To Quit or Not to Quit Boy Scouts

[BalconyBoy]

<p>“Your conscience will ALWAYS be aligned with Church teaching by definition. Church teaching describes reality in issues of faith and morals.”</p>

<p>I’m not sure what this means? There are very few things that are absolute and I don’t think this is one of them.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

Can you be serious?

</p>

<p>Yes. Let me rephrase:</p>

<p>

Your conscience will ALWAYS be aligned with Church teaching by definition. Church teaching describes reality in issues of faith and morals.

</p>

<p>

Does this mean that Church teaching never changes with respect to issues of faith and morals, or that the conscience automatically shifts to reflect the new teaching?

</p>

<p>I am speaking primarily about morals here, with which the conscience is primarily concerned. For the record, enormous changes on morality are rare, and I actually have yet to see or read about one on a significant issue. If you have anything to contribute in that regard, I’d be happy to hear it. Taking abortion, for example, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has unequivocally stated that the stand on abortion literally cannot change: [Vatican:</a> Church Teaching on Abortion Cannot and Will Not Change - International News - Catholic Online](<a href=“http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=34050]Vatican:”>http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=34050).</p>

<p>Church teaching on morals is definitive. For example, artificial contraception is not allowed on a moral basis. One’s conscience would never truly tell one to use contraception, because contraception is wrong. We know that it is wrong because Church teaching states that it is wrong. This is a moral truth, and because a conscience describes moral truth, it is aligned with Catholic teaching.</p>

<p>From the CCC:</p>

<p>

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:</p>

<pre><code>Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.

</code></pre>

<p>

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.**

</p>

<p>

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.

</p>

<p>

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time “from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.”</p>

<pre><code>The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.
</code></pre>

<p>

</p>

<p>

1777 Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

</p>

<p>

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

</p>

<p>

1798 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. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.

</p>

<p>

1796 Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act.

</p>

<p>

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

</p>

<p>

1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

</p>

<p>

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

</p>

<p>Bolded ones are particularly interesting. Look, it doesn’t matter whether you agree or not. I have supported every single one of my statements with the codified teaching of the Catholic Church. I’m right. It’s on a factual basis. Whether you think that believing in this authority is to be psychotic is irrelevant. All that matters is that Church teaching considers itself definitive, and therefore to reject any particular teaching (which your conscience, if well-formed, would NEVER compel you to do) is to undermine in a complete manner the legitimacy of the Church and her teachings.</p>

<p>All this ties back to the notion of what it means to be Catholic. Orthodox Catholicism is, according to the Church, objectively more correct that non-orthodox Catholicism, as it extends to particular beliefs. In no way is this a reflection on the actual people.</p>

<p>

I’m not sure what this means? There are very few things that are absolute and I don’t think this is one of them.

</p>

<p>It means that your conscience, if truly telling you what is right, will be in line with Church teaching.</p>

<p>Catholicism has absolutes. The Church does not care what you think absolutes should be or how often they should occur. I’m not reinventing the wheel here, I’m just posting quotations from Catholic beliefs. If you don’t like it, I’m really not the person to talk to.</p>

<p>By the way, here’s another absolute: <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_the_Confessional_and_the_Catholic_Church[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_the_Confessional_and_the_Catholic_Church&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[BalconyBoy]

<p>So are you saying the Catholic church is infallible?</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

So are you saying the Catholic church is infallible?

</p>

<p>No. I am saying that the Catholic Church believes that it teaches infallibly and/or definitively in cases of faith and morals.</p>

<p>This isn’t up for debate – </p>

<p>

2051 The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.

</p>

<p>

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

</p>

[BalconyBoy]

<p>"No. I am saying that the Catholic Church believes that it teaches infallibly and/or definitively in cases of faith and morals.</p>

<p>This isn’t up for debate – "</p>

<p>It might not be up for debate but it sure ain’t according to the Bible.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

It might not be up for debate but it sure ain’t according to the Bible.

</p>

<p>Again, that’s not my concern right now, although obviously the Catholic Church would disagree with you.</p>

[BalconyBoy]

<p>“Again, that’s not my concern right now, although obviously the Catholic Church would disagree with you.”</p>

<p>Not your concern right now? When is it your concern? Why wouldn’t the Catholic Church agree with me?</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

Not your concern right now? When is it your concern? Why wouldn’t the Catholic Church agree with me?

</p>

<p>The question was simply whether the Church considers itself infallible and the role of the conscience in decision-making. This ties back to what Catholics are compelled to believe in by the Word of God and His Church.</p>

<p>As a result, I don’t care about the Biblical justification for the Church (although, as an aside, I will point you to the following: [Catechism</a> of the Catholic Church - The Church in God’s Plan](<a href=“http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p1.htm]Catechism”>http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p1.htm).</p>

<p>Again, I am not here to assert that a particular religion or philosophy is correct. I am here to correct a misunderstanding about the Catholic Church. That’s all.</p>

[BalconyBoy]

<p>What misunderstands are you talking about?</p>

<p>Do you care about Biblical justification in general?</p>

[walkinghome]

<p>

Hello fellow parents! I’m hoping you can help. My 12 year old son has been in Boy Scouts for over a year. He did not have the opportunity to be in Cub Scouts b/c his dad travelled a lot and I had other smaller siblings to care for.</p>

<p>Anyway, when he started middle school, one of his friends convinced him to join Boy Scouts which he did. His dad does not travel anymore and has really enjoyed all the activities… and truly believes in the value of becoming an Eagle Scout.</p>

<p>Long story short, my son now wants to quit b/c he says it is too much work, none of his close friends are in it and his weeks/weekends are filled with Scouting activities leaving him no time for his friends.</p>

<p>My husband is so disheartened by this. And I’m torn b/c a part of me feels like this is one of those things we need to put our foot down and tell him to stick with it…and a part of me feels his need to be a kid and hang out and play like a kid.</p>

<p>Should we let him quit?

</p>

<p>I would like to suggest that you two start your own theology thread.</p>

[northeastmom]

<p>Kathiep, well said!!!</p>

[Baelor]

<p>Kathiep, I agree, but if no one has anything to contribute to the OP, then that discussion is dead. I would like for a mod to split the threads, but I don’t want to create a new one because there is already discussion here.</p>

<p>

What misunderstands are you talking about?

</p>

<p>Here:</p>

<p>

So someone would be a bad Catholic if they don’t support the Church’s apparent stance of covering up all of the pedophilia issues going on?

</p>

<p>

I guess you just have an extremely strict definition of what Catholicism is/should be compared to all the Catholics I knew growing up.

</p>

<p>

That would be news to my 80+ yr old mother, a practicing Catholic who has ALWAYS disagreed with various teachings.</p>

<p>The rigidity of your stance simply is not shared by the vast majority of Catholics, who do not, frankly, need a kid to tell them that they are “bad” Catholics.

</p>

<p>

Some Catholics feel honor bound to defend any policy that the Vatican holds

</p>

<p>

If paedophilia is not a reason for excommunication, then I can’t imagine what would be.

</p>

<p>

If that is not theologically serious enough to warrant excommunication, in light of the list of things that are on that list, then there are some seriously screwed up priorities.

</p>

<p>

Nonsense. Do you think if a Catholic said “I think they shouldn’t say the Mass in Latin”, that they would be incorrect if they said this before Vatican II occurred (because it disagreed with the Church’s teaching) but correct if they said so after Vatican II? Talk about your moral relativism.</p>

<p>If there is a conflict between your conscience (an informed conscience, meaning you’ve seriously thought/prayed about the issue) and the Church teaching, you should follow your conscience. Not following your conscience is in fact considered a sin.</p>

<p>The Church is a teacher, not a dictator. Sometimes teachers are wrong. To assume that the Church is right about everything is lazy and harmful. It is a human construct and, like all human constructs, flawed.

</p>

<p>

Do you care about Biblical justification in general?

</p>

<p>Yes. I do. But I do not operate sola scriptura, nor do I find any reason to operate in such a manner.</p>

<p>Institution of the Church was when Jesus explicitly entrusted it to Peter. Catholics view this as establishing the Catholic Church, Protestants frequently do not, etc.</p>

<p>In brief, if you think Catholicism does not care about the Bible, you’re wrong. If you think that Catholicism cares only about the Bible, you are again wrong.</p>

[BalconyBoy]

<p>

Institution of the Church was when Jesus explicitly entrusted it to Peter. Catholics view this as establishing the Catholic Church, Protestants frequently do not, etc.

</p>

<p>This was actually the establishment of the Christian church.</p>

<p>

In brief, if you think Catholicism does not care about the Bible, you’re wrong. If you think that Catholicism cares only about the Bible, you are again wrong.

</p>

<p>The primary concern should be Biblical standards.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

This was actually the establishment of the Christian church.

</p>

<p>To the Catholic Church, the Christian Church IS the Catholic Church (and the equivalency can be written in the opposite direction). The Church has consistently stated that it is the only legitimate Church. In other words, you are making a distinction that the Vatican accepts in principle but then eliminates. The Catholic Church has direct apostolic succession from Peter, and is hence the same Church that was founded 2,000 years ago. Orthodox denominations also have some apostolic succession but are not in communion with the Holy See. Almost all Protestant denominations lost their apostolic succession when their founders were excommunicated.</p>

<p>So, yes, the Christian Church was founded 2,000 years ago. The Catholic Church was formed then, which was the Christian Church and still considers itself the true Church. Whether you agree or not is not dependent on your interpretation of the Bible, but on your opinion on the legitimacy of the Church as a whole.</p>

<p>

The primary concern should be Biblical standards.

</p>

<p>The Catholic Church feels that it meets all Biblical standards, and that the Bible should and must be supplemented by Church teaching. Unless you can disprove that, we are simply at an impasse, with a decision having to be made on assumption and faith.</p>

[BalconyBoy]

<p>

The Catholic Church feels that it meets all Biblical standards, and that the Bible should and must be supplemented by Church teaching. Unless you can disprove that, we are simply at an impasse, with a decision having to be made on assumption and faith.

</p>

<p>What I disapprove of is church teaching that is not Biblically based. Example, praying to Mary and other Saints instead of Jesus and God.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

What I disapprove of is church teaching that is not Biblically based. Example, praying to Mary and other Saints instead of Jesus and God.

</p>

<p>Praying to Mary and the Saints instead of Jesus and God never happens in Catholicism, at least Catholicism that follows Church teaching.</p>

<p>One prays to God through Mary and the Saints, not to Mary and the Saints. They act as intercessors.</p>

<p>Whether you believe that or not, there is no idolatry, and there is no placement of anything but God on the level of God. God alone has the power to answer prayers.</p>

<p>And you cook on a stove, right? That’s not in the Bible. You use a computer, right? That’s not in the Bible. These are morally neutral issues, but unless one claims that all morality can be in a literal manner drawn from the Bible, one need have moral additions to the Bible, which are in fact full revelation of God’s law.</p>

[BalconyBoy]

<p>

One prays to God through Mary and the Saints, not to Mary and the Saints. They act as intercessors.

</p>

<p>Why does one need to pray THROUGH anyone to God? Where is that in the Bible?</p>

<p>

And you cook on a stove, right? That’s not in the Bible. You use a computer, right? That’s not in the Bible. These are morally neutral issues, but unless one claims that all morality can be in a literal manner drawn from the Bible, one need have moral additions to the Bible, which are in fact full revelation of God’s law.

</p>

<p>Cooking and using a computer is in no way on the same level as the Bible or God. Extremely poor analogy.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

Why does one need to pray THROUGH anyone to God? Where is that in the Bible?

</p>

<p>One need not. It just helps. And again, you are operating on a sola scriptura basis. I will not accept that basis without a reason to do so. Given that none has been provided, the fact that it’s not literally in the Bible is irrelevant. The Bible is a source of authority; I see no reason why it should be the sole source.</p>

<p>

Cooking and using a computer is in no way on the same level as the Bible or God. Extremely poor analogy.

</p>

<p>Actually, everything we do should ultimately go back to God. Nevertheless, let me retract my statement for your sake.</p>

<p>What does the Bible say about bioengineered chimeras? Also, do you call your father “Father?”</p>

[BalconyBoy]

<p>

One need not. It just helps.

</p>

<p>How does it help?</p>

<p>

And again, you are operating on a sola scriptura basis. I will not accept that basis without a reason to do so.

</p>

<p>What basis are you operating on? The Bible is the Word of God.</p>

<p>

Actually, everything we do should ultimately go back to God. Nevertheless, let me retract my statement for your sake.

</p>

<p>You are correct but your statement had nothing to do with that.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

How does it help?

</p>

<p>Intercessory prayer. They are in heaven. They are with God. If God had to listen to anyone, who better than his mother, the Queen of Heaven? </p>

<p>

2679 Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus’ mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and to her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope.

</p>

<p>Note that praying “to her” is solely intercessory prayer, i.e. one does not ask Mary to do something for us herself, but rather work through Jesus and God.</p>

<p>Information: [Mary</a> and Intercessory Prayer](<a href=“Mary and Intercessory Prayer”>Mary and Intercessory Prayer)</p>

<p>

What basis are you operating on? The Bible is the Word of God.

</p>

<p>Church teaching and scripture. So, the Bible is the Word of God, but the Bible is not the sole source of authority. That same authority does not conflict with the Bible. So the Bible is given its proper place as the Word of God, describing through the Gospels the Word Incarnate.</p>