Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

10/19/2012 new

(Quote) Clarence-698070 said: So you get to decide who is following the faith and who doesn't? When di...
(Quote) Clarence-698070 said:

So you get to decide who is following the faith and who doesn't? When did God give you the keys?

--hide--
Well when someone does not agree with a doctrine of the faith in there profile, you can by reason know they don't follow the faith in all.

10/19/2012 new
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: (Quote) Laura-857740 said: It is arrogance to assume someone does not practice or know their ...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

Quote:
Laura-857740 said: It is arrogance to assume someone does not practice or know their faith. Voting for Obama does not prove one does not practice their faith. I am pro life as well. I would rather come up with a social design to assist those who will be and are pregnant for whatever reason it happened....rape, etc. I am willing to design a socialist program to help these individuals throughout their life, if abortion is made illegal. And that means everyone in society must assist these people with your time, money, resources, etc. And that also means that we may have to help them for their entire lifetime...small price to pay if we're talking about saving unborn lives.



The socialist doctrine you're espousing is opposed to the Catholic doctrine called subsidiarity.

--hide--
You are correct, Chelsea.

The Popes have strongly spoken out against socialism and communism.

Short/very basic video clip on the Catholic Church and Subsidiarity - www.catholicvote.org
10/19/2012 new

(Quote) Lina-796057 said: I jumped into the thread as I read in the Stream the line about forgiving can't be done till t...
(Quote) Lina-796057 said:

I jumped into the thread as I read in the Stream the line about forgiving can't be done till the transgressor confesses. I had not read the whole thread.

Between persons, I say that forgiveness is not hinged upon confession. If I waited till my ex-husband apologized, or even admitted to, the couple of serious wrongs he committed against me, my anger/resentment/loathing would have eaten me up inside a long time ago. But for my own sake, I had to forgive him his "sins" against me, to be able to find a way to be able to christianly love him again. Forgiveness, "they" say, is really for the sufferer's sake, not for the transgressor's.

Between God and man, I understand that sins must be confessed to be forgiven.

I think the status of the entities involved is where the difference lies. God is the authority over us; it is confessing where we are reminded again of our lower place. We people need to forgive each other to exist properly with each other. We're all in the same boat.

--hide--


I think that your philosophy of forgiveness fails practically.

So, if you borrowed money from another person, and decided later you are not bound to pay it back, you believe that the lender must forgive the amount without you admitting that you've stolen it?

The whole notion of forgiveness lies in the admission of a debt by the debtor in order to re-establish justice between two persons. I can sit ready to forgive the debt of one who's borrowed money from me who has decided later he is not bound to pay it back, but if I tell him that the debt if forgiven, it's really vain words if he says to me that there is no debt. Forgiveness is supposed to re-establish justice (a situation, based upon virtue, in which each renders the other what is due him). How does justice exist between two people when one will not admit he's offended the other by stealing money, much less that he must repay what he took, and the other who says vainly, "I forgive you?"

There's nothing wrong in forgiving readily, in fact, that's what's commanded of us. But it's impossible to forgive a person who does not wish to be forgiven.

10/19/2012 new

(Quote) Thomas-699657 said: Well when someone does not agree with a doctrine of the faith in there profile, you can ...
(Quote) Thomas-699657 said:

Well when someone does not agree with a doctrine of the faith in there profile, you can by reason know they don't follow the faith in all.

--hide--

No you can't.

First, those who don't accept a doctrine may follow it, either out of submission despite their disagreement, or simply for lack of opportunity.

Second, as has been pointed out many times, there are a variety of reasons people answer 'No' to the faith questions, especially the one on premarital sex, that have nothing to do with their current belief or practice. The most common is that they violated the teaching in the past and feel that they would be misleading others if they answer 'Yes' even though they now accept the teaching and have no intention of violating it.

10/19/2012 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: No you can't. First, those who don't accept a doctrine may follow it, eith...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

No you can't.

First, those who don't accept a doctrine may follow it, either out of submission despite their disagreement, or simply for lack of opportunity.

Second, as has been pointed out many times, there are a variety of reasons people answer 'No' to the faith questions, especially the one on premarital sex, that have nothing to do with their current belief or practice. The most common is that they violated the teaching in the past and feel that they would be misleading others if they answer 'Yes' even though they now accept the teaching and have no intention of violating it.

--hide--
Well then why have the quetions at all, if they are erealavent???I kow I have heard this said by you many times, but i have not come across anyone that thinks this way that you are saying. The questions are straightforward and doesn't say anything about your past practice. So I will have to disagree with you on this.

10/19/2012 new
There really is a two fold issue with forgivness. I think one can forgive some one of transgressions against ones self without getting any appology or statement of guilt. Its not as common as it should be most likely but it does occur. An example might be the mother of a daughter who was brutalized and killed by a man on death row. The mother may in fact forgive the man regardless of his feeling/wishes etc. In fact she has to do this to move on. Weither he asks for forgiveness either of the mother or God is a different beast all together.
10/19/2012 new
(Quote) Mary-486033 said: (Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: (Quote) Laura-857740 said: It is arrogance to assume someone ...
(Quote) Mary-486033 said:
Quote:
Chelsea-743484 said:

Quote:
Laura-857740 said: It is arrogance to assume someone does not practice or know their faith. Voting for Obama does not prove one does not practice their faith. I am pro life as well. I would rather come up with a social design to assist those who will be and are pregnant for whatever reason it happened....rape, etc. I am willing to design a socialist program to help these individuals throughout their life, if abortion is made illegal. And that means everyone in society must assist these people with your time, money, resources, etc. And that also means that we may have to help them for their entire lifetime...small price to pay if we're talking about saving unborn lives.



The socialist doctrine you're espousing is opposed to the Catholic doctrine called subsidiarity.


You are correct, Chelsea.



The Popes have strongly spoken out against socialism and communism.



Short/very basic video clip on the Catholic Church and Subsidiarity - www.catholicvote.org
--hide--
What the Popes Have to Say About Socialism www.tfp.org

"Anyone who examines the ideology of socialism will see the contrast between the socialist doctrine and the doctrine of the Church.

All the same, it is not out of place to review the condemnation of the popes starting with Pius IX and ending with Benedict XVI. Thus, we present what the popes have to say about socialism as they condemn the socialist doctrine thoroughly and entirely. This is not a comprehensive compilation, but just some samples."

PIUS IX (1846-1878):

"Overthrow [of] the entire order of human affairs." "You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings." (Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, December 8, 1849)

LEO XIII (1878-1903):

"Hideous monster "...communism, socialism, nihilism, hideous deformities of the civil society of men and almost its ruin." (Encyclical Diuturnum, June 29, 1881)

Ruin of all institutions

"...For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, sedition permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists" (Encyclical Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, n. 27).

A sect "that threatens civil society with destruction"

"...We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning - the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever. Surely, these are they who, as the sacred Scriptures testify, Defile the flesh, despise dominion and blaspheme majesty." (Jud. 8). (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

Socialists debase the natural union of man and woman and assail the right of property

"They [socialists, communists, or nihilists] debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust. Lured, in fine, by the greed of present goods, which is the root of all evils, which some coveting have erred from the faith (1 Tim. 6:10.3), they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one's mode of life." (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

Destructive sect

"...socialists and members of other seditious societies, who labor unceasingly to destroy the State even to its foundations." (Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888) Enemy of society and of Religion

"...there is need for a union of brave minds with all the resources they can command. The harvest of misery is before our eyes, and the dreadful projects of the most disastrous national upheavals are threatening us from the growing power of the socialistic movement. They have insidiously worked their way into the very heart of the community, and in the darkness of their secret gatherings, and in the open light of day, in their writings and their harangues, they are urging the masses onward to sedition; they fling aside religious discipline; they scorn duties; they clamor only for rights; they are working incessantly on the multitudes of the needy which daily grow greater, and which, because of their poverty are easily deluded and led into error. It is equally the concern of the State and of religion, and all good men should deem it a sacred duty to preserve and guard both in the honor which is their due." (Encyclical Graves de Communi Re, January 18, 1901, n. 21)

SAINT PIUS X (1903-1914):

The dream of re-shaping society will bring socialism

"But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, the reign of love and justice ... What are they going to produce? ... A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train." (Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique ["Our Apostolic Mandate"] to the French Bishops, August 25, 1910, condemning the movement Le Sillon)

BENEDICT XV (1914-1922):

The condemnation of socialism should never be forgotten

"It is not our intention here to repeat the arguments which clearly expose the errors of Socialism and of similar doctrines. Our predecessor, Leo XIII, most wisely did so in truly memorable Encyclicals; and you, Venerable Brethren, will take the greatest care that those grave precepts are never forgotten, but that whenever circumstances call for it, they should be clearly expounded and inculcated in Catholic associations and congresses, in sermons and in the Catholic press." (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914, n. 13)

PIUS XI (1922-1939): "No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist"

Socialism, fundamentally contrary to Christian truth.

"... For Socialism, which could then be termed almost a single system and which maintained definite teachings reduced into one body of doctrine, has since then split chiefly into two sections, often opposing each other and even bitterly hostile, without either one however abandoning a position fundamentally contrary to Christian truth that was characteristic of Socialism." (Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 111)

Socialism cannot be reconciled with Catholic Doctrine

"But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth." (Ibid. n. 117)

Catholic Socialism, a contradiction

"[Socialism] is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist."(Ibid. n. 120)

PIUS XII (1939-1958):

The Church will fight to the end, in defense of supreme values threatened by socialist

"[The Church undertook] the protection of the individual and the family against a current threatening to bring about a total socialization which in the end would make the specter of the 'Leviathan' become a shocking reality. The Church will fight this battle to the end, for it is a question of supreme values: the dignity of man and the salvation of souls." (Radio message to the Katholikentag of Vienna, September 14, 1952 in Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, vol. XIV, p. 314)

The state can not be regarded as being above all

"To consider the State as something ultimate to which everything else should be subordinated and directed, cannot fail to harm the true and lasting prosperity of nations." (Encyclical Summi Pontificatus, October 20, 1939, n. 60)

John XXIII JOHN XXIII (1958-1963):

"No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism"

"Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority." (Encyclical Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961, n. 34)

PAUL VI (1963-1978):

Too often Christians tend to idealize socialism

"Too often Christians attracted by socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated." (Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, May 14, 1971, n. 31)

JOHN PAUL II (1978-2005):

Socialism: Danger of a "simple and radical solution"

"It may seem surprising that socialism appeared at the beginning of the Pope's critique of solutions to the question of the working class at a time when socialism was not yet in the form of a strong and powerful State, with all the resources which that implies, as was later to happen. However, he correctly judged the danger posed to the masses by the attractive presentation of this simple and radical solution to the question of the working class." (Encyclical Centesimus Annus − On the 100th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, May 1, 1991, n. 12)

Fundamental error of socialism: A mistaken conception of the person

"Continuing our reflections, ... we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property." (Ibid, n. 13)

BENEDICT XVI (2005 - present):

"We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything"

"The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person − every person − needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live by bread alone (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) − a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human. (Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, December 25, 2005, n. 28)"
10/19/2012 new

(Quote) Thomas-699657 said: Well then why have the quetions at all, if they are erealavent???I kow I have heard this said by...
(Quote) Thomas-699657 said:

Well then why have the quetions at all, if they are erealavent???I kow I have heard this said by you many times, but i have not come across anyone that thinks this way that you are saying. The questions are straightforward and doesn't say anything about your past practice. So I will have to disagree with you on this.

--hide--
Thomas, I have come across a number of posts in the past year which describe the poster's confusion about how to answer some of the faith questions on their profile. And I've read a number of threads where this topic (the confusion between practice and belief, the very thing Jerry stated) has been mentioned. The questions are not irrelevant, Thomas. They are a stepping stone or guide in this invitation of getting to know another person. The questions may be straightforward, but people's perspectives are not all the same, so their interpretation of a few words might vary from another person's readings of those few words. A person's conscience can play a factor in how he responds, say, to the question on premarital sex. He might understand that that is forbidden according to the teachings of our Church, but he also knows that he has sinned in that regard in the past. His past behavior showed that he did not accept that teaching, and the guilt he might feel over that could influence the answer he gives. If we care enough to pursue getting to know a person for other reasons, we can certainly ask them about how they answered the faith questions so that we more clearly see that person, rather than going by assumptions. A discussion on the question & answer might lead to growth on both sides of the table, which would be a very good thing, I would think.

10/19/2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: I think that your philosophy of forgiveness fails practically. So, if you borrow...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



I think that your philosophy of forgiveness fails practically.

So, if you borrowed money from another person, and decided later you are not bound to pay it back, you believe that the lender must forgive the amount without you admitting that you've stolen it?

The whole notion of forgiveness lies in the admission of a debt by the debtor in order to re-establish justice between two persons. I can sit ready to forgive the debt of one who's borrowed money from me who has decided later he is not bound to pay it back, but if I tell him that the debt if forgiven, it's really vain words if he says to me that there is no debt. Forgiveness is supposed to re-establish justice (a situation, based upon virtue, in which each renders the other what is due him). How does justice exist between two people when one will not admit he's offended the other by stealing money, much less that he must repay what he took, and the other who says vainly, "I forgive you?"

There's nothing wrong in forgiving readily, in fact, that's what's commanded of us. But it's impossible to forgive a person who does not wish to be forgiven.

--hide--
You speak of justice. There is also mercy.

We do not deserve God's forgiveness, but He gives it freely. And He sacrificed His Son for your sake and mine, before we committed our first sin, in anticipation of our weaknesses, so that He not lose us.

You mentioned about borrowing money in your second paragraph. When I spoke of forgiveness, I spoke of my responsibility as victim, not as transgressor. If I were the transgressor, I should not expect forgiveness without some action on my part. But if I am the victim, I can choose to forgive (silently, in my heart, or even vocally) the transgressor FOR MY OWN SAKE, for the freedom that forgiveness gives ME--the release from bitterness and negativity, the ability to follow Jesus' example and LOVE. There is haughtiness in holding on to grudges or whatever it might be called when forgiveness hasn't happened.

Perhaps it is as you say that there is no "justice" between two people when one does not admit an offense. But it is very possible to forgive someone who doesn't wish to be forgiven, just as you can love someone who really doesn't want your love. It is a transcendence. It is Grace.

10/19/2012 new

(Quote) Thomas-699657 said: Well then why have the quetions at all, if they are erealavent???I kow I have heard this said by...
(Quote) Thomas-699657 said:

Well then why have the quetions at all, if they are erealavent???I kow I have heard this said by you many times, but i have not come across anyone that thinks this way that you are saying. The questions are straightforward and doesn't say anything about your past practice. So I will have to disagree with you on this.

--hide--

So if something doesn't exist in the realm of your personal experience it doesn't exist? scratchchin

Regardless of how obviously worded the questions may seem, it's not uncommon for people to effectively answer a question that isn't being asked. This has been a steady pattern for the 8+ years I've been on CM, so there's no reason to suspect it's suddenly going to change.

Posts 31 - 40 of 71