What I cannot understand about Catholicism and on a wider scale religion is the need to determine things as sinful when they do not effect others. For example, I believe in the inherent right for one to commit suicide, or to have an abortion, or to do drugs, or to have whatever sexuality one desires, because these things do not effect anyone except the individual taking part in them. Murder, rape, infidelity... these things effect others, and so obviously I can agree that they're wrong and sinful... but why are any of the individual-centric sins even sins in the first place? Do people truly believe God wants them to force their will upon others? To me, that sounds all to similar to murder, rape, and all the other sins of harming others. Did God not give us free will because he wants us to have to choose to follow his teachings and not to be forced to follow them?
God did give us free will. Without it, life would be rather meaningless (there was a thread in this forum that I skimmed recently on this subject.) This touches on the idea of predestination, which is more of an issue in, e.g., Calvinistic thought (or it's Catholic equivalent, Jansenism, deemed a heresy), which, in it's deviant formulation, holds that we lack free will and our actions and our salvation are predetermined before our birth; the authentic doctrine is more along the lines of this: we have our free will, but God, being outside of space and time (see my first post here), knows beforehand how we will exercise it. This does not diminish the fact that we have choices to make and we will be judged for it. God did not create us as automatons or puppets but as wholly independent moral agents, but this does not diminish the fact that He has established standards of right and wrong (as the omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator, His will is,
eo ipso, the moral standard.) We have the ability to choose or reject God and His teachings, and may exercise it as we see fit, but we must face the eternal consequences. Free will does not mean the ability to anything we please without recompense. If it were so, how would we determine in any objective sense what is wrong and what is right?
As far as the "individual-centric" sins, as far as abortion goes, the only meaningful question is "when does human life begin?" and both Scripture and science seem to agree that it begins at, or soon after, conception. Suicide, as the saying goes, is a "permanent solution to a temporary problem," and in theological terms, represents giving up hope in God's plan for one's life, and taking matters into one's own hands, instead of putting one's trust in the Almighty, it is a sort of "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," which is called the unpardonable sin, cf. Luke 12:10 and others, which, in context, was attributing the miracles of Christ to the devil, but, by extension, could mean rejecting God's jurisdiction over one's life, and in favor if it receiving something else, however, the Catechism of the Catholic church states,
CCC 3§2(2) said:
2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.
2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.
2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.
Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.
2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.
Honestly, most cases of suicide would fall under the section that is in bold above, and are subject to God's forgiveness. A sort of wilfull exit to the world coupled with a wilful rejection of God's agency in one's life and the possibility of salvation, might be a different matter altogether. The specifics are mysteries known only to God, however. But as has been said here, our body is a temple, and our lives are guided by God, it is indeed a sort of blasphemy to cut them short.
As far as drug use goes, let's look again at the Catechism, at 2291, first in the Latin, because I see some issues in the standard English translation:
Stupefactivorum medicamentorum usus gravissimas infligit valetudini et vitae humanae destructiones. Extra indicationes stricte therapeuticas, gravis est culpa. Clandestina stupefactivorum medicamentorum productio et mercatura operationes sunt scandalosae; cooperationem constituunt directam, quoniam ad usus legi morali incitant graviter contrarios.
The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.
Stupefactivorum mediacmentorum is translated rather inadequately in the English to "drugs," the better translation is rather obvious even if you don't have any Latin. "Stupefying," or "intoxicating" drugs, the rest of it discusses use or production
without strictly therapeutic purpose, I think we can safely interpret this in the broadest possible sense despite the language (
stricte), and even in a harm reduction sense (OST, for instance), but certainly to include the positive use of drugs in terms of therapy and personal growth, of course
not to include the
soi disant "spiritual" use of drugs to contact spiritual entities, etc., which in spiritual terms is extremely dangerous (viz. the danger of possession by malevolent preternatural forces, something which I'll be willing to discuss here also in terms of experiences of acquaintances of mine in the drug scene), see the use of the word φαρμακεία (
pharmakeia, from which our "pharmacy," etc.) in Rev. 18:23, usually translated as "sorcery," but better as "divination through potions," which sound an awful lot like ayahuasca. But anyways, here in the CCC, what's really being condemned here is senseless hedonism, which goes together with the condemnation of senseless hedonism at the cost of the destruction of the body elsewhere. Clandestine manufacture of drugs being "scandalous" is in reference to their use and distribution outside of appropraite grounds, and in terms of the
promotion of sin (i.e., scandal), that is to say, their manufacture and distribution simply to profit from people's addiction and hedonism.
(This is as good a point as any to point out that I am a seriously problematic alcoholic, and have in the past had serious issues with addiction to ther drugs, and this is both a spiritual and physical disease of mine but also a great sin, which requires both a spiritual and physical cure, both of which I aspire to.)
What I'm really wanting to know is, where in God's teachings does it give man the right to effect another man's life? Did Jesus preach homophobia (legit question, is there anything about that in the new testament)? Is it truly necessary to try and force one's will upon others in order to be a true Christian?
In the Gospel of Matthew (19:3), discussing marriage, Jesus says: "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “
made them male and female” Paul, more well-known, in Romans 1, states: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another..."
Homophobia is a problematic term, there is no fear (
phobia) in the Christian interpretation of same sex affection, rather, it is seen as
propensio objective inordinata, that is, "intrinsically disordered," as the official translation has it, but better, "objectively contrary to the natural order," which points to the fact that the natural purpose of sexual intercourse is for procreation, not recreation. Only since the "Sexual Revolution" has it been seen in the mainstream as any other way. Of course, homosexuality has existed long before this, in varying contexts and with varying degrees of social acceptance.
Keep in mind that
homosexuality, as an inclination or "orientation," that is,
same-sex attraction, or as a desire, is not a sin, it is a challenge given to some (such as is the predisposition to alcoholism or drug addiction), but homosexual
acts are seen as contrary to the natural order, and the identification with "gay" culture in the promotion of these acts is considered an occasion to scandal, that is, the promotion of sin, particularly with regards to the young, "... but he that shall scandalize (i.e., lead into sin) one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Mt. 18:6)
The Catechism on homosexuality:
CCC 2357 et seq. said:
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
However, this does not change the fact that homosexuality is in this sense seen as a deviation from God's plan for the dignified use of human sexuality, which is not for mere pleasure, but for the achievement of a higher goal, i.e. one of God's very first commandments to mankind, "be fruitful and multiply." John Paul II promulgated some very deep teachings on the
theology of the body, and, incidentally, on the
dignity and vocation of women.
I realize this touches on topics of heavy debate, and so I don't want anything more than an explanation for what gives Christians the right to effect their fellow man. I just want to know where in God's teachings it says to effect others, to force your will upon others, when so many major sins are sins because they effect others.
Nowhere is it stated to force one's will upon others. This gets into the territory of the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, Luke 18:9 et seq.
And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Sexual sins are not more grave than other sins, but they are more talked about as we are, as a society, very preoccupied with sex. We, as Paul says, have
all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Sin cannot be legislated against, although efforts are made in the interests of a liveable civil society, but rather, approached with Christian love and understanding and evangelism.
One thing I'm wondering about is, if you don't believe god is "an old man in the sky with a beard", why do you still use the capitalized (and gendered) Him? Is it just out of ritual/tradition or do you have some deeper reason for it? I suppose I have the same question about the other traditionally capitalized words (God, Church, etc), but primarily about "Him/He".
God is not ontologically male, He is beyond male, female, or any other human category. The use of the capitalized & gendered pronoun is only traditional.
I can only back this up with feelings of course, but I always thought it made more sense, after reading the NT, that Jesus was trying to say, look, you CAN be like me, I'm doing it, so can you. Rather than saying, no one can be as perfect as me but you can try. Also the idea that Jesus, as a human, was perfect always felt like a device put in place after he had been deified within the hundred or hundreds of years between his actual life and when the NT books were written. A great man, yes, a great example, but a man even so.
We are called to perfection (Matthew 5:48, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect,") Christ was perfect, thus this is our goal, but we inevitably fall short, thus the need for salvation.
Not believing, of course, in the divinity of Christ, one sees him only as "a great man," or as the Muslims and some New Age types believe, the final prophet, or such, but the Church teaches the incarnation, which I will be glad to address somewhat later, but it's getting late and my time at the moment is limited ...
I think the cultural happenings of the time during which the books were written and the adoption of Catholicism is crucial to take into account. Rome was in trouble because Christianity was catching on and they were losing their hold over the population. In adopting this new religion, it seems to me their goal was certainly, at least in part of not in total, to gain control over the population again.
Christianity in Rome was, before it's official acceptance, wholly a persecuted outsider movement, although it began to gain considerable ground. Constantine's acceptance of Christianity (incidentally, he was only baptized on his death-bed, which would seem to indicate that he truly believed it would benefit him in the afterlife, versus it being only politically expedient) was according to tradition related to divine intervention at the Bridge of Milvia, but even if this is not believed, came from the gradual ascent of Christianity over Roman Paganism as it better suited the spiritual needs of the people at this time. St Augustine, almost contemporary, wrote an entire lengthy book (
The City of God) on these quite complex questions.
Besides that, it had already been hundreds of years since Jesus's life when these things we take as gospel were actually written. How could there be a fully accurate account of what actually went down, especially given the ultimate motive of adopting the religion in the first place? And what is the reason for accepting some writing and discarding others, especially when some have a pretty different implication (for example, the gnostic books, which were written closer to his life)?
Will address this later and in greater detail as it is a question which deserves more attention and I don't have time now.
Does this mean that you believe in the idea of sex as a sin? And that conception that is non-immaculate is a sinful thing?
Sex, as I've mentioned above, directed towards it's intended purpose, is no sin but rather a beautiful thing and a gift of God. The
immaculate conception as a technical theological term refers to the idea that by God's grace the taint of original sin was not passed on to Mary; afterwards, she is by Church doctrine held to have lived a blameless life, thus to have been an appropriate vessel for the birth of Christ. It does not refer
per se to sexuality.
Why should a ritualized object or action be necessary for these things? Or is the ritual just the means of connecting to that spiritual idea (of reconciling, washing away previous sin, etc)?
Also will address later when I have more time, along with the balance of
@Foreigner's questions and the ones raised later in this thread. Also
@tokezu's questions especially about the
usus antiquior or the Latin Mass, and several other questions about the liturgy through the centuries and the spiritual importance of liturgy and sacraments ... incredibly important questions, and I want to do them justice.
More later,
SKL.