Morals and actions

[Xeno.of.athens]

Every two years Americans are asked to vote and voting is one way to exercise one's moral compass in a public act of decision making, so, how do see this matter relating to your faith?

From a Catholic perspective, voting should be guided by a commitment to upholding the Church's teachings on social justice and the protection of human life and dignity. In the Catholic tradition, the sanctity of human life, the importance of the family, the rights of workers and the poor, and the protection of religious freedom are all considered to be central moral concerns.

When evaluating political candidates and issues, Catholics are encouraged to consider how a candidate's positions align with these values, and to vote for those who will best promote the common good.

It's important to keep in mind that the Catholic Church does not endorse any political party or candidate, rather encourages Catholics to vote according to their conscience, forming it with the help of the teachings of the Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

This assumes that our votes as peasants matter. A strong case can be made that our votes don't matter and that by participating in voting you legitimize a system which acts contra to your interests and whose real interests are in the benefit of the donating class of people/companies.

What viable western politician at this moment in time can be said to represent a genuinely Christian interest?

 

[BobRyan]

Every two years Americans are asked to vote and voting is one way to exercise one's moral compass in a public act of decision making, so, how do see this matter relating to your faith?

Some political issues are "just politics" but in other cases -- politics strays into the Bible domain of moral values.

So for example in the mid 1800's in America people were voting for anti-slavery political candidates or else pro-slavery political candidates. Even though the issue was supposedly politics - in fact it was deep into Biblical moral domain of "The value of human life". It was a moral issue and Christians were highly motivated to get rid of slavery.

From a Catholic perspective, voting should be guided by a commitment to upholding the Church's teachings on social justice

From a non-Catholic POV what the Catholic church says about social justice is not all that much of a concern - but what the Bible says about sin and the value of human life is a huge concern.

and the protection of human life and dignity. In the Catholic tradition, the sanctity of human life

Here we can agree but not because we both share your value for "Catholic tradition" but because those issues are moral issues and the Bible speaks to them no matter what denomination one belongs to.

, the importance of the family, the rights of workers and the poor, and

In the Catholic tradition...the protection of religious freedom are all considered to be central moral concerns.

Would you mind expanding on that point.

 

[BobRyan]

What viable western politician at this moment in time can be said to represent a genuinely Christian interest?

All candidates are flawed even Christian ones... this was also true in the mid-1800's when the 'value of human life' issue at the time - was slavery and abortion was illegal. Now it is the reverse but the issue is still the same - the value of human life and politicians that are not saints.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

All candidates are flawed even Christian ones... this was also true in the mid-1800's when the 'value of human life' issue at the time - was slavery and abortion was illegal. Now it is the reverse but the issue is still the same - the value of human life and politicians that are not saints.

Political leadership will always be flawed. What I had in mind was specific the specific interests of Christians. We could say that many kings in medieval times were sinners, yet they had the interests of Christians at heart first (on average), rather than Pagans, Heretics or Muslims.

The same cannot be said of any even ostensibly Christian politician today in the West. They have the interests of a liberal democratic order of things first, Christianity perhaps last.

 

[BobRyan]

Political leadership will always be flawed. What I had in mind was specific the specific interests of Christians. We could say that many kings in medieval times were sinners, yet they had the interests of Christians at heart first (on average), rather than Pagans, Heretics or Muslims.

The same cannot be said of any even ostensibly Christian politician today in the West. They have the interests of a liberal democratic order of things first, Christianity perhaps last.

I would never have guessed that life in medieval times was better than today's freedom of religion, personal property rights, Christian evangelism throughout the world, Bibles in almost every home, churches on almost every corner.

By contrast in medieval times we had ...

“Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should
be permitted to have the books of the Old or
New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having
any translation of these books.”
– The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 AD
Source: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe,
Scolar Press, London, England
copyright 1980 by Edward Peters,
ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195

Why Christians Were Denied Access To Their Bible For 1,000 Years

Wouldn't you assume that the newly established Church would want its devotees to immerse themselves in the sanctioned New Testament, especially since the Church went to great lengths to eliminate competing Gospels?

www.huffpost.com

Even Canada has not gone to such an extreme in recent decades.

Then there was LATERAN IV and its decrees calling for the "extermination of heretics"

And what about the "Doctrine of Discovery"?? now that one has got to raise a few questions even in today's politics

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I would never have guessed that life in medieval times was better than today's freedom of religion, personal property rights, Christian evangelism throughout the world, Bibles in almost every home, churches on almost every corner.

By contrast in medieval times we had ...

“Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should
be permitted to have the books of the Old or
New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having
any translation of these books.”
– The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 AD
Source: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe,
Scolar Press, London, England
copyright 1980 by Edward Peters,
ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195

Why Christians Were Denied Access To Their Bible For 1,000 Years

Wouldn't you assume that the newly established Church would want its devotees to immerse themselves in the sanctioned New Testament, especially since the Church went to great lengths to eliminate competing Gospels?

www.huffpost.com

Even Canada has not gone to such an extreme in recent decades.

Then there was LATERAN IV and its decrees calling for the "extermination of heretics"

And what about the "Doctrine of Discovery"?? now that one has got to raise a few questions even in today's politics

If you're going to use Canada, a country which currently recommends you kill yourself if you can't afford to live as an example then by all means do so.

My point in bringing up the medieval era wasn't to speak of it being necessarily better (though in many ways I do consider it better), but to bring up the very real aspect interests play in political life. A leader will act on the basis of who grants him the power. In medieval society it was Christians who determined the ruler and thus the ruler had an interest in adhering to Christianity. Our Western leaders today are held up by entities which are not Christian, but a liberal and progressive class of people. This will influence in how they seek to shape society and we can only but see society become less Christian as a result.

Do you think we are heading in a good direction politically that benefits Christendom broadly?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In the Catholic tradition, the sanctity of human life, the importance of the family, the rights of workers and the poor, and the protection of religious freedom are all considered to be central moral concerns.

Would you mind expanding on that point.

why does it need to be explained further than to say that "the protection of religious freedom ... [is] considered to be [a] central moral concern."?

 

[BobRyan]

If you're going to use Canada, a country which currently recommends you kill yourself if you can't afford to live as an example then by all means do so.

As opposed to?

"Extermination of Heretics" Lateran IV where they steal your belongs and kill you or in some cases steal your belongings and banish you.
"Doctrine of Discovery" - where they do lots and lots of bad things to you.

My point in bringing up the medieval era wasn't to speak of it being necessarily better (though in many ways I do consider it better), but to bring up the very real aspect interests play in political life. A leader will act on the basis of who grants him the power.

I agree with that.

In medieval society it was Christians who determined the ruler and thus the ruler had an interest in adhering to Christianity.

It was that form of Christianity that introduced the tortures of the "Inquisition" and the abuses of the "Doctrine of Discovery" and the abuses of the "Extermination of heretics" in Lateran IV.

Harsh measures not even remotely implemented in Canada - as bad as Canada is for opposing freedom of religion, freedom of expression etc.

Our Western leaders today are held up by entities which are not Christian, but a liberal and progressive class of people.

Agreed - that is a problem and it will lead to some even worse things in the future as you appear to predict.

This will influence in how they seek to shape society and we can only but see society become less Christian as a result.

Agreed.

Do you think we are heading in a good direction politically that benefits Christendom broadly?

no - I think that we have a very strong anti-christian element gaining more and more control every year. But I suspect that will be some form of backlash at some point in the near future. There are some pretty bad ditches on both sides of this but we suffer most from the left ditch over the past 50 years or so with the secularization of the nation.

 

[BobRyan]

why does it need to be explained further than to say that "the protection of religious freedom ... [is] considered to be [a] central moral concern."?

I agree that freedom of religion - religious liberty is a big issue and is being threatened and it is a moral issue

But you said

Xeno.of.athens said:

In the Catholic tradition, the sanctity of human life, the importance of the family, t... the protection of religious freedom are all considered to be central moral concerns.

I know about the Catholic Church and the inquisition
I know about the Catholic church and the "Doctrine of Discovery"
I know about the Catholic Church and Bible burning
I know about the Catholic church and LATERAN IV's call for the "extermination of heretics".

Are these religious freedom issues in your thinking or do they not shed any light on that subject from your POV?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I agree that freedom of religion - religious liberty is a big issue and is being threatened and it is a moral issue

But you said


I know about the Catholic Church and the inquisition

I wonder if you know or if you think you know.

I know about the Catholic church and the "Doctrine of Discovery"

Really?
Is this what you're thinking about.

The Catholic doctrine of discovery is a principle that was used by European colonizers to justify the takeover of land belonging to indigenous peoples. It was based on the idea that non-Christian peoples could be legitimately discovered and claimed by Christian monarchs. The basis for this principle was found in a series of papal bulls (official declarations) issued by the Catholic Church in the 15th and 16th centuries.

The most notable of these is the 1493 bull "Inter caetera," issued by Pope Alexander VI, which granted Spain the right to claim and colonize lands in the Americas that were not under the jurisdiction of a Christian ruler.
The 1455 bull "Romanus Pontifex" issued by Pope Nicholas V also gave the Catholic monarchs the right to acquire new lands and spread Christianity.
Both of these bulls were used as a basis for the Catholic Church's support of the colonization of the Americas. However, the Catholic Church has since repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery and the use of these bulls to justify the subjugation of indigenous peoples.

It's worth noting that this principle has been widely criticized and rejected by many, both within and outside of the Catholic Church, as being morally and legally unjust.

I know about the Catholic Church and Bible burning

The Catholic Church has traditionally viewed the translation of the Bible by Protestants during the Protestant Reformation as heretical. The Catholic Church believed that these translations were based on flawed interpretive principles and were not authorized by the Church.

However, the Catholic Church's attitude towards the disposal of these translations has varied throughout history. In the past, some Catholics advocated for the burning of Protestant Bibles, as they were seen as a threat to the authority of the Church. However, this practice was not officially endorsed by the Church and was discouraged by many Catholic leaders.

Today, the Catholic Church does not advocate for the destruction of any religious texts, including Protestant Bibles. The Church recognizes that people have the right to read and interpret the Bible for themselves, and it encourages Catholics to engage with the Bible in a responsible and respectful manner.

Additionally, the Catholic Church has also made efforts to bridge the gap between the different Christian denominations and to promote dialogue and understanding among different faith traditions. This has included the production of ecumenical translations of the Bible, which are translations that are acceptable to different denominations.

In summary, the Catholic Church today would not advocate for the destruction of Protestant Bibles, instead it encourages responsible reading and interpretation of the Bible, and promotes ecumenical translations to bridge the gap between different denominations.

I know about the Catholic church and LATERAN IV's call for the "extermination of heretics".

The Fourth Lateran Council, held in 1215, was a significant event in the history of the Catholic Church. It dealt with a variety of topics, including the issue of heresy.

The council issued a number of canons (church laws) that dealt with the issue of heresy, which were intended to strengthen the Church's authority and to combat the spread of heretical teachings. Some of these canons included:

Canon 3, which required that all Catholics confess their sins to a priest at least once a year, and that those who refused to do so would be excommunicated.
canon 9, which required that all Catholics receive the sacraments of the Church, including baptism and the Eucharist, from a priest who was in good standing with the Church.
canon 13, which required that all Catholics who had lapsed into heresy repent and receive absolution from a priest before they could be received back into the Church.
The council also affirmed the authority of the Church to define and interpret the meaning of scripture. Canon 1 states that "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" and that "no one should dare to believe, teach, or preach a different faith."

In summary, the Lateran Council IV affirmed the authority of the Catholic Church over the interpretation of the scripture and dealt with the issue of heresy by establishing rules to strengthen the Church's authority and combat the spread of heretical teachings.

Are these religious freedom issues in your thinking or do they not shed any light on that subject from your POV?

 

[BobRyan]

I know about the Catholic Church and the inquisition
I know about the Catholic church and the "Doctrine of Discovery"
I know about the Catholic Church and Bible burning
I know about the Catholic church and LATERAN IV's call for the "extermination of heretics".

Are these religious freedom issues in your thinking or do they not shed any light on that subject from your POV?

I wonder if you know or if you think you know.

I don't think that answers anything so far

The Catholic doctrine of discovery is a principle that was used by European colonizers to justify the takeover of land belonging to indigenous peoples. It was based on the idea that non-Christian peoples could be legitimately discovered and claimed by Christian monarchs.

The idea of "Claiming other people and stealing their lands because they are not Christian" does not sound like a high concern for religious liberty to most objective unbiased readers. How do you get that out of it?

. However, the Catholic Church has since repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery and the use of these bulls to justify the subjugation of indigenous peoples.

When did that happen? I know that the Pope was being asked about it when he came to the US and addressed the congress - but at that time refused to repudiate it.

The Catholic Church has traditionally viewed the translation of the Bible by Protestants during the Protestant Reformation as heretical.

A lot of people to this very day are using Bible's translated by protestants. The idea that this is heretical does not sound like a high regard for religious liberty.

The Catholic Church believed that these translations were based on flawed interpretive principles and were not authorized by the Church.

No doubt the Catholic church does not go around authorizing Protestants doing Bible translations... but even so - declaring it to be heretical is a problem for religious liberty.

Why Christians Were Denied Access To Their Bible For 1,000 Years

Wouldn't you assume that the newly established Church would want its devotees to immerse themselves in the sanctioned New Testament, especially since the Church went to great lengths to eliminate competing Gospels?

www.huffpost.com

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): "We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned..."

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to "...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ's sentence." For this "heresy" Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council's decree "Wycliffe's bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River."

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.

Looks like a lack of concern for religious liberty - (freedom of religion)

The Fourth Lateran Council, held in 1215, was a significant event in the history of the Catholic Church. It dealt with a variety of topics, including the issue of heresy.

The council issued a number of canons (church laws) that dealt with the issue of heresy, which were intended to strengthen the Church's authority and to combat the spread of heretical teachings. Some of these canons included:
...
In summary, the Lateran Council IV affirmed the authority of the Catholic Church over the interpretation of the scripture and dealt with the issue of heresy by establishing rules to strengthen the Church's authority and combat the spread of heretical teachings.

It called for "The extermination of heretics" and authorized stealing their positions. It stated that if a civil authority failed to do this then the local populace was at liberty to ignore the ruler and go get that property and exterminate the heretics themselves.

That does not sound like a high concern for religious liberty.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

As opposed to?

"Extermination of Heretics" Lateran IV where they steal your belongs and kill you or in some cases steal your belongings and banish you.
"Doctrine of Discovery" - where they do lots and lots of bad things to you.

Am I to boil down all of Catholicism into the fourth Lateran council? Or all of medieval Christianity into that? Yeah, being a heretic was not easy but that is kind of the point. To reinforce Christianity in society. It was direct and to the point. The Catholic Church wanted a Catholic society. We must also remember that not all Kings obeyed the Catholic Church to the letter in it's ecclesiastical decrees.

It was that form of Christianity that introduced the tortures of the "Inquisition" and the abuses of the "Doctrine of Discovery" and the abuses of the "Extermination of heretics" in Lateran IV.

Well this is medieval society we're talking about here. Torture was a common secular practice to extract a confession or punish dissenters. Boiling down all of medieval Christianity to just this aspect is unfair to our Christian forebears. Unless you don't consider the Christians of the past as being genuinely Christian.

Harsh measures not even remotely implemented in Canada - as bad as Canada is for opposing freedom of religion, freedom of expression etc.

We see more cruelty in Canada than anything. It's an unflinching commitment to consent at all costs, to market forces that tells a person that they should not live because they will be a burden on others. Medieval society when it executed people it did so because the person had offended divinity, good and justice. Not merely for the crime of being unable to live in a bad economy.

no - I think that we have a very strong anti-christian element gaining more and more control every year. But I suspect that will be some form of backlash at some point in the near future. There are some pretty bad ditches on both sides of this but we suffer most from the left ditch over the past 50 years or so with the secularization of the nation.

I'm glad we both agree there's a problem. I am curious in which way you think the backlash will manifest and how this backlash will have the will, organization and ability to succeed. To my viewpoint most people (including most Christians) are utterly complacent with the status quo. Things will need to get significantly worse for any group which seeks to challenge the current political masters of the West. Those masters will do everything they can to make sure things don't collapse in a manner they can't control.