophet or other general authority, or my bishop, says something is right, then I trust them. I have seen them be right about thorny questions too many times to discount what they say. If it's something that seems wrong to me then I take it under deep consideration. I make a trial of their suggestion, and see how it works. I take that leap of faith.
Almost everything I've done this for, I have come to agree with them, usually for reasons totally different than what I assumed up front. Some things you just can't judge until you give them a fair trial. My life has been greatly blessed thereby. I am extremely grateful for the teachings of my church.
But there are some teachings that I have to conclude that for me they don't apply. Perhaps the church moves over time from one position to another, and I like to think I can sometimes be a bit ahead of that curve. At one time the church was strongly in favor of capital punishment, for instance. Now the official position is no position. So if I were an opponent of capital punishment in that former time, I would be at odds with the church teachings, but I would hold my dissent in superposition, trying to understand where I might be wrong or not seeing something the church leadership has been shown.
At one time blacks weren't given the priesthood. That situation deeply grieved many people back then. There was great rejoicing when the revelation came extending the priesthood to all worthy male members of the church. Rather than let such issues separate me from the church, (and there's no telling which teachings today may change in the future), I try to prayerfully and deeply consider the teachings and then decide what I think.
If I didn't believe the church has access to deeper insights and higher understanding than I possess, then I wouldn't be a member, however, I will never give up my free agency to anyone else. It is mine forever. And I know that the church leaders are not infallible.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'd prefer to keep it abstract out here as I don't think I can go into enough detail to not give people the wrong impression.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim-me, I don't remember where I read my earlier statement, but I do know it was harped upon by my high school religion teacher (who was a nun). We got in countless fights over that saying. I took exception to the church's view that you had to agree with everything they said or else you "weren't catholic". Now, my memories from high school are spotty at best (my memories from earlier this week are already fuzzy). But that means I remember things and don't remember the source. I've been looking for one, but kmb seems to have a host of sources all ready.
If my earlier statement is, in fact, not true, then that restores a lot of my faith in catholicism. Although I must say it's a pretty big misconception that's not being addressed at all.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
