Our Protestant brothers and sisters seem to have a lot of difficulties with abstract concepts. It seems like in many of these discussions Catholics are discussion the beauty of sunsets and rainbows with the color blind.
Let's take the bone that seems to be sticking in their craw on this thread, "Purgatory". The concept of purgation as a means of internal cleansing the was well established within the Mediterranean cultures. "Purgatory" quite simple means a place where "purgation" or purification takes place. Theological or spiritual cleansing may be foreign to some, but it was a common theme in both the Old and New Testaments.
In the ancient Roman and Mediterranean cultures purgation, or a purification, was a very common practice in food preparation (snails, titmice, etc.) in which the contents of the digestive tract was cleansed prior to cooking and eating for obvious reasons. Similarly, purgation was a common treatment for many illnesses. Anyone who has had a child with their stomach pumped knows it is still a valid medical practice. Purgation was a long held practice for funerary purgation throughout the ancient world and even today modern embalming uses similar practices. The purgation of criminals was even commonly attempted with sulfur and onions.
So, to a Catholic, like first or second century Christian, the concept of purgatory is not alien or foreign and is actually well grounded and understood.
Also interesting in the same thread: "What about babies in limbo?" was a question asked. THe answer: In 2005, a Vatican appointed group of international theologians, led by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger, closed the doors of limbo forever. There is a link provided: "closing the doors of limbo: Theologians say is was hypothesis."
Limbo was an "hypothesis"? What about the poor people who "prayed" their loved ones out of the now hypothetical limbo? They based their faith on an hypothesis?...? But it's okay, I guess, that group of of "international theologians", led by the CURRENT Pope just closed the doors forever. How does one close the doors forever on an hypothesis?
God gives persuasive humility lessons, doesn't he? Too bad I forget them the minute I feel better.
But certainly, If you think that freedom is to do what you PLEASE you will end up with a very different worldview from the one held by those who think that freedom is that ability to know and choose the Good and to act on that choice.
Rnmomof7: look here.
Suppose: I have a torn sub-acromial ligament. I am, in the petty sense, free to go to PT and free to skip it. That is, generally, the common view of freedom, even among some Catholics.
But, if I do not go to PT, I will be weak, even crippled for the rest of my life. To choose NOT to go to PT is to choose evil.
To YOU, that is an exercise of freedom. Freedom may, you hold, choose to compromise itself, even to kill itself.
To US, that choice is a failure to be free, a failure of free will. Either the chooser is ignorant of the necessity of PT, OR he is ignorant of the importance, the excellence, of strength and health, or he is so fearful of the pain of PT that despite his longing for health he cannot 'make himself' go. (OR maybe he spent the medicine budget on floozies and cheap whiskey -- an entirely reasonable alternative to health, right?)
In other words, in our view the choice NOT to go to PT is probably a defective act of will, because the actor is ignorant, fearful, imprudent or intemperate. And if his family needs him to be strong, he also lacks the virtues of justice (he OWES support to his family) and Love (he should love his family enough to try to give them their due.)
A will that is beset with vices and ignorance is,in our view, not free. The saved and holy soul still in need of purgation willingly submits because his will, enabled and directed by God, knows the good, chooses the good, and acts on the choice. That is what I mean when I say "willing participation."