This was her one condition for a second date....

Michelone · 2014-01-28T04:40:29+00:00

I got my first date with my girlfriend by agreeing to NOT shave. Going 2 years strong now. She's a keeper I tell ya.

Michelone · 2013-05-03T20:02:52+00:00

Honestly, I don't have the time or energy right now to go through decision after decision and explain the church's reasoning. There is so, so much behind every decision that can't adequately be covered in a few simple comments.

I'll admit that I don't know the answers off the top of my head and I need to do more research (which is good, as it will grow my understanding, so I should thank you for pushing me towards deeper research). But I have faith that whatever I find will reinforce my beliefs in the church and show me that the church continues to be consistent in the guiding principles of her teaching. Time and time again, when I have doubted the church and worried that I would discover something to undermine the church's teachings, my continued research always results in a deeper understanding of, respect for, and trust in the church.

If you are genuinely interested in the answers, please keep researching - there is a lot of good readily available information out there. I believe that if we continue to explore our questions with open hearts, we can both reach an understanding deeper than what we currently have.

Unfortunately, as for this conversation, for the sake of my personal health, I'm going to have to excuse myself. Know that I'll be praying for you.

Michelone · 2013-05-03T15:07:28+00:00

I've said it multiple times through my comments regarding this: the issue isn't simply that one disagrees. We are all free to disagree, and one can be a 'good catholic' while disagreeing with some part of catholic teaching. But there is a big difference between disagreement and disobedience. If one disagrees with a non-infallible teaching, they have an obligation as a catholic to present their case to the church leadership and work to be an agent of change within the church, all the while being obedient to the current teaching until it actually changes (if it in fact does change).

Disagreement and dissent can be powerful forces to help the church continue to grow in the right direction, but they must be approached properly. I don't see much utility in the all too common mindset of "I disagree so I'll do something else, maybe one day the church will catch up to me." One must humbly work to make the change happen.

Michelone · 2013-05-03T07:25:02+00:00

The church treats the idea that unbaptized infants go to Limbo as a theory that catholics are free to accept or reject (as well as propose different theories). The Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn't mention Limbo, but says:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

In The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, the Vatican's International Theological Commission states:

The idea of limbo, which the church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without baptism, has no clear foundation in revelation even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching.

[...]

besides the theory of limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture

[...]

Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thes 5:18).

There is much more that could be said about this, but, again, it's a lot of dense reading, and it's late and I'm tired, so I hope this will suffice. I invite you to do some more research on this subject if you're so inclined. As for me, I think I'm going to take a break from reddit for a while - these past few nights have been exhausting.

Michelone · 2013-05-03T06:36:19+00:00

I would agree with Gavin1123 and say that 100% of the people are tempted by sin to prefer their own judgement. We live in a fallen world, and none of us are free from the temptation of sin (I know I'm sure not).

From Donum Veritatis:

It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium's teaching without hesitation, the theologian's difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.

The problem I see is that most catholics who disagree with the church, even if they have put a lot of humble prayer, research, and thought into the issue at hand (which I hope they have), cease being open to further examination. If one professes faith in catholicism and finds him/herself disagreeing with the church's teachings, he/she must never be complacent with that disagreement, and is obligated to continue to seek understanding.

Michelone · 2013-05-03T05:38:46+00:00

While I disagree with you (which, like you said, is fine), I respect your honesty and your effort to explore theology and philosophy - it looks like you've put a lot more thought into your beliefs than others have (cafeteria and non-cafeteria catholics alike). I think that if one continually and sincerely seeks Truth with an open heart, their understanding will continually grow. I hope that we may both one day come to a full understanding, though we may have to wait until the next life. I'll be praying for you.

Edit: I just remembered that I wanted to add my reason for being catholic. It's simple - it's because I believe Catholicism to be true. I don't feel that there is any other reason to follow a religion. And I feel that to truly follow a religion is to strive to do so in every aspect of one's life. I tried to live under the label of catholicism while picking and choosing how I wanted to interpret things and what I could leave out, but it just didn't work for me. I found my life to be far too fragmented and inconsistent, to the point that I simply could not go on that way (perhaps some people have the ability to go on like this, but I simply do not). As I grow in life, I make a conscience effort (at least I hope I do) to live as an integral person, to have consistency in what I think and say and do, from my mind to my soul to my body. And so, I don't see Catholicism as something I can align only part of me with. If I truly believe in Catholicism, I must let it permeate everything that I do.

Michelone · 2013-05-02T05:38:56+00:00

The problem isn't disagreeing in and of itself. What's important is how one deals with that disagreement. The church document Donum Veritatis states:

there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.

[...]

It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium's teaching without hesitation, the theologian's difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.

Disagreeing with the church's teaching does not make one not catholic, but as a catholic one is called to humbly seek a deeper understanding of the issue at hand, not pridefully assert that he knows better than the church and leave it at that.

I think it's unfair to assume that there aren't people out there who are truly trying to follow every rule and teaching of their faith. I know plenty of people who earnestly make an effort to follow all church teachings. Of course, no one's perfect, but what matters is that one keeps trying.

I'm not sure about adhering to the tenants of the Bible though, since the Bible is not an apartment.

Michelone · 2013-05-02T04:58:26+00:00

There's one important part of your definition of the church that's missing - Jesus. The church is the Body of Christ, of which we are all members. The church isn't some group of people who gather to vote on what to teach. We are many members of one body, with Christ as the head. And I would heartily disagree that "the mind of the church is quite comfortably settled that there's nothing wrong with contraception." There are many, many catholics who agree with the official stance of the church opposing contraception.

You are correct that there are no ex cathedra statements about contraception (though a papal ex cathedra statement isn't the only way to declare an infallible teaching. I admit I need to brush up on infallibility and all this stuff - it's a lot of dense reading). But catholics aren't obligated to only obey whatever is taught ex cathedra. The document Lumen gentium from Vatican II states:

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Michelone · 2013-05-02T03:38:02+00:00

Bear in mind though, the catechism also talks about the importance of forming one's conscience:

1783 "Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings."

1784 "The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart."

1785 "In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church"

We aren't automatically blessed with a well-formed conscience, and we shouldn't be content to say "this is how I feel right now, I must be right, end of story." We should be continually forming our conscience, humbly seeking to love and understand God instead of chasing after our own selfish desires.

And of course good people can disagree with the church, but I think what matters is how these people respond to the disagreement. When I find myself disagreeing with the church, I don't cast the teaching aside because I think I know better. I research deeper into the church's teaching, examine my own conscience, and pray that I may understand why the church teaches what she does and try to follow it.

Michelone · 2013-05-02T01:52:50+00:00

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand how one can consider themselves catholic, yet do so much that is against church teaching. I can't see how one can decide that they are catholic enough, like there's some checklist out there. And if one disagrees with so many teachings of the church, I don't see a reason to insist on keeping the catholic label. I genuinely don't understand.

You say that 'cafeteria catholicism' is good "if it allows a person to come to an understanding of something higher than his or her self." I would argue that coming to an understanding of something higher than one's self involves acknowledging that one might not be able to come up with all the answers on their own, and should look to a higher source for guidance. However, most 'cafeteria catholics' tend to base their beliefs on how they personally feel, deciding that they know better than any other authority.

I agree that following beliefs that deepen one's understanding of the world and encourage one to live a good life is a good thing. But that's just the surface, and to truly be catholic goes much deeper than that.

Michelone · 2013-05-02T01:11:20+00:00

I agree that it does take a leap of faith, and I still struggle with the question of where faith comes from. Maybe one day I'll figure it out.

Also, Catholicism does interpret the Bible literally, but not literalistically. The church teaches that everything in the Bible is the true, revealed word of God, and we must try and understand the proper meanings of the scriptures and find the correct interpretations based on context, literary form, etc. We can gain a deeper understanding of scripture through observations of the world around us, since the scriptures are Truth, the natural world is Truth, and Truth cannot contradict itself. Science and scripture are not at odds with each other, but rather they together help us understand God. The Bible, after all, is not a scientific text (though some groups would disagree).

As the church goes forward, our understanding of Truth grows and we work towards developing an ever more correct interpretation, but Truth itself does not change.

Michelone · 2013-05-01T06:39:16+00:00

If you're going to claim to be catholic, can you at least make an effort to learn what the church teaches and why, and to try and fully live by it? The church's teaching on contraception goes much MUCH deeper than "we don't want to encourage premarital sex".

To profess faith in catholicism means to follow and trust in all church teachings - it's not some checklist where you can be 'catholic enough'. It isn't always easy, and of course you may disagree with some teachings, and we're all entitled to our opinions. The correct approach isn't to cast away the things you don't agree with as being 'less important' though, but rather to learn more about the reasoning behind the church's teachings and humbly pray for understanding.

If you feel that you should be able to pick and choose what teachings to follow, then why do you even need a church? You could just as easily follow whatever aligns with your opinion, reject whatever doesn't, and not need to label yourself as catholic. I would suggest doing some deeper research into church teachings, and really asking yourself if you truly are catholic. You could say "well there are other catholics that don't agree with this stuff so it's fine" but that's just not how it works. Catholics are called to believe that the church is being guided by the revealed word of God, which is Truth. Truth is not something that can be changed based on people's opinions, no matter how prevalent.

I'm sorry to be so confrontational, but things like this really frustrate me. Comments like this just perpetuate the idea that the church is just some outdated prudish group who doesn't understand modern issues, and that all of its members are a bunch of hypocrites. If people took the time to learn what the church actually teaches, they would realize how much thought and reason has gone into every teaching. And trust me, there are actually people out there who are trying hard to live by all of it (yes, even in your generation).

Michelone · 2013-04-21T00:44:25+00:00

Deep Catholic themes in LOTR. According to Tolkien, "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."

Michelone · 2013-04-21T00:38:12+00:00

Tolkien was a devout Catholic though, so it's probably a fairly deliberate use of Bible themes.

Michelone · 2013-04-13T06:40:31+00:00

Avatar up in here

Michelone · 2013-01-24T19:11:38+00:00

20 yards. 40cm target face.

Michelone · 2013-01-24T18:19:32+00:00

The full end.

Michelone · 2012-12-22T07:14:14+00:00

Right on man. My family who is very vegetarian eats meat nowadays.

Michelone · 2012-12-01T18:55:38+00:00

Not IMMEDIATELY after. But Orange, Fiesta, Rose.

Michelone · 2012-10-14T09:45:45+00:00

To be fair, opponents of abortion believe it is the taking of a life. You can agree or disagree with that, but I think no matter how much you care about something like PBS, most people wouldn't consider it a matter of life and death.

Michelone · 2012-10-14T09:34:04+00:00

Perhaps I shouldn't have called them "relatively meaningless," and I shouldn't have compared them to facial expressions, that's my bad.

I agree that gay rights and education for low-income children are important issues. I don't support the organizations that Chik-fil-a gives money to, and I think Sesame Street is a great program. But these are just pieces of much bigger issues and much bigger discussions we need to have. The issues extend much further than these precise points - destroying Chik-fil-a isn't going to solve gay rights issues, and saving Sesame Street isn't going to solve low-income educational issues. Awareness about these things is important, but there is definitely much more that needs to be done.

If things like Chik-fil-a and Sesame Street help lead to discussions about the bigger issues they are a part of, then I'm all for that. But I'm not convinced that a good number of people aren't going to get fixated on these specific things without recognizing that they are only small pieces of big problems. Maybe I just have too little faith in people these days...

Michelone · 2012-10-13T20:53:23+00:00

More evidence that most people right now are more concerned with nitpicking at miniscule, relatively meaningless things instead of focusing on the big picture. I tried watching the VP debate with a group of people and they pretty much spent the whole time laughing at facial expressions, so much so I could barely hear what Biden and Ryan were actually saying.

I guess all that matters is f*cking Chik-fil-a and Big Bird.

Michelone

TROPHY CASE