Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
From: jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco)
Subject: Re: Sin (was Re: sex)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:48:45 GMT

v5875bza@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Michael M Gorman Jr) writes:

>Of course this is correct.  But let me put my question a little more
>clearly.  First, how  i n  p r a c t i c a l  terms do we challenge
>people?  Some friends I have are committed Catholics, and I could sit
>them down and say, "Listen, this is painful, but you're doing what's
>wrong," and they will listen.  But many Catholics (so I contend) don't
>give a fig for Church teachings, especially on sex.  Convincing them
>would be as hard as convincing the most secular person around.

Not quite. 

It is possible to point out to a person who claims to be catholic that their
attitude towards X, Y, or Z contradicts that claim if this attitude 
contravenes church teaching. The idea is basically this: if you're a catholic,
act like one! This approach doesn't work for secular people, because they
make no claims to be catholic. 

Still, your point is still mostly valid. Many people take the attitude 
something like: "I'm catholic, but I don't like X, Y, or Z, and furthermore,
X, Y, or Z isn't necessary to be catholic." This is a question of fact,
and it requires clear teaching on the part of the church. This sometimes seems
to be lacking. 

The most serious problem, however, and the one which probably lies behind your
assertion that some catholics are as difficult to convince as secular people,
arises when a person claiming to be catholic decides to deny the validity of 
some clearly asserted church teaching. It seems to me that this happens 
frequently in the area of sexual teaching. The attitude expressed seems to be
something like: "A real catholic would agree with me, not with the magisterium,
and the pope and bishops insist on X, Y, or Z only because they're 
sexist/racist/homophobic/totalitarian/old-fashioned/stupid/incompetent..."
The crux of the approach seems to be the belief that the proper teaching 
authority in the church is not vested in the bishops and pope, but in the 
people in general, and oneself in particular. 

Now, let's get  p r a c t i c a l. 

If everyone doesn't agree on what being catholic means, this needs to be
straightened out, if possible, before further progress is possible. If someone
believes that they have the right to override the church's teachings on some
point without sinning, then there isn't a thing anyone can do to convince them
to follow any catholic teaching they choose not to. The best anyone can do is
to suggest that if they don't fit the description, they shouldn't wear the
label. 

If this is straightened out, and the person ends up catholic, pointing out
the church's teaching should be sufficient to convince them of the need to
follow it. Then whatever additional help or advice (eg. how to be chaste 
without going nuts) can be provided, depending on the characteristics of
each situation.

If the person ends up secular, it's an evangelization problem. That's a whole
new kettle of fish. 

>John, you spoke of helping them to stop struggling.  My point is that
>they aren't struggling!  They easily and with a clear conscience do
>what's wrong.  I'd say, for example, that for many Catholics, deciding
>whether or not to use condoms is about as difficult as deciding which
>kind of oil filter to use--there are questions of effectiveness and
>of price, but there is no moral issue involved, on their view.
>Same with fornication:  no struggle, no issue.  If this is so, then
>what love here requires is not to help them stop struggling, but to 
>help them start struggling.  To make them uncomfortable and even
>(in the short run) unhappy.  Now, suppose that in a Pre-Cana course
>(my wife and I teach in Pre-Cana courses) I manage to convince
>one member of an engaged couple that their fornicating is wrong, but
>the other still thinks it's fine.  This could cause a breakup!  I'm
>really playing with fire, no?

Actually, I spoke of it being a hateful act to tell someone to stop struggling
against sin. If the person isn't strugging against sin, it certainly would be
a loving act, as you suggest, to help them start. Even if this makes someone
uncomfortable or unhappy in the short run! 

It certainly can be a touchy thing. But would leaving them alone be better? 
Again, this is a moral decision, but for the teacher this time. And again, it
is a situation where the right course of action may be the most difficult. 

>In practical terms, then, this is touchy.  It's extra touchy
>when people aren't used to be morally challenged, when they think it
>is their right to choose their values and so on.  It's extra extra
>touchy when they think there are few moral issues in sex other
>than the clear justice issues.  How would you feel if someone told you
>that Crest was immoral, but using baking soda with distilled water
>was OK?  And then gave two arguments:  (a) the pope says so, and
>(b) Crest is unnatural.  How far would they get?--my money says
>you wouldn't even listen.  And that's how deaf these people are.

Yup. Chances of success are not good. 

But better to have tried and failed than to have to answer to God for not
trying at all. And note that while failure may be likely, it is not assured. 

But it sure is an uncomfortable position, being stuck between the Rock and a 
hard head. :-) I certainly don't want to make it sound easy. 

God bless,

John
--
John DiMarco                                              jdd@cdf.toronto.edu
Computing Disciplines Facility Systems Manager            jdd@cdf.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto                                     EA201B,(416)978-1928