What is a question about the faith you have never been able to answer?

General
1

Hi everyone,

I want to ask something honest rather than clever.

Every Catholic I have met carries one question they cannot answer. Maybe it is about suffering, or something in the Old Testament, or a doctrine someone they love cannot get past. Most of us hold it quietly and hope nobody asks.

Mine is this. Why are we here at all, and if the answer is that we exist to give glory to God, then why did He make me specifically? Not humanity in general, not “mankind”, but this particular soul, at this particular time, in this particular family. If His glory is the end of the matter, then the question that stays with me is why the universe needed a me.

I have an answer I use when I do not want to sit with it. It is the one most of us learned: we were made to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him, and in doing that we give Him glory. St. Irenaeus has a line about the glory of God being a person fully alive, and I do like it.

But then I go back on it. God has no need of anything. He is complete without us, without witnesses, without a single creature to praise Him. So if a glory needs someone to receive it or recognize it, that sounds less like glory and more like need, and I do not believe God needs me. When I try to patch that over by saying the glory is for us rather than for Him, I get a nicer sentence and not a better answer.

Then I turn a third time and wonder if I am asking the wrong thing. Maybe “why me specifically” is not a puzzle with an answer waiting behind a door. Maybe being known and loved by name is closer to the point than being told the reason. I do not know. I only know that the question has never gone away, and that praying with it has done more for me than the argument has.

Which is why I want to hear yours. Not the one you can settle with a paragraph from the Catechism, but the one that stays open, and what you do with it. Keep reading it, keep praying it, set it down for a while, or take it to someone wiser than you?

I would rather hear how you live with an open question than watch another round of debate about it. I do not think any of us are less Catholic for having one.

God Bless

2

Mine is the subject of killing. We are not meant to enact physical force with the end-point resulting in the target’s death, while I take severe issue with that particular assertion.

The reason the Catechism states this, is because God doesn’t wish for people to go to Hell and if you kill they could end up there, out of love for one’s neighbour, and because we are not God and so cannot know all things and therefore unable to determine what should be a life and death scenario.

However, discernment is for those who are “willing to put on the big boy panties and sail out to the deep water”.

There are certain truths which make killing absolutely necessary:

  1. They will come back and kill you if you don’t kill them.
  2. If you aim to injure, they might not be disabled in those moments and end up killing you.

Furthermore, it might not only be one’s own life which has to be defended but your family’s and also the wider community.

In support of those reasons, were law enforcement acting upon its duty at its very best and ‘social’ (urgh, I’ve come to despite that word) conditions within communities praiseworthy then it could be said that this occurrence wouldn’t be taking place and so the need to defend oneself.

And therefore this makes killing an act on behalf of the community and so too law enforcement, i.e. one is standing in the place of law enforcement. Plus, of course, law enforcement cannot be everywhere at once while the rest of us don’t live within a utopia.

While I would not normally argue over catechetical points, I am concerned that some additions in recent years may have been added by modern-day Jesuits and so could do with being removed; the other fact here, is that updates can be made - dogmas remain as they are, while branching doctrines can grow as can understanding.

We do have a natural right to defence and both logically and intellectually and defensibly, based on the above, one has a right to kill in certain instances.

I could be accused of a lack of trust, this being that after injuring someone and putting them out of harm’s way, should this be the eventuality and which as discussed is not a dead cert in itself, then, I could pray for the person. Yes, I could do that, while we are not meant to put God to the test. In every moment of each day, we are to make sure we exact that which is dutiful as a foundation (Psalm 14) and therefore if that is the case then in certain instances in life one may be obligated (certainly rare instances, or hopefully) in initiating a ‘take down’ for ourselves.

I believe the Jesuits as an Order require dissembling and this update be made in the Catechism. I am, however, guessing it will never be scripted in explicitly understood terms because if so people may exact that addition upon someone in instances where they shouldn’t have done. And as such, the wording would have to be scripted very, very carefully.

3

How Cardinal Robert Sarah has not been elected Pope.

1 Like
6

Oh brother. You are probably racist too. When were you born again? I don’t mean “born again,” but if you know when that was, that would suffice :joy:

7

The Constitution almost equates to human versions of Catholic dogma. That would be correct. Firmly applied understanding. With amendments branching from it. These almost resemble doctrines which stem from the dogmas. In terms of structuring. Regarding those amendments, I understand it, seeing that times develop in relation to what makes the world up at any given point in history, e.g. technological advancement…that it is not so much that amendments have to be eradicated or rewritten but rather reinterpreted towards an update on how those amendments should be understood in modern times for purposes of social development and the freedoms which come with it…

So, on the subject of gun usage, that particular amendment is to do with natural rights. We have the natural right to defend ourselves and our livelihood. The right to bear arms is also important and even stated as such in these amendments for scenarios where a government becomes totalitarian. The amendments are incredible. So, essentially, ‘the people’ have a right to war. Of course, comparably, centuries ago, people could have managed to go to war against its government as both sides would have been able more or less to get hold of the same weapons whereas now, no - the army would win in about five minutes, unless soldiers also turned against their totalitarian leaders. But that’s am example of an amendment so impractical it is largely excluding the modern era, while important that it remains as it is. One example of an update, however, would be how a right to bear arms is understood in itself. Humanity, while still objective, as always, for obvious reason, is less prone to wishing war upon others and this is because people over time with history and media at our fingertips can see the damaging effects. And indeed the damage a gun can do to someone. This doesn’t mean omitting gun usage but interpreting how we can treat that amendment in contemporary times. Almost a sub-category second-amendment or third or whatever. And while the danger posed could mean so-called updates too easily integrated (as according to agendas), that wouldn’t be so. They would have to be exacted with the same sense of responsibility and consideration as the Constitution, itself.

People can be gun-ho. And popping a bullet in someone over a dispute may seem all well and good in the movies, while in reality is a completely different scenario. Humanity moving forward must incorporate a greater understanding of the need to deliberate and step back from a situation. I would say additions to that amendment must be conditions added for defence with gun usage. What are the factors surrounding the firing of a weapon upon another human being. It is all very well to have a blanket statement underlining one’s natural rights and then post-damage the courts to sort out whether a shooting was lawful or not yet this leaves a lot to the individual psychology within that duration. Better to have a stipulation at the beginning which rules out certain instances. Such as licensing.

To say, as well, it is very difficult to have even stipulations running on their own without neighbouring ones because someone could be very sick in the mind but actually really need a gun because they’re being bullied but overlooked because of the fact they are sick and so unable to obtain one. And bullies in the public authority could play on that. So, stipulations for stricter licensing for guns could even make for its own problems unless there was yet another stipulation combined with it, saying that should a person be undergoing bullying of any sort then their ability to be handed a weapon not be impeded due to questions over the state of their psychology or better still a stipulation which states that in such a situation where a person is bullied but cannot own a gun, rather than having a license simply declined, they are given immediate assistance in the form of a group of people who are allowed to fire one. The police are their own animal and so this couldn’t apply to them. This would take social programs. And maybe that is the answer. For there to be reinterpretation of the amendments for modern times, there have to be increased amounts of…social programs in order that those extra stipulations can be upheld in Justice as according to literally every person’s natural rights and not only for those who are listened to.

The above in mind, you can actually see how stipulations as per reinterpretation of this amendment as one example in the modern era means not only a more peaceable outcome but extends direct or indirect gun usage to those who would otherwise not in manifested realisation of the amendments be able to defend themselves (i.e. despite the initial blanket declaration being that all people can…theoretically…do so). The consequence with the above example…greater understanding which results in licensing being more strict for some while also attributing fairer (and connected to wider and definite availability of) self-defensive measures for others.

9

The Constitution, then, has prevented updates! Politicians want to, as you can see from the referenced material you’ve put forward, yet can’t. The Constitution serves in its own right as an above-and-beyond…flag…almost in representation of the individual’s natural rights. The Grand Jury, the ones waving it. It is possible that with the ability to form clauses and what I was terming ‘stipulations’, someone somewhere would use that possibility for their own means so consequently the Constitution gets watered down in policy. I just wonder whether the word ‘interpretation’ has to be categorised under ‘clauses’, which as said cannot be. A way of reading the Constitution rather than adding to it. A natural right is a natural right and so there the Constitution still stands written in stone, with no clauses. It’s a nuance. I like those. Whether, though, an interpretation is really just a clause but with use of a different (modernised) title could make for a legitimate point of argument.

“A well armed neighborhood is far stronger than three men in a uniform with a firearm patrolling a mile wide neighborhood. A firearm in every house is the worst nightmare for a criminal.”

To separate that paragraph into two connected, while distinct statements:

“A well armed neighborhood is far stronger than three men in a uniform with a firearm patrolling a mile wide neighborhood”.

Not in all instances. The first port of call must always be to exhaust peaceful ways (granted, time to do so may not always be applicable), unless of course one places the Constitution higher in one’s mind than morals and which would make it an idol.

“A firearm in every house is the worst nightmare for a criminal.”

Accidents can happen, actually. So, could also be a nightmare for the one using it. This is what patrol cars are for. And people don’t generally go shouting out that they have a firearm in their house, and so I fail to see any pre-empting (while I do in the most expansive terms believe that one has a right to defend one’s property from an invader).

12

“The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently said that the
Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1 (1906)
Page 203 U.S. 16
“As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey,…”

They’ve got that from St. Thomas Aquinas.

13

Some guns, the pull-back motion can disable your thumb. And bullets can ricochet. What if the intruder was someone you knew entering your home because of some misunderstanding (maybe just walking in, when the door was open) and so yes, their fault, while you’re not going to be thinking about whose fault it was when in floods of tears at the upset.

What I’m trying to draw attention to, in fact, is that a bullet is a chunk of sizeable metal that is, if not going through a person’s body, ending up inside of it. Muscle, veins, organs and other tissue, bone, and lots of blood. Horrific enough that it is piercing the skin. That’s a very serious undertaking. Gun-ho attitudes can easily be fostered. You cited Pope Leo XIII in the first of two of your later posts in support of your statement that it is an obligation to kill in self-defence (remember you were making response to my statement of the same understanding / opinion) and yet emphasised there was no ‘obligation’ to kill evident in his statement; rather, he is saying that we are forbidden to kill outside of public means except in self-defence where we can inflict a kill. ‘Compelled’ doesn’t equal ‘obligation’. One generally ‘feels compelled’ to act. Like a gut instinct, maybe. It doesn’t necessarily mean an objectively right thing to do. Could come from a subjective premise.

15

He was referring to the death penalty but saying that anyone is forbidden to kill people unless “compelled”. And which I then said was more to do with ‘feeling’ as if one has to undertake a killing as opposed to an ‘obligation’ to do so and which is an objectively reasoned duty that one must undertake, your referencing of his words because you were using them to back up a blanket notion that one has an obligation to kill in self-defence. As you can see “compelled” and ‘obligation’ come with varying definitions. It is true that if one feels compelled to kill in self-defence then they to a large degree must be answering their conscience, that they ‘feel obliged’, while an obligation has a wider more factual sense to it.

(My own perception is nothing to do with my side to this argument. I am merely reacting to your posts. I have already said what I think in this thread, your posts in response to mine).

— As for the UK retorts, just be relieved that you don’t live here. —

To sum up, you stated quite clearly that one always has a duty (an obligation) to kill in self-defence, while the then-Pope was saying that one might feel / be compelled to kill in certain instances. You and he are not saying the same thing.

My venturing into amendments with an idea for “interpretations”, and which as has been discussed would probably just be modernised clauses with a different title and so therefore not a route forward, was from reading along the lines as that particular Pope’s words as opposed to a blanket statement that one must always kill in self-defence.

So, to make it clear:

  • You are saying that one must always, is obliged to, kill…in self-defence.

  • The then-Pope was saying that one might feel obligated / a compulsion to / be or feel compelled…to kill in self-defence.

You therefore are making a blanket statement. Where the then-Pope was saying that this is left to your own reasoning at the time of the incident.

My concern is that some can be gun-ho, while others are not in actuality given the ability to defend themselves as per the Constitution.

— In the UK, no-one has the right to defend themselves (though we do have natural rights but will be sent to jail for acknowledging them in definite terms). It is indeed a ridiculously inane country purposefully this way for reasons of control on the part of an increasingly totalitarian (from a Marxist angle) government. —

16

This is a wonderful question that I also have been pondering for several years. You have already covered most of the bases - Here is my summation.

  • The Nature of God is Love
  • The nature of Love is Communion necessitated through creation.
  • For God the entire Universe was created - for you.
  • To fulfil The Will of God we were made “In his image and Likeness,” capable of creating - Love
  • The only way to create Love - is to give it away - the more the better.
  • The only way we are useful to God as “company” is to be Divine. The only way we could possibly achieve this goal is with the help of God - The way of Jesus and working with and through His Holy Spirit.

The World entices us and holds us back from this goal. We are all subject to this, but not equally, which is also part of God’s design. God “IS” - always “IS.” God lives in the present - indefinitely and so must We - BE with HIM in the present all the time, in everything we do. And if we fail - do not worry - that is past history - get back on the path and continue. Nor worry about the future because you are always in His care, even through Suffering, where He is available to give you Strength and Peace - your Hope lies in Trusting Him - Amen.

19

He wants you, who are unique, to be with Him in Heaven forever. He has the same wish for each of us. On Saturday night at our parish, we had two videos about Saint Carlo Acutis. I didn’t write down the quotation, but he said something like “God has created an individual story for each of us, but He allows us to write the ending.”

20

@Literalman Thanks bro, that one is going to sit with me. Whole story written for you and the ending left in your hands, that is something. Appreciate you taking the time.

God Bless

21

Just to add to this thread…coming back to the subject of an idea for “interpretations” and which would not necessarily be the same as clauses, in the amendments :

Amendments can actually be made and if they can be, then so too can interpretations for modern day contemporary times also be put forward - here is proof that there can be clauses:

Amending the U.S. Constitution

This is backed up by a reference to the understanding on the matter of clauses put forward by (North) America’s ‘Founding Fathers’:

‘The Founding Fathers, in crafting the Constitution, believed it should not be easy to amend the nation’s founding document and principles.’

‘Not easy’ is not the same as prohibited. The document then goes onto state the extensive measures which have to be taken for clauses to be added.

So, yes, my initial answer to the thread was the requirement of greater scrutiny in the Catechism regarding weapons usage and which then led onto discussions concerning the Constitution. And interpretations and even additional clauses could be made, bringing understanding on such matters forth into the world of today.