Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Turning the other cheek; is it obligatory, no ifs, no buts?
Topic Started: Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 18:14 (1,431 Views)
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 08:50
It may be the more perfect thing to do, but it is not obligatory.
I guess that just about sums it up. I was suffering some sort of misapprehension that striving to be perfect is the very essence of our Catholic faith.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 08:56
Clare
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 08:50
It may be the more perfect thing to do, but it is not obligatory.
I guess that just about sums it up. I was suffering some sort of misapprehension that striving to be perfect is the very essence of our Catholic faith.
Sometimes it is not the more perfect thing to do though.

Quietism?

Sins of omission?
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Anne-Marie
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 07:17
Clare
 
It is what the Church teaches. I do not make it up. I accept it...
The Church was established by Jesus among other things to interpret His message.

Where this becomes confusing, Clare, is that you accept what the Church teaches when it suits you...
and when it doesn't (such as supporting SSPX, which the Church condemned for years)...
you simply ignore the Church...
decreeing that the Church is wrong...
because you know better!

It really does make it very hard to accept your arguments as enjoying any reason or consistency....
I have the same problem with people who say, for example, "The Church condemned Galileo, and now look!" and then say, "But the Church condemns the SSPX! How can you possibly claim to be a loyal Catholic while supporting them??"
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 08:59
Mairtin
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 08:56
Clare
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 08:50
It may be the more perfect thing to do, but it is not obligatory.
I guess that just about sums it up. I was suffering some sort of misapprehension that striving to be perfect is the very essence of our Catholic faith.
Sometimes it is not the more perfect thing to do though.
In the absence of a convincing reason to do otherwise which you have failed to provide, I think I will settle for the direct words of Jesus as what we should be striving to achieve. I do realise that my own imperfections will limit my success in this area as in others; I will, however, continue to regard such failures as imperfections on my part and not as anything unreasonable in His commands.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin,

I've raised several scenarios that you haven't addressed.

And I have pointed out that the exhortation to turn the other cheek applies to when "I" am wronged in some way. Not when someone else is. It is addressed to "thee" (you singular).

If someone misrepresents you, you can choose to turn the other cheek and not set the record straight. That would be virtuous. But it would not be virtuous for someone else to think "He misrepresented him, but I'm not going to bother stepping in and sticking up for his reputation, after all there are no exceptions to the rule 'turn the other cheek'!"

Turn the other cheek. No exceptions. No ifs, no buts. Nations are not an exception?

Then let's get rid of jails. Let's stop punishing criminals. Let's abolish the police. Let's do away with solicitors! Let's all turn the other cheek together.

That is anarchy.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 10:00
I've raised several scenarios that you haven't addressed.
You have raised some of the human difficulties that we meet when we try to follow the teachings of Jesus; you have given me nothing from Scripture or from the writings of the Fathers that suggest He didn't mean exactly what He said or that there are exceptions.

Quote:
 
And I have pointed out that the exhortation to turn the other cheek applies to when "I" am wronged in some way. Not when someone else is. It is addressed to "thee" (you singular) ...

That's your personal interpretation, I'd find it easier to accept if you could give me something from Scripture. Or even give me a good explanation why the early Christians didn't take action to protect other Christians from persecution.

Quote:
 
Nations are not an exception?

I'd love you to explain how nationhood comes into Christianity and why nations should have different rules from the people who comprise a particular nation.

Quote:
 
Then let's get rid of jails. Let's stop punishing criminals. Let's abolish the police. Let's do away with solicitors! Let's all turn the other cheek together.

That is anarchy.

Then I guess that the Church Fathers were anarchists.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
:jaw:

Where to begin??

S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

I suggest the first to fourth centuries AD.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Let's look at the current Catechism

Quote:
 
2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Peter

I've really sorry to say this but for me these postings have lost any relevance that they might have had at the beginning and now it appears that winning the argument at all costs has now become the most important thing. We all know that we can back up whatever case we want to by use of the written word and most certainly, no party is going to back down on this thread. The main thing is that we are all part of the same Church that has evolved since its inception to arrive at the place that it's in today. Aren't we very fortunate indeed?!

Peter
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

I think we know the teaching. What we're truffling for are:

1. the rationale in the light of the Gospel passages repeatedly referred to in earlier postings; and

2. the effect of the conversion of Constantine on the earlier teaching.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Anne-Marie
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 07:28
Rose of York
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 22:50
Whatever individual Popes have done, has no bearing on what is right and what is wrong in the eyes of God.
How could you possibly say that, Rose???

It is what individual popes have said and done - be it encyclicals, excommunications, wars, whatever - that determines what we, as Catholics, have to accept or be in error.
It is EXACTLY what individual popes do (and have done) that informs us of what is Catholicism... and which we accept and submit to... or reject, oppose and denounce.
I speak of the actions of Popes, not their teaching. We are not bound to accept that a war, or any form of sin, carried out on the orders of a Pope, is right in the eyes of God.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Peter
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 11:11
I've really sorry to say this but for me these postings have lost any relevance that they might have had at the beginning and now it appears that winning the argument at all costs has now become the most important thing. We all know that we can back up whatever case we want to by use of the written word and most certainly, no party is going to back down on this thread. The main thing is that we are all part of the same Church that has evolved since its inception to arrive at the place that it's in today. Aren't we very fortunate indeed?!

Peter
So we don't need a forum at all?
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
OsullivanB
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 11:03
I suggest the first to fourth centuries AD.
Before the Bible was compiled.

Anyhow, please show me in what sense those Fathers and other early Christians were anarchists.

Did they believe that rulers have no responsibility or duty of care for the people under their authority?

And, even if you reject nationhood, surely you recognise familyhood, Mairtin. That parents have responsibilities towards their children?

Or should one's family ties mean nothing to a Christian either?

S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 21:44
The Fifth Commandment

Quote:
 
Exceptions: ....

In the interests of balance, it is worth noting the current teachings defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which are much more restrictive than those posted above.

Capital Punishment

2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [68]

[...]

III. SAFEGUARDING PEACE

Peace

2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill," [Mt. 5:21] our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice." [St. Thomas Aquinas, ST II-II q158, a1 ad3] If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment." [Mt. 5:22]

2303 Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven." [Mt. 5:44-45]

2304 Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is "the tranquility of order." [St. Augustine, City of God 19, 13,1] Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity. [Cf. Is. 32:17; cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes #78, 1-2]

2305 Earthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ, the messianic "Prince of Peace." [Is. 9:5] By the blood of his Cross, "in his own person he killed the hostility," [Eph. 2:16; cf. Col. 1:20-22] he reconciled men with God and made his Church the sacrament of the unity of the human race and of its union with God. "He is our peace." [Eph. 2:14] He has declared: "Blessed are the peacemakers." [Mt. 5:9]

2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death. [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 78, 5]

Avoiding war

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war. [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 81, 4] All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed." [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 79, 4]

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.[Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 79, 5]

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way. [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 79, 3] 2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties." [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 79, 4]

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 80, 3]A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons - especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; [Pope Paul VI, Populorum Progressio 53] it thwarts the development of peoples. Over- armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:

Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 78, 6; cf. Is. 2:4]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Add Reply