Ask A Catholic III

[madviking]

Sometimes children need to skin their knees, what happens after is up to them. Do they quit or do they get back on it?

So god is acquiescent to people falling?

 

[civ_king]

So god is acquiescent to people falling?

People need to get off there asses and get back on the bike, but they don't want to. To force them violates free will.

 

[Jehoshua]

Yes other Catholics can post replies here.

and to translate this. (probably not the best translation but such is life, its not like im a linguist)

-

ersonae homosexuales ad castitatem vocantur. Ipsae, dominii virtutibus quae libertatem educant interiorem, quandoque amicitiae gratuitae auxilio, oratione et gratia sacramentali, possunt et debent ad perfectionem christianam gradatim et obfirmate appropinquare.”

:Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By virtues of dominion (self-control) that to them teach inner freedom, and by the gratuitous help of friendship, prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should be firmly resolved for the gradual drawing near of Christian perfection.

-

Seeing this translation it is not gracious friendship. But gratuitous help (gratuitae auxillio) of friendship (amicitiae), amicitiae gratuitae auxillio. This therefore is not describing some distinct "kind" of friendship, but rather that friendship in its genuine sense is an aid in the gradual drawing near to Christian perfection.

And I have heard OF John Heard, I don't know about him though.

 

[civ_king]

Yes other Catholics can post replies here.

and to translate this. (probably not the best translation but such is life, its not like im a linguist)

-

ersonae homosexuales ad castitatem vocantur. Ipsae, dominii virtutibus quae libertatem educant interiorem, quandoque amicitiae gratuitae auxilio, oratione et gratia sacramentali, possunt et debent ad perfectionem christianam gradatim et obfirmate appropinquare.”

:Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By virtues of dominion (self-control) that to them teach inner freedom, and by the gratuitous help of friendship, prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should be firmly for the gradual drawing near of Christian perfection.

-

Seeing this translation it is not gracious friendship. But gratuitous help (gratuitae auxillio) of friendship (amicitiae), amicitiae gratuitae auxillio. This therefore is not describing some distinct "kind" of friendship, but rather that friendship in its genuine sense is an aid in the gradual drawing near to Christian perfection.

And I have heard OF John Heard, I don't know about him though.

I can't believe I mixed up gracious and gratuitous, mea culpa.

The English CCC is odd

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

"at times by the support of disinterested friendship", there seems to be a significant difference between that and the Latin version. Also the "disinterested friendship" bit and the next thing are delineated, very peculiar.


What are your thoughts on reparative therapy?

You should check out the Dreadnought blog


pax

 

[Jehoshua]

The english translations of things can be rather flawed in meaning compared to the latin original (and official) version. Thus why there is a new translation of the missale romanum for example. If you compare the latin to the old english translation then you see that it is really quite terrible (and dumbed down). Now the catechisms english translation is not quite as bad, but there are still a few differences between the official latin, and the english translation.

As to reparative therapy, I have no opinion on it since its a matter which doesn;t concern me and isn't really prominent in my region. Not to mention I don;t really know anything about it, or have any grounding in the relevant fields of knowledge that would be necessary to pronounce an informed opinion.

 

[Takhisis]

Presumably the little voice in the head thing and encouraging that. Subtle encouragement considering ones fallen nature to sin further.

Its not like I can give you a clinical expression of what its like. Presumably everyone at some point has faced general temptation and as a universal experience it wouldnt be something obvious.

You sound way too much like you've neeeever been tempted. Chill it down…

The english translations of things can be rather flawed in meaning compared to the latin original (and official) version.

Post fixed.

 

[aelf]

Do you agree that saving a woman's life is not worth the human cost of abortion?

 

[NBAfan]

Do you agree that saving a woman's life is not worth the human cost of abortion?

Why not try to save both, instead of giving up? How often is it absolutely known that birth will have certain death in those cases? If that is certain, I really don't know how to answer that right now.
Besides the case where a woman might die is quite rare.

 

[aelf]

I'm not talking about abortion in general, only about such a scenario. If your reasoning is that doctors cannot, under most circumstances, be reasonably certain about someone's chances of survival so they might as well do no harm and let it be, then I can see why you might still oppose abortion, but it seems terribly misguided.

 

[NBAfan]

By the way, here's an interesting article I found on free will


here is part of it

At first brush, free will may not seem like much of a problem. In fact, it’s one of the most vexing problems. Why did God create us with free wills, instead of in a state of perfect obedience and love of Him?

The question has a deceptively simple answer: God created us with free will, because authentic freedom is itself a good. That is, completely apart from what we choose to do with our free wills, the fact that we get to choose it is good. Perhaps we can understand this in a political context: President Obama may be a good or bad president, but it's objectively better that he was elected as president, rather than coming to power through a coup. So regardless of the results, the process is itself good.


As Fr. Jacques Philippe noted in his book Interior Freedom, “In the area of morality, freedom appears very nearly the only value about which people still agree unanimously at the beginning of the third millennium. Everyone more or less agrees that respect for other people’s freedom is more or less an ethical norm.” So we generally agree with this idea of free will, except when we don’t like the outcome.

Someone unfamiliar with the idea of democracy might ask, “why does the US military allow free elections, instead of just forcibly installing the leader that they know will do a better job? Why suffer the presidents which the masses elect?” And the answer is that even if the outcome is worse (that is, a less-qualified person becomes president) the process is better. Good ends don’t justify evil means.

 

[Linkman226]

Do you have so much as an ounce of proof for all this complicated theology, or is it simply "on faith"?

 

[Jehoshua]

You sound way too much like you've neeeever been tempted. Chill it down…

Im simply saying that I am not going to describe the temptation that goes on all the time because everyone has experienced it, and thus describing it would be difficult. It would be the equivalent of describing what it feels like to be alive, ergo impossible with any clarity since its a universal experience that we have nothing to compare too.

Naturally there is more direct, and serious temptation and demonic oppression, this I have not experienced as far as I know directly and so I am not qualified to talk about it.

Do you have so much as an ounce of proof for all this complicated theology, or is it simply "on faith"?

A question for you, do you have an ounce of tangible proof that you have a brain inside your skull?

 

[Linkman226]

I thought this was the Ask a Catholic thread, not the Ask an Atheist thread.

But since we're on the topic, can't we use the same logic to prove any other god, or to prove invisible magical unicorn-fairies?

 

[Jehoshua]

This is indeed Ask a Catholic thread, but perhaps you should answer my query, and explain why you believe you have a brain in your skull before you presume the point of the return question.

 

[Perfection]

A question for you, do you have an ounce of tangible proof that you have a brain inside your skull?

I have an x-ray scan of my head.

 

[Linkman226]

Repeatability. Lots of people have been found to have brains. As a member of the same species, I probably also have a brain.

 

[Jehoshua]

Ergo, It is reasonable through logical thought to believe you have a brain. Thus you have faith in what other people have determined or shown you regarding the likelihood you have a brain and thus have a reason for that faith.

Now when that is translated into Catholic thought, faith and reason are not contradictory. One should have a reason for his faith. Thus in regards to theology it is the rational expression and development of divine revelation which is never contradictory to it. Revelation also is in itself reasonable in and of itself if you take it as it is. For example if Christ was God than what occured is not impossible as God could indeed do anything, and indeed it would be reasonable to trust the written testimony of the early christians as to Christ's revelations. Then from that Catholic theology is entirely a reasonable development from that revelation as a complete whole.

Now if he was not God and such things as the ressurection did not occur then one would have to ask what rational reason the apostles and earliest christians had to believe in Christ and proclaim christianity to the point of martyrdom, if their rabbi who himself claimed explicitly to be God got executed and simply died and failed to fulfil his promise of rising again, what point did they have to go putting their necks out to spread christianity? This especially being in the context of the time which as history tells hostile to Christianity due to its departure from judaism in a jewish context, and due to its exclusivism and rejection of participation in pagan rites in the rest of the roman empire.

 

[Linkman226]

Because we are Homo Easilybrainwashedio. Especially back then it would have entirely reasonable that a bunch of people were convinced their leader was the Messiah. Compare to modern cults where people are wholly and completely convinced that their leader is some sort of savior figure.

 

[Jehoshua]

Because we are Homo Easilybrainwashedio. Especially back then it would have entirely reasonable that a bunch of people were convinced their leader was the Messiah. Compare to modern cults where people are wholly and completely convinced that their leader is some sort of savior figure.

Ah but modern cults rarely persist and spread far. Sure you have the core group of brainwashed devotees, but beyond that the rest of society thinks they are a bunch of crazies.

Now Christianity ended up completely obliterating the pre-existing pagan order, which in itself was very much hostile to christianity. Thus sure you could hypothetically say that the apostles were brainwashed, but then there is the problem of how did it spread so far in a hostile society if it was unreasonable?

 

[Perfection]

Ah but modern cults rarely persist and spread far.

Same with ancient cults.

The important thing is some do (e.g. Mormonism)