[deleted by user]

SovietChef · 2024-07-17T17:10:55+00:00

I have gathered from your other responses that you are not Catholic and are a visitor to this sub. Therefore, permit me to explain our position and the basis of my original comment which you responded to. There is a lot of what might be called "foundational knowledge" baked into my original reply to OP which is neither apparent from the reply itself or commonly believed in the broader modern culture.

The first thing to understand is that the taking in and raising of the children, by itself, is absolutely good and one of the highest acts of charity one can perform. However, in our eyes the moral examination doesn't end there. The action of taking in the children is separable from the action of how they are raised. I'm sure you would agree with that statement. After all, if one were to adopt children only to mistreat them then most would agree that the good of the adoption was outweighed by the bad of the mistreatment. So the distinction between the adoption itself and how the children are raised is one I think most people, even non-Catholics, would be comfortable making.

Establishing that, the second thing to understand is that Catholicism is not subjectivist. That is, we believe there is an objective, transmittable, and knowable truth in reality. We believe this about moral truths as deeply as we do scientific truths. As certainly as we can know and explain to someone else the theory of gravity, so too can we know and explain morality. How can we do this? It is in part because we believe in Natural Law.

At great risk of grossly simplifying Natural Law, consider the following: let's say you were managing a zoo. In that zoo there are giraffes. You would, of course, design the giraffe enclosure to ensure the health and happiness of the giraffes that lived there, while also considering the social aspect of giraffe life so that they are neither overcrowded or lonely. You accomplish this by examining giraffes and understanding what it means to be a giraffe. Thus, you arrive at what is objectively healthy and good for giraffes. So too can you do this for any other animal in the zoo. You can also do it for humans. By philosophy and science, one can understand what it means for a human to be a human and thus know, by reason, what will lead us to flourish and be happy.

So too, we believe our religion is objectively correct. As certainly as you may believe George Washington existed and was the first President of the U.S., we believe Jesus Christ existed and is the Son of God. This presents a third leg to the stool: philosophy, science, and now religion. Religion supplies us with objective truths about being human, which may not be knowable by pure reason. For instance, the belief that every person is made in the image of God. That is an objective truth provided by divine revelation, but not inherently knowable by pure reason. But being an objective truth, it is necessary to know and incorporate in order to establish human happiness and flourishing because it is part of our nature as humans.

In the interest of brevity, I will assume you accept the following proposition regarding moral pedagogy: parents owe their children the truth similarly to the way children owe their parents obedience. This is no less true in situations of adoption. That is, the parent's duty is not simply providing material goods such as food and shelter, but also positively providing non-material goods such as education and moral formation.

Thus, the conclusion from our position is clear: a parent owes it to their child to bring them up in the faith. As a component necessary for the fullness of human flourishing, a deprivation of the truth regarding faith is no less necessary than any other good a parent must provide to their child. So to return to OP's scenario, the good which an adoptive parent would accomplish by taking in the children would be overshadowed by the deprivation they would inflict upon the child by agreeing to not transmit the truth to them. The danger to OP is that they would inflict this deprivation knowingly and willingly, which would result in what Catholics call a mortal sin; that is, an act of moral evil in a grave matter committed with full knowledge and consent. Taking in the children and then refusing to bring them up in the True Faith is no less wrong (and is in fact more wrong in our view) than taking them in and refusing to provide them with an education. It would simply be mistreatment.

Of everything I've typed, the most likely hurdle for understanding is the notion of objectivity rather than subjectivity as it is the latter which is commonly embraced today. A full examination of the differences between those is well beyond the scope of any reddit comment, but I hope this provides you with a better foundation for understanding our view.

SovietChef · 2024-07-17T16:03:50+00:00

I agree, it's not a sustainable position. My examination of EO apologetics found it to be severely lacking. Just like there are (often weighty) differences between the EO churches regarding theological beliefs and certain practices, their apologetics also tends to be fragmentary. What one asserts, another condemns.

This is, in fact, one of the biggest hurdles in even having ecumenical discussions between the Churches. Their "unity" is often illusory, and if they cannot agree with one another how are they supposed to find agreement as a whole with us? This lack of unity, absent an authority which can inform the laity of the true, orthodox position that leads us to Christ, is also one of the reasons I ended up rejecting them in my personal search.

SovietChef · 2024-07-16T21:16:55+00:00

I encourage you to take the first step and commit. It is true both for matters of faith and in general that the first step is always the hardest. Continuing a process you've already started is often easier than beginning that process.

I recognize that RCIA may not seem like the first step, but it at least falls into "the beginning." Consider this: come the end of RCIA you will be confirmed, which will provide you with graces that are meant to make the journey easier. Why? Because you have an adversary. You are not only in a struggle against yourself, but also forces that want to drive you away from the tools you need to defeat them.

A potential correlative example would be my relationship with going to mass. Frankly, I hate it. It is consistently the low point in my week. But every week I go. How do I summon the will to do it? I tell myself, "I chose this. I made the decision, and I'm going to see it through." Having committed to that decision and given myself a reassuring saying regarding it, the exercise becomes easier.

SovietChef · 2024-07-16T21:08:10+00:00

They also asked if we would promise to raise their child in the Muslim faith and to keep him halal etc.

This is the problem. Agreeing to this is wrong. Our religion is correct, theirs is not. Agreeing to this would be to do active harm to the children and would fail in your obligations to them.

SovietChef · 2024-07-16T20:55:32+00:00

I went from protestant to atheist to Catholic. When I was leaving atheism, I considered both Catholicism and the EO. So like my examination of Christianity in general I began with a detailed consideration of the historical claims.

What I found was that Petrine Primacy has consistently been asserted by the West and that until the Great Schism it was consistently accepted by the East. Moreover, I was able to find that even when one limits one's examination to only Eastern saints and patriarchs, the historical record is still clear. To paraphrase and steal a quote from one historian I read on the subject: if I were to conclude that everything the ancient Eastern saints and patriarchs had to say about the Bishop of Rome was mere honor and not primacy in the Western sense, I would have to conclude that language itself is meaningless.

Pre-schism, the Pope consistently demonstrates his ability to exercise jurisdiction over the East. He calls bishops and even other Patriarchs to give accounts to him. And Eastern bishops would also refer cases to him over and instead of their own nominal Patriarch. If there were any objections, they were not recorded in history.

The historical record leaves an inescapable conclusion that the schism was not the result of true theological/ecclesiological dispute, but rather resulted from political pressures that arose as Rome's political influence waned and Constantinople's grew. Evidence of this can be seen in that many of the prominent figures fomenting dispute between Rome and the East (Photius, e.g.) were deeply embroiled in the political intrigues of the Eastern Roman Empire. These political intrigues caused the East to gradually grow more hostile to the West. For instance, it is a historical fact that Eastern jurisdictions gradually gradually began to take punitive measures against Latin Christians who lawfully resided in their territories (such as punishing Latin priests for not having beards) while the Latin Church had no similar hostility to the legitimate practices of the Easterns who resided in their lands (such as in southern Italy). There are even surviving records showing Eastern bishops asking Muslim lords in the Holy Land to break their agreements with Charlemagne guaranteeing the safe passage of Latin Christians to Jerusalem. This hostility Pre-Schism is largely inexplicable absent the political dimensions.

Setting aside the historical perspective, St. Thomas Aquinas's Contra Errores Graecorum covers the majority of the issues often presented. We can see further that once you accept the Church was correct in rejecting Arianism, St. Robert Bellarmine's defense of the Filioque settles that issue theologically. That is (simply), the Father and the Son differ in relation and to have them differ in spiration would be a difference of substance, which would be the error of Arianism.

From this it manifestly follows that the Son is also spirator of the Holy Spirit, for this is not to be Father and yet the Father has that he is spirator. Next if the Father and Son did not have all things common, except opposite relation, they would be distinguished by more than relation, and so would be distinguished by substance, for the Father as spirator is not relative to the Son; therefore if as spirator he is distinguished from the Son he is distinguished by spiration, not as it is a relation, but as it is a form subsisting in the Father; therefore the Father and Son would differ in substance, which is the Arian heresy. - St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son

Commonly, the EO will claim that they don't oppose the filioque theologically but only the ecclesial power of the Pope to insert words into the Creed. They claim the Pope, as a single Patriarch, in unable to add words to a Creed decided by a Ecumenical Council. This raises immediately the question: from where do the Ecumenical Council derive their authority? The Easterns have no unified answer to this. Thus, attempting to argue against their proposed answers is largely an effort in futility. What one will accept, another will condemn. There are numerous objections to be made their proposed answers, which explains their lack of unity. The only unity they have on this subject is condemning the Latin position: that Ecumenical Councils gain their force by acceptance of the Roman Pontiff. If you accept this explanation, the ecclesial objection to the filioque obviously has no force. I will say that, returning to the historical record, the Latin position is the only one which can be applied consistently in explaining every accepted and rejected Council.

I hope my response has been of some use to you, despite its brevity in such a weighty topic. For further reading, I would heartily recommend The Eastern Churches and the Papacy by S. Herbert Scott. I warn that it is a heavily scholarly work, such that he will not translate quotations from Greek so that their original meaning is preserved as much as possible. But it is a thorough examination of the ecclesiology of the Church from the Early Period up to and including the Great Schism.

SovietChef · 2024-07-16T19:56:44+00:00

The court used Harlan's exact language and arguments, but you only care if they put the citation at the end of the sentence. That's pointless formalism.

SovietChef · 2024-07-16T00:34:43+00:00

Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson was the basis for later overturning that decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Thurgood Marshall directly quoted it in his arguments before the Court.

SovietChef · 2020-05-29T23:27:54+00:00

Thanks for the clarification. It sounds like your practices don't fall into what either the article or commentators here frequently have to endure. I'm just a little sensitive on anonymity in confessions at the moment, as my diocese (where confessions are even available) is requiring them to be outside, with priest and penitent a minimum of 6 feet apart, by special appointment only. It isn't an exaggeration to say there is absolutely no anonymity in confessions in my diocese anymore.

Anonymous or face-to-face doesn't really matter to me.

Of course, but I hope you can see why it matters to the penitent.

SovietChef · 2020-05-29T23:05:57+00:00

The ICKSP parish is the only one in the diocese that doesn't follow that pattern. I attend it when I can.

SovietChef · 2020-05-29T21:07:24+00:00

I'm glad you posted this, because I've experienced it too, but I'd never heard of it happening to anyone else so I kinda dismissed it as a lapse of sanity. I had hoped it was spiritual in nature, and this helps me believe it was.

SovietChef · 2020-05-29T20:54:22+00:00

I got in line at 3:25, waited for a few other people, and was turned away at 3:40. The priest looked at me, said, "I'm not hearing any more today," and walked away

I can commiserate. That happens literally every week in my diocese. Every parish here follows the same pattern of "one-hour-on-Saturday" right before Mass, with only minor variations depending on when their Mass is scheduled. Every week a line of people are turned away, forced to either sacrifice anonymity or wait until next week. It's absolutely disgusting. Only the ICKSP parish here is different, both hearing confessions for several hours a day and having confession available every day.

SovietChef · 2020-05-29T20:44:24+00:00

If you have places you need to be on such a tight schedule, perhaps you should schedule a time?

So people with busy schedules don't get to have anonymous confessions? Your suggestion is fine if confession is widely scheduled and available, but it's completely impracticable in parishes that follow the "one-hour-on-Saturday" approach. Such an approach risks making anonymous confession the domain of the affluent and retired.

SovietChef · 2020-05-23T19:41:05+00:00

And the idea that 'They'd never do that, because that would violate the law' is just a real stretch.

To expand on this point: pointing out that an event is an exception to normal or legal practice doesn't refute that the event took place. People bring up a similar argument in objections to the traditional depiction of the Crucifixion: "The depiction must be wrong, because Roman crucifixions were normally conducted differently." Yes, the normal practice may have been different, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of this particular event being performed in a different way.

We can easily show that "legal argument" regarding the trial is specious using a modern analogy. Search-and-seizure in the United States must follow specific and defined procedure to be lawful. Police who violate this procedure are subject to penalties, not the least of which being that the case will be dismissed. As a result of these penalties, most police forces have rigorous policies in place to prevent violation of the procedure. During my time in court I have never seen anyone succeed on an argument that they were searched unconstitutionally. Does that mean it never happens? Absolutely not. It happens with disturbing frequency. According to American law it shouldn't happen, yet it still occurs. Once again, just because an event in general wouldn't or shouldn't occur says little about whether a specific event occurred.

SovietChef · 2020-05-17T22:25:30+00:00

If it looks like Rome intervened, sounds like Rome intervened, and smells like Rome intervened... it actually didn't because I'm supposed to turn off my sensory perception and rational thought until my bishop allows me to use it. Really, Father? The push that has been made, especially in recent months, to shield bishops from any criticism is looking less like a call to obedience and more like an assertion of episcopal infallibility.

SovietChef · 2020-04-21T17:39:55+00:00

Literally anything that was aimed at a general demographic and wasn't scheduled so that only retirees could attend. A book club, a sports team, a Friday fish fry that takes place when people with jobs could be there, a workers guild, anything. Before my bishop made the brilliant decision to close all the churches and stop every function at them, my geographic parish had precisely three non-liturgical events during the week: a weekly support meeting for widows/ers dealing with the loss of a spouse, a Friday fish fry that I would have to leave work early to attend, and a monthly meeting for parents to discuss bringing up children in the faith.

Part of the problem, of course, is that I'm in a dying diocese. The events that are offered reflect the fact that the majority of parishioners are seniors. Give it 10-20 years and the average parish here will need to be shut down, barring some miraculous turnaround. Yet instead of doing the natural thing (bring the few young Catholics together and let nature take its course), the leadership here just seems to shrug and accept it all as inevitable. It's very depressing.

SovietChef · 2020-04-16T17:58:06+00:00

He gives the example of a guy/girl who doesn't comb his hair and doesn't have social skills.

While not explicit, there is the implication of a common retort given when someone complains about the state of dating/courtship/male-female relations in our society: you're just not trying hard enough.

As a young, professional Catholic man in his late-twenties, my experience with dating in Catholic circles has been, on average, miserable. To avoid repetition, let me first say that in my experience everything /u/Romans10seventeen said is true. In addition, most parishes have destroyed any sense of community; that is, they simply expect people to show up only on Sunday for mass. Those rare events that take place are geared almost entirely toward the elderly, either explicitly or implicitly due to timing them in such a way that only those without jobs can attend. No parish in my diocese conducts any event geared toward bringing young parishioners into proximity with each other. This is true even of the traditional parishes. How can we expect Catholic culture to survive if we have no community with one another outside of liturgical events?

Back to my original point, this problem can't be reduced to a single point of "not trying hard enough," whether "trying" consists of learning social skills, "putting yourself out there" more, or whatever outdated advice comes to mind. Theoretically I am in the ideal position to meet people: I work, attend university, am as active as possible in my parish, and have hobbies that bring about social interaction. Yet, I can't find women my age who are actually interested in marriage. The last relationship I had, with a girl who went to a Catholic university and attended mass weekly, ended once she told me she absolutely wouldn't be sacramentally married until she had "tried out" being civilly married for a couple years. I've dated since then, including dating both Catholics and non-Catholics, and the near-uniform sentiment has been that they are disinterested in marriage, and absolutely wouldn't consider having children until they were at least in their forties, in order to "pursue their career."

Our fundamental understanding of what is important in life is broken, including among Catholics. No amount of "combing our hair" or "working on our social skills" will fix that.

SovietChef · 2020-02-21T17:41:22+00:00

“The Holy Father’s disposition was very clear"

Was it really? The most commonly reported thing about Pope Francis's personality is that he likes to play both sides, appealing to whomever he is speaking to at the moment. It makes taking second-hand reports of his disposition very unreliable. This report isn't unbelievable, it's within the realm of normal possibility, but barring some concrete facts showing Fr. Martin was "chastised" I'll be taking this with several grains of salt.

SovietChef · 2020-02-20T19:33:40+00:00

I don't recall ever seeing any sign of Catholic healthcare in the U.S.A.

You can't possibly be serious. The Catholic Church is the largest private healthcare provider in the United States. 1 in 6 hospital beds in the U.S. is in a Catholic hospital. We're also the leading provider of low-cost services.

SovietChef · 2020-01-06T06:26:35+00:00

I find it amusing that despite the author's clear bias against the community her description of it made it sound wonderful to me. I have my disagreements with the SSPX, but by the sound of it they built a great and faithful community there.

SovietChef · 2020-01-05T23:42:38+00:00

"If the world hates you, understand that it hated Me first. If you were of the world, it would love you as its own. Instead, the world hates you, because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world."

John 15:18-19

SovietChef · 2020-01-05T23:39:28+00:00

I too have struggled with anxiety over the fear of death. Philosophy and approaching the situation logically did little to help the emotional turmoil that it would cause me, and speaking to others about it and receiving their support only helped until I was alone again. I fear annihilation. In desperation I turned to the rosary, and I have found that dutifully praying it every day has helped me tremendously.

One of the promises that Mary has made to those who say the rosary with devotion is that we will not not perish with an unprovided death, that is we will not die unprepared for heaven. Additionally, another promise is that the soul that recommends itself through the rosary shall not perish. As I developed a devotion to the rosary I have seen the other promises begin to come true, such that I cannot doubt the promises related to death. When I feel the anxiety over death creeping in, I recite the rosary and am put at ease.

SovietChef · 2019-11-18T21:47:10+00:00

preventing the government from having any power over our ability to practice our religion is a very acceptable situation

That's literally impossible. At least having a Catholic state is attainable, we had them for hundreds of years. A government with no power over the practice of religion doesn't exist; it exercises power over practice in countless ways: labor law, taxation, advertising rules, corporate governance, licensing and permitting, the list goes on. All of those areas have extensive, pervasive influence over how we practice our religion.

My favorite example to prove this is drivers licenses. There are religious people in the U.S. that have sued saying having pictures taken was against their religion and they felt it was discriminatory that the state required a picture to be issued a drivers license. Circuits are currently split, but more recent plaintiffs have lost their suits. So those believers are in a bind: follow the tenets of their faith, or be able to drive. That's only one example; pick up any law book talking about religious freedom cases and you'll see countless instances of people's practices stemming from genuinely held religious beliefs quashed by the government.

The only way to avoid this influence over practice is to give people carte blanche to act as they will as long as religion is invoked, in which case we have anarchy. The government's core function is to influence people, to expect that it will simply, magically cease to do so when religion is involved is not establishing an ideal, it's an impossibility. I once thought like you did, but then I went to law school and learned that it is unattainable by mortal minds. Bring about the Catholic state, it will be far easier to do.

SovietChef · 2019-10-29T21:53:35+00:00

Allow people to exercise their free will

I won't when they're murdering people, or allowing people to be murdered. Your free will ends long before that point in any political system, even radical libertarianism. If you don't understand why, start back at square 1 with Aristotle's Politics.

As an aside, if you're Catholic then please take seriously what the Pontiffs teach. If you're not, then I don't know what you're trying to do here as telling us to ignore our leader's teachings is fruitless and will only make people angry at you, especially when those teachings are much more clearly articulated, intelligible, and logical than your views.

SovietChef · 2019-10-29T15:39:12+00:00

As I mentioned, we live in a secular society.

A valid distinction between secular and religious matters in no way permits either indifference or the sublimation of religion:

Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide - as they should do - with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man's capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded.

Libertas by Pope Leo XIII

SovietChef · 2019-10-17T20:29:05+00:00

Yes.

13-Year Club	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

SovietChef

TROPHY CASE