Posted on 10/30/2013 8:09:25 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
It’s fascinating, the amount of emotion at least some non-Catholics seem to have about Catholic teaching. I can tell you that when I was in the anti-God period of my life, I did not give one whit what any church taught. I paid them the ultimate diss of not giving a care.
But from what I’ve seen on this blog, there are a large number of people who claim to be atheist or some what-not version of what I was in my anti-God period, who appear to think about Christianity, the Catholic Church in particular, 24/7. They appear to be, in a word, obsessed with the minutiae of Catholic teaching.
If you doubt this, go to some of the atheist blogs. All they ever talk about is God, Christian teaching, and the Bible.
There are a few issues in particulate that really rev their engines. They are:
When someone confronts them with the obvious inconsistency implied in their obsessive demands that a Church they claim is a stupid cult alter teachings that they claim are based on a myth, they start denouncing Catholics for using their rights as American citizens to vote and advocate according to their consciences.
It’s as if it offends them that Catholics have the same rights to vote, free assembly and to petition their government as other citizens. I suppose it’s true that it does offend them. Because one takeaway I get from reading the comments from most (not all, there are a couple of clear exceptions) of these people is that they are, at base, bullies.
I also think that the core reason they keep coming around here to drop off their load of insults (most of the truly insulting ones never see the light of day on this blog) is that they are either mental on some level, or, whether they will admit it or not, they are God haunted people who desperately want what the Church offers, which is peace with God, eternal life and a spiritual home. It’s just that they can’t bring themselves to go to God on God’s terms. They want Him — meaning HIs Church — to come to them on their terms.
These are people who refuse to be forgiven for their sins. What they want is to have the Almighty ratify their sins. They are obsessed with finding, not absolution, but vindication, from a Church they claim they believe is a fraud.
However, that’s just my reaction. Yours may be different. I’m going to throw this open for discussion.
Why do you think nonbelievers are so obsessed with the Catholic Church?
Thanks. Exactly.
...excep' for the glue sticks....
That makes sense. You sound like a reasonable individual...:o)
Why do gays so want society to endorse their behavior?
Liberals think that man is inherently good and the reason man has not achieved perfection is because religion holds us back. If man is allowed to express his inner self all will be good. Religion is evil because it says “no”.
This is their world view in contrast to ours.
Thank you, I humbly accept that as high-praise.
I think some conservatives and even some Christians mistake empathy and charity for weakness. These traits often get overshadowed by politics, when what we need to do is find a better way to integrate them. It’s very difficult, because liberalism has co-opted so many of the things that conservatives represent. Adopting their tactics, no matter how tempting is not an option for me.
I am far from perfect and this stuff makes me angry too. But I have to keep believing that striving to do the right thing is always the best road to follow.
I’m interested, as ZC has claimed in the past the Church once taught a literalistic view of Genesis. He has even claimed some FR Catholics assert this too.
I’ve intended to determine the veracity of at least the former for a while now. I tend to disbelieve both assertions but that (my belief) means nothing of course as far as the truth is concerned.
But let’s see if ZC wishes to dive once again into this topic.
You lost me re the glue sticks . Do bear with a non native speaker and explain !
There’s a little machine called a “glue gun.” It heats up and melts “hot-glue sticks,” and you use the resulting stick-um to glue things together.
It was just a stream-of-consciousness moment. On further reflection, I think I gave the sticks to a friend who was having the girls over to do crafts last year.
It has been my experience over the years that there are about 1000 excuses for people leaving the Catholic Church. The first is poor catechesis, the second is un confessed sin. If it is the second you can tell quite easily based on what they rant against during discussions.
The other thing I noticed is that they want to drag others out to justify their own "decision." It is the "See I must be right since so many are following me" attitude.
I have said a number of times that if the Catholic Church loses on the Health care issue and hospitals are forced to close, etc... It will not be long before Obozo and company comes after each and every protestant group, and they will go down like a row of dominos.
At the outset, the Church (meaning, in this instance, Card. Robert Bellarmine) said Galileo could teach any concept of the sun, planets and stars he wanted, as long as he presented it as a hypothesis supported by mathematical evidence; he was not to make claims of absolute philosophic or theological truth.
But this is exactly what has happened. Copernicanism is now accepted as an absolute philosophic and theological truth, and the factual veracity of the Bible has been destroyed in most minds. This is exactly what Bellermine feared. To claim that your religious beliefs are identical to and absolutely unchanged from those of Bellarmine is simply factually untrue, because his concern for the absolute factual truth of Biblical events no longer exists for Catholics.
Re. Darwin
Now here's where it really gets interesting. First of all, it must be understood that my argument is not against a consistent atheistic evolution based solely upon the "observations of science." Such people have the virtue of consistency to commend them. My objections are entirely to "theistic" evolution by people who otherwise seem willing to believe in absolutely anything.
No one has ever explained, or even attempted to explain (because they think the reasons are "self-evident") why this magical barrier stands precisely at the point where Genesis 11 ends and Genesis 12 begins. Really, what excuse is there? What in the first eleven chapters is substantially different from the rest of the Bible? I'm serious.
Really. People can believe in the miracles of the Exodus, the talking donkey, prophecies of the future, the alleged miracles of J*sus, the apostles, and saints, and even Mary's manipulation of the sun (an object Catholics insist could not have been created by G-d as described in Genesis) to such an extent that atheists converted on the spot. So what is the deal? What is so shameful, so horrible, about accepting that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are as factual as the rest?
I recall at one time a publicly viewable web page (I don't know if it's still there) by a Sefaradi rabbi with mystical inclinations who believed in the "gap theory," and who ridiculed literal creationists as bringing shame on religion. Then on another page on the same site he claimed the earth is hollow and that's where the demons live.
I kid you not.
Now I know you don't take me seriously, and you doubtless regard my mystification at this hypocrisy with a smirking amusement. But if my question is so outrageous, why is it that neither you nor anyone else dares to answer it?
Suppose a scientist were to tell you that the "virginal conception" simply could not have possibly happened because it violates everything we know about how the world works. You would reject him, cry "Miracle!" and glory in your "simple childlike faith." Yet when that same scientist tells you that the events of Genesis 1-11 could not have possibly happened because those events violate everything we know about how the world works and you fold like an accordion. Not only do you fold, but you rejoice in this inconsistent folding as though it were absolutely essential to your identity, as though it is an important distinctive that marks you out from those "other people" who don't fold.
You may regard this statement with amusement, but your inconsistency on this matter is absolutely infuriating to me. There is absolutely not logical justification for accepting what science says with regard to one group of miracles while rejecting what science says when it comes to every other group of miracles. And I notice no one to whom I have pointed out this groundless inconsistency has ever had the slightest inclination to defend it. I suppose, because its truth is "self-evident."
I do not expect science or scientists to deny facts before their eyes. I don't expect them to deny that evolution is going on right now if it is. That is not what this is about. This is about the integrity of the Book written by G-d. And this is about the madness of a human nature that will accept an impossible miracle in one case but then reject another as scientifically impossible.
To the doubter of the "virginal conception" (and perhaps even the talking donkey) you would probably point out that G-d is omnipotent, that He created the laws of nature in the first place, and that He can set them aside at will. Yet you insist on imposing on G-d the "fixed laws of nature" when it comes to the very event of ex-nihilation, when no natural laws even existed for G-d to overrule in the first place? G-d can make a donkey talk but He can't make a donkey without submitting to "natural laws" He otherwise is completely sovereign over?
And people with such a bizarre way of thinking think that creationists are "foolish?"
Tell me another one!
I have said this so many times that I grow tired of it, especially since no one here on FR, creationist or evolutionist refuses to discuss the subject, but I can see no reason whatsoever for Catholics or any other group to dogmatically reject one and only one set of miracles while uncritically accepting all others other than this: that this is a dogmatic component of the self-definition of one's group and the need to be "better than" all those "inbred, barefooted, toothless morons" who believe in the literal facticity of Genesis 1-11.
In other words, Catholics hold to this inconsistency because they don't want to be associated in anyone's mind with "those awful rednecks." What other reason could there be, other than maybe to use the Bible's "mistakes" to justify a rejection of sola scriptura? (And btw, a Bible with "mistakes" is not necessary in order to reject sola scriptura, which I also reject as you well know.
If you find the very idea of interpreting Genesis 1-11 so inherently declasse, then how can you stand living in the area of Nashville, Tn.?
Finally, one final question, which will doubtlessly be as ignored as everything else I have said: do creationists who become Catholics have to cease being creationists in order to join the Church? Do they have to have to acknowledge the "possibility" of evolution before they can enter the Church? Is it on a par with the dogmas in the Nicene Creed, or even the "private revelations" of Fatima? Because I was eventually forced out because I would do no such thing. I was following my conscience, which is supposed to be one's "guide" according to VII Catholics, but I suppose in this case conscience must yield to dogma. Too bad that doesn't apply to support of abortion or "gay marriage."
I, for one, think you have excellent points and questions. In the past, I would have thought nothing of the post VII pro-evolution POV. I most certainly do now. I’m noticing things now that I never noticed before.
I haven’t done much research on it, but it appears that Traditionalist Catholics do indeed question this change in POV. Although I don’t believe the change was ever codified into church doctrine there is definitely a change in focus in the hierarchy.
I happen to think that the Galileo issue is different however. I think the Galileo issue is more about science than faith. Were Catholics expected to believe that the Sun revolved around the Earth? Or was that incidental to the expected belief that God created the Earth, etc? I don’t think the belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth was ever included in any catechism for example....but I could be wrong about that.
OTOH, it seems to me that Creation was a clear matter of faith. Catholics were to believe that God created the Earth and that he did it in 6 literal days. And yes, now they aren’t expected to believe that. Perhaps just another example of modernism in the post VII church.
Man, you're telling me. That's really one of the worst things about the overt political clericalism of the USCCB and their allies in the dioceses like Bakersfield CA (Bp Stephen Blaire), Los Angeles CA (Cardinal Jose Gomez), Bp Robert Lynch (St Petersburg FL), and many others. Not only do they frame all the Democratic Party talking points in curlicues of God-talk; they also fritter away all their REAL moral authority in matters which Catholic moral theology calls "exceptionless norms": in matters like murder, sodomy, apostasy.
So they're not only framing very dubious prudential policy decisions as if they were dogma ("Dream Act"), but they're also eliciting, cynicism, anger, and even worse, (((yawns))) when they do speak out on the gravest of moral crimes.
All I can say is, the worst of that generation are dying out (hitting mandatory retirement age), and we can only hope that Pope Francis' appointments will give us better guys on into the next generation. Benedict XVI made a good start on that.
Pope Francis' record on that seems mixed so far; too early to tell. I have never been one to stick my nose much into chancery politics. Fortunately, we have had some excellent lay leadership -- many of them converts--- blessedly not entangled in the clerical thicket.
There's no cure for this but to pray to God to raise up saints: which He has always done, is doing, and will do.
I mean, it's confusing enough even for Catholics, let alone our beloved separated brethren ;o)
You may enjoy this short (2 min) video, which explains Papal Infallibility (Link) --- quite accurately, BTW, and with an irresistable comic tickle.
As for geocentrism, I'm not as heavily invested in that (though I appreciate those who have the guts to dissent!) for the simple reason that this deals with how the world actually works in the here and now, which is the legitimate purview of science. The Creation, however, is not at at all a matter of how the universe operates now but only the historical facts of Creation. These ancient facts are not subject to the laws by which the universe currently functions any more than any other historical miracle. In other words, while cosmology is a perfectly legitimate and fitting field of scientific inquiry, cosmogony is not. It belongs to revelation and theology.
There's also another observation, which is not original with me: geocentrism was always based on how the world actually looked to ancient people (and still looks to us today) without modern scientific instruments. The six-day creation, however, is not based on the empirical view of ancient man at any time (the world doesn't "look" as if it were created in six days, does it?). It is based entirely on information given us in Divine Revelation, and that is why I defend it.
I mean, it's confusing enough even for Catholics, let alone our beloved separated brethren ;o)
You may enjoy this short (2 min) video, which explains Papal Infallibility (Link) --- quite accurately, BTW, and with an irresistable comic tickle.
With all due respect, Mrs. Don-o, you are avoiding the issue. This is not about papal infallibility or its limits. Nor is this about "pious opinions." This is strictly about why you and so many other Catholics refuse to listen to science when it tells you that the "virginal conception" couldn't have happened but then turn right around and throw the first eleven chapters of Genesis out the window because those same scientists tell you that those events couldn't have happened, and for the very same reason: because "that's not how it happens now, so it couldn't have happened that way then."
This isn't funny, and it isn't humorous. Nor do I take kindly to your making light of my questions. Kindly go back to my last post to you and respond to the issues I raised or please leave me alone. As funny and inconsequential as this appears to you, it is not to me.
Stein was speaking of male homosexuals. Hemingway’s memoir “A Moveable Feast,” records her remarks. Stein and Toklas were rock-ribbed Republicans of VERY conservative views, lol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.