Ask A Catholic II

[Jehoshua]

So, in other words, not doing things the Catholic way, even if you're not a Catholic, is refusing to compromise? Surely, that's a failure to compromise on both sides, at the very least.

perhaps, however compromising in favour of sin is not a valid option for a faithful Catholic.

 

[Arakhor]

Then perhaps they shouldn't have got married in the first place.

 

[Jehoshua]

perhaps not, but the situation was if one of the persons involved converted post-marriage and so the situation remains.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, I know that Jesus told people to abandon their families and friends and what-have-you, but if my wife told me that I now had to follow Catholic practice in the bedchamber or I could consider the marriage at end, I would certainly be considering the latter option, but not because I wasn't allowed to use contraception.

 

[Jehoshua]

Probably in that hypothetical scenario the wife would not simply bluntly say conform or annul this marriage. It would probably begin with some sort of discussion and dialogue on a mutually acceptable form (perhaps NFP) instead of just a blatant demand, not to mention the partner would be aware of the process of conversion as well so it would hardly be some out of the blue unforseen harsh and abrupt demand completely without the foreknowlege of the partner.

However in the end if the non-catholic partner refuses absolutely to refrain from artificial contraception then the catholic partner would have to make the tough choices and look at other options. (Although the issue is hardly black and white as it is the non-catholic partner commiting the sin, but by participating in it you would become party to it and it is grounds for annulment in certain instances.)

 

[Arakhor]

What's the point of the confessional then? Even in this hypothetical situation, couldn't she go to her priest and have her sin absolved entirely? I don't believe in the concept of divine sin in the slightest, but if you have a whole denomination set-up around allowing man to intercede on God's behalf to purge you of the sins said denomination says you carry from birth, why is one extra sin so much worse that the priest can't absolve it?

 

[GhostWriter16]

ok I see what you meant, Catholics are not required to hold any particular viewpoint but they are expected to hold to the doctrine of the Church and thus any party that denies fundamental morality, one should abstain from voting for.

So what would this look like politically?

In the US at least it would seem Catholics shouldn't vote at all, since according to Catholic morality the government has a responsibility to provide a social net, so most Republicans are out, and they have a responsibility to end abortion, so most Democrats are out.

Or are they supposed to pick what they feel is the lesser of two evils?

The spouse does decide by refusing to compromise. The Catholic partner simply gives the unbelieving spouse a choice, adhere to the teachings of Christ or undergo the annulment process. The spouses obstinancy is the choice to reject the marriage.

Couldn't it be argued that BOTH sides are being obstinate?

@Civ_King- Social reign of Christ the King? What does that even mean?

 

[civ_king]

The Catholics can work with Republicans towards a better state, the democrats are basically unacceptable because of how much they support abortion, Pelosi, Biden et al make me weep inside.

Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

I've read many encyclicals and the Social Reign of Christ the King is what it is traditionally called, it is the culmination of Catholic Social Teaching

 

[GhostWriter16]

The Catholics can work with Republicans towards a better state, the democrats are basically unacceptable because of how much they support abortion, Pelosi, Biden et al make me weep inside.

Doesn't Biden even claim to be Catholic? Has the Church excommunicated him?

I've read many encyclicals and the Social Reign of Christ the King is what it is traditionally called, it is the culmination of Catholic Social Teaching

Ignoring the specific Catholic aspects of it, what good does it do someone to follow Christian morals if they are just going to burn in Hell anyway?

If someone isn't a Christian, there is little point in them following Christian morality, they don't see the purpose. Forcing them to live by Christian Law is just legalism at that point and doesn't really accomplish anything. We are to be salt and light, not pepper and hammers

 

[Arakhor]

I would have thought that the Republicans would then also be completely unacceptable, Civking, given how many of them are frequently involved in scandals concerning their private lives and their abuse of the (very selective) fundamental Christian virtues to which you ascribe so much power.

 

[civ_king]

I would have thought that the Republicans would then also be completely unacceptable, Civking, given how many of them are frequently involved in scandals concerning their private lives and their abuse of the (very selective) fundamental Christian virtues to which you ascribe so much power.

The slaughter of the unborn takes a little bit of precedence over infidelity

 

[GhostWriter16]

The slaughter of the unborn takes a little bit of precedence over infidelity

Well said Civ_King.

This is also why I'm a pro-life Libertarian politically, I think if people feel like sinning and hurting themselves, that's their privilege, but if they want to start killing infants in the womb, that goes just a bit too far. And by a bit, I mean a lot...

 

[Arakhor]

Really? So, violating a solemn promise of fidelity before God and in the presence of a priest and other witnesses is not only not morally reprehensible but completely acceptable if "the other side" accepts that sometimes terminating a foetus is a legally acceptable procedure?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, first of all, yes, if you consider abortion worse than infidelity.

Also, adultery isn't really a platform of the Republican Party.

 

[civ_king]

Really? So, violating a solemn promise of fidelity before God and in the presence of a priest and other witnesses is not only not morally reprehensible but completely acceptable if "the other side" accepts that sometimes terminating a foetus is a legally acceptable procedure?

assisting in the unjust killing of others≠sexual immorality

PS it isn't a platform of the GOP to commit adultery, however it is a party platform of the Democrats to assist in slaughtering the unborn

 

[GhostWriter16]

Really? So, violating a solemn promise of fidelity before God and in the presence of a priest and other witnesses is not only not morally reprehensible but completely acceptable if "the other side" accepts that sometimes terminating a foetus is a legally acceptable procedure?

Well, I think there's a fine line between "Acceptable" and the lesser of two evils.

Nevermind that most Republicans are NOT involved in these scandals, yet most Dems are pro-choice (Apologies to the Catholics for using that term, I don't want to fight ATM.)

For instance, there's not a single politician I really "Like" except Ron Paul, and even there, there are a few things I disagree with him on. But I would still vote Republican over Democrat nearly everytime because of the abortion issue.

Well, first of all, yes, if you consider abortion worse than infidelity.

Which, if you considered it murder, but did not think it was worse, I feel really bad for you

Also, adultery isn't really a platform of the Republican Party.

And yeah, dead on.

 

[Arakhor]

Define 'unjust' please, Civking.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Define 'unjust' please, Civking.

Well, you can define it yourself I think. I'm not sure what Civking thinks about war and the death penalty, but both of those cases have reason behind it, so it is, at least in some sense: "Just." Killing innocent, unarmed people is NOT just in any sense. An aborted fetus applies as unjustly slaughtered.

 

[civ_king]

Define 'unjust' please, Civking.

unjust: not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair

Well, you can define it yourself I think. I'm not sure what Civking thinks about war and the death penalty, but both of those cases have reason behind it, so it is, at least in some sense: "Just." Killing innocent, unarmed people is NOT just in any sense. An aborted fetus applies as unjustly slaughtered.

The death penalty is unnecessary

Spoiler :

It is clear that, for the [purposes of punishment] to be achieved,the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and [the state] ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. —Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56

and war can be just

 

[Arakhor]

Well, avoiding emotive language such as "unjustly slaughtered" and ignoring the debate about what constitutes personhood, 'unjust' characterises a lack of justice, which is the impartial adjustment or administration of the law. What legal privileges do foetuses have under law?