Catholic Church needs a new plan to revive chastity and marriage

[Anastasia13]

Polskieserce, you have a blindly determined insistence of a viewpoint with stated unwillingness to accept any possibility of research to the contrary. That is unscientific. If you base this on experience, others also have differing experiences. If you base this on one argument, there are other arguments to the opposite view, inclusive of homosexual behavior and the how one prostitute may have many johns being unchaste with her.

Further, of who must keep their legs shut, all need to choose to keep their legs shut when they should be, or they have already erred in their hearts regardless of penetration and have been unchaste. 

[Socrates]

On 10/17/2016 at 10:49 AM, polskieserce said:

In countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, etc the poor are much better off than they would be in the US.  Plenty of migrants have also flocked to democratic socialist countries as well (although I agree that some of those countries are taking in far too many people).  Your problem is that you see economic policies as black and white (you're either uber capitalist or you think Stalin was the man).  That's simply not true.  My original point still stands: many people will not benefit from the ultra-capitalistic economic system you are describing.

Sweden and similar countries are not truly socialist, nor is their relative wealth (still considerably less per capita than the US), the result of their socialistic-leaning big tax-and-spend policies,  As pointed out earlier, the economy was actually stronger when these countries were solidly free-market "capitalist," and their people were better off, which is why the current government policies are being reconsidered by many there.

Regarding the poor, there are many factors at play besides socialism/capitalism.  Nordic countries have a fairly culturally homogenous well-educated population, do not have huge masses of poor illiterate foreigners pouring over their borders, and never had slavery (at least not since pagan Viking days).

The vast increases in welfare state socialism here in the states has not helped the poor, and it is the definition of insanity to think that a lot more of the same will have that result.

 

Quote

Those who wanted to leave the Church for its political reasons have already left.  Hedonism plays a major part in the decline of the Catholic Church, but so does a lack of a game-plan.  I am not saying people should get married right at 18, but if people have to delay marriage until their late 20s/early 30s, then the Church will get very poor results.  I still stand by my statement that a lot of unchaste behavior could be averted if people were not involuntarily delaying marriage for so long.

I have yet to see an actual real-world example of socialism or the welfare state actually improving sexual morality or increasing marriages, and until I do, I'll dismiss this notion as delusional fantasy.  

 

Quote

People who are fighting just to keep their head above water aren't necessarily going to be terribly interested in Catholicism.  If anything, they will be pressured into thinking that abortion is a "necessary evil".  A bunch of people doing "Jesus Talk" is just going to be background noise for extremely marginalized individuals.

Ironically, the Church is currently growing much faster in very poor African and Asian countries, than among comparatively wealthy (though self-absorbed and whiny) Westerners.

And, yes, Jesus should be the primary focus of the Church, uncool as that may be in certain circles.  Replacing "Jesus talk" with politicized socialist talk is not the answer.  And everyone should agree that mere talk is not enough; it needs to be backed up in action by love of God and charity toward neighbor.  And that means real, personal acts of self-giving love towards real people, not crying for a bigger government to spend more of other people's money.

[WhiteLily]

In my opinion, it's the hardnes of hearts with people which has lead to the destruction to marriage and the family. The Catholic Church, in her Wisdom, has always had the answer. We just don't like the answer. Just like when Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts...but in the beginning it was not so...(Matthew 19:8)

 

[polskieserce]

On 10/24/2016 at 2:26 AM, Anastasia (L&T) said:

Polskieserce, you have a blindly determined insistence of a viewpoint with stated unwillingness to accept any possibility of research to the contrary. That is unscientific. If you base this on experience, others also have differing experiences. If you base this on one argument, there are other arguments to the opposite view, inclusive of homosexual behavior and the how one prostitute may have many johns being unchaste with her.

Further, of who must keep their legs shut, all need to choose to keep their legs shut when they should be, or they have already erred in their hearts regardless of penetration and have been unchaste. 

I am not blindly insisting on a viewpoint or my personal experience.  I am merely stating the realities of the world we live in.  In the real world, the more hoops one has to jump through to accomplish a goal, the higher the chance of failure gets.  It doesn't matter if it pertains to having sex, completing a Phd program, or climbing Mount Everest.  Men have a higher mountain to climb than women do when it comes to having sex.  A girl has to just make sure she looks good and doesn't live in isolation.  A guy has to make sure he looks great, doesn't live in isolation, has to be a decent conversationalist who is good at initiating social contact, has to be at least semi-financially stable, has some form of transportation, and has to be good at reading the "beat around the bush" communication style of most girls.  Yes, there are exceptions to each of the points I listed, but that's what's expected of guys for the most part.  More women are having premarital sex than men.  That's a bigger travesty than a handful of male players who are sleeping around with a bunch of girls.

 

On 10/24/2016 at 11:27 PM, Socrates said:

Sweden and similar countries are not truly socialist, nor is their relative wealth (still considerably less per capita than the US), the result of their socialistic-leaning big tax-and-spend policies,  As pointed out earlier, the economy was actually stronger when these countries were solidly free-market "capitalist," and their people were better off, which is why the current government policies are being reconsidered by many there.

Regarding the poor, there are many factors at play besides socialism/capitalism.  Nordic countries have a fairly culturally homogenous well-educated population, do not have huge masses of poor illiterate foreigners pouring over their borders, and never had slavery (at least not since pagan Viking days).

The vast increases in welfare state socialism here in the states has not helped the poor, and it is the definition of insanity to think that a lot more of the same will have that result.

 

I have yet to see an actual real-world example of socialism or the welfare state actually improving sexual morality or increasing marriages, and until I do, I'll dismiss this notion as delusional fantasy.  

 

Ironically, the Church is currently growing much faster in very poor African and Asian countries, than among comparatively wealthy (though self-absorbed and whiny) Westerners.

And, yes, Jesus should be the primary focus of the Church, uncool as that may be in certain circles.  Replacing "Jesus talk" with politicized socialist talk is not the answer.  And everyone should agree that mere talk is not enough; it needs to be backed up in action by love of God and charity toward neighbor.  And that means real, personal acts of self-giving love towards real people, not crying for a bigger government to spend more of other people's money.

Sweden is not fully socialized.  It is partially socialized.  No country on Earth is ready for full socialism just yet, not until automation takes over most of the economy and science has progressed significantly.  The conventional argument against socialism made by you right-wingers is that full socialism has always failed, therefore it's impossible.  At one time, people thought it would be impossible for humans to explore space.  However, massive government funding and scientific advancement made that dream a reality.  Let's say you found a random kid who lives in the jungle of a war-torn, 3rd world country.  If you took that kid and put him in a class at MIT, I bet that kid will fail.  Why?  Because he doesn't have any background knowledge required to succeed at one of the world's most elite institutions.  The same is true about the Soviet Union and Communist China.  Both of those systems failed because they lacked the technology to execute full scale socialism.  They relied far too heavily on the human element.  But as humanity advances more and more, today's fantasies will become tomorrow's realities.

The strength of the economy and well-being of the poor are two separate issues that you continue to intertwine.  For the poor, the strength of the economy doesn't have much affect on their daily lives.  Regardless if the economy is good or bad, they can't afford all the stuff they need and that's a fact of life.  If the government gives a poor person money to buy what he/she needs, then that is already making that poor person's life better.  Does wealth redistribution slow the pace of growth?  Yes, but that's a trade-off I'm willing to make if it helps the poor.  The human rights of the poor take priority over a wealthy person's desires for unnecessary material luxuries.  You are delusional to think that giving the poor resources doesn't help them.  It most certainly does.  Does it make them self-sufficient? No.  But in many cases, the poor are not going to be self-sufficient under any circumstances and will require lifelong assistance.

There are plenty of instances where women had abortions because they were living on the margins of society and had no real means of caring for the child.  Yes, they could have chosen adoption.  Yes, there are women who have abortions just because it's an inconvenience to them.  But it still doesn't change the fact that there would be fewer abortions if a woman's world wasn't so grim.

The Church may be growing fast in the 3rd world, but how long do you think that will last?  In the West, the Church is become irrelevant in everyday life because there aren't many practical earthly benefits to being Catholic.  I never said that Jesus should be replaced with socialism, I said the Church should merge Jesus with socialism.  Small scale charity is only putting a small dent into the problems facing society.  The large multinational corporations, as well as Westerners addicted to materialism, need to be reigned in by a strong, centralized government.

 

[LittleWaySoul]

28 minutes ago, polskieserce said:

I am not blindly insisting on a viewpoint or my personal experience.  I am merely stating the realities of the world we live in.  In the real world, the more hoops one has to jump through to accomplish a goal, the higher the chance of failure gets.  It doesn't matter if it pertains to having sex, completing a Phd program, or climbing Mount Everest.  Men have a higher mountain to climb than women do when it comes to having sex.  A girl has to just make sure she looks good and doesn't live in isolation.  A guy has to make sure he looks great, doesn't live in isolation, has to be a decent conversationalist who is good at initiating social contact, has to be at least semi-financially stable, has some form of transportation, and has to be good at reading the "beat around the bush" communication style of most girls.  Yes, there are exceptions to each of the points I listed, but that's what's expected of guys for the most part.  More women are having premarital sex than men.  That's a bigger travesty than a handful of male players who are sleeping around with a bunch of girls.

 

[polskieserce]

4 hours ago, LittleWaySoul said:

 

You aren't going to control the narrative with your politically correct delusions.  The statements I made are common sense.

[Jack4]

21 hours ago, polskieserce said:

The conventional argument against socialism made by you right-wingers is that full socialism has always failed, therefore it's impossible.

I also like this simple syllogism:

1. Whatever the Church condemns authoritatively, is wrong.

2. The Church has authoritatively condemned socialism. 

Therefore, socialism is wrong. 

[tinytherese]

Even if everyone or a majority of teenagers were virgins, there would still be the issue of finding a suitable spouse. Marrying them off to someone that they can't stand or who they may have initially like but grew tired of wouldn't be appealing. It takes time and effort to discern marriage. A spouse is more than someone who you have sex with. You're bound to each other for the rest of your lives and everything that entails, good and bad. 

[Nihil Obstat]

27 minutes ago, tinytherese said:

Even if everyone or a majority of teenagers were virgins, there would still be the issue of finding a suitable spouse. Marrying them off to someone that they can't stand or who they may have initially like but grew tired of wouldn't be appealing. It takes time and effort to discern marriage. A spouse is more than someone who you have sex with. You're bound to each other for the rest of your lives and everything that entails, good and bad. 

No no, literally everything is about the economics of sex, and women being whores. Thus spake PolskiRedPillserce. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a man-hating capitalist pig dog, or something.

[LittleWaySoul]

5 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

No no, literally everything is about the economics of sex, and women being whores. Thus spake PolskiRedPillserce. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a man-hating capitalist pig dog, or something.

*Delusional PC* man-hating capitalist pig dog, actually. 

Edited November 8, 2016 by LittleWaySoul

[Socrates]

I don't have the time or a big enough shovel to plow through all of the enormous heaping pile of bs you've dumped here, so I'll have to keep it brief.

On 11/6/2016 at 11:39 AM, polskieserce said:

Sweden is not fully socialized.  It is partially socialized.  No country on Earth is ready for full socialism just yet, not until automation takes over most of the economy and science has progressed significantly.  The conventional argument against socialism made by you right-wingers is that full socialism has always failed, therefore it's impossible.  At one time, people thought it would be impossible for humans to explore space.  However, massive government funding and scientific advancement made that dream a reality.  Let's say you found a random kid who lives in the jungle of a war-torn, 3rd world country.  If you took that kid and put him in a class at MIT, I bet that kid will fail.  Why?  Because he doesn't have any background knowledge required to succeed at one of the world's most elite institutions.  The same is true about the Soviet Union and Communist China.  Both of those systems failed because they lacked the technology to execute full scale socialism.  They relied far too heavily on the human element.  But as humanity advances more and more, today's fantasies will become tomorrow's realities.

Of course.  Exactly.  The only reason full socialism has always failed miserably in the past (and continues to fail miserably, and has been the source of untold oppression, death, and  misery around the globe) is simply that "science" has not progressed far enough yet.  I'm sure that with the magical march of Progress, when the Machines take over, The People's Socialist Soviet Republic will work beautifully and create paradise on earth for all.  After all, Marx told us it's inevitable.

Yeah, riiiiiiigggghhhhhhht.

About the same time science progresses to where all pigs organically sprout wings and soar like eagles.

A lot more could be said, but attempting to reason with a Marxist True Believer is about as productive as trying to reason with a guy convinced he's really Napoleon Bonaparte.  (Or is it Napoleon Dynamite?)

You can't change the laws of economics and human nature.  Harry Potter has a lot more grounding in reality than your fantasies.

 

Quote

The strength of the economy and well-being of the poor are two separate issues that you continue to intertwine.  For the poor, the strength of the economy doesn't have much affect on their daily lives.  Regardless if the economy is good or bad, they can't afford all the stuff they need and that's a fact of life.  If the government gives a poor person money to buy what he/she needs, then that is already making that poor person's life better.  Does wealth redistribution slow the pace of growth?  Yes, but that's a trade-off I'm willing to make if it helps the poor.  The human rights of the poor take priority over a wealthy person's desires for unnecessary material luxuries.  You are delusional to think that giving the poor resources doesn't help them.  It most certainly does.  Does it make them self-sufficient? No.  But in many cases, the poor are not going to be self-sufficient under any circumstances and will require lifelong assistance.

Socialism does not help the poor.  If it did, North Korea (the closest thing in existence to a pure socialist state) ought to be the envy of the world, rather than a hell-hole where the poor literally starve to death.  (And it's not coincidence that such bastions of socialism are among the most oppressive and backwards places on earth.)  But, yeah, I'm sure the problem is nothing that a little more Scientific Progress won't fix.

 

Quote

There are plenty of instances where women had abortions because they were living on the margins of society and had no real means of caring for the child.  Yes, they could have chosen adoption.  Yes, there are women who have abortions just because it's an inconvenience to them.  But it still doesn't change the fact that there would be fewer abortions if a woman's world wasn't so grim.

Can you give me an instance of socialism actually reducing abortions?

Quote

The Church may be growing fast in the 3rd world, but how long do you think that will last?  In the West, the Church is become irrelevant in everyday life because there aren't many practical earthly benefits to being Catholic.  I never said that Jesus should be replaced with socialism, I said the Church should merge Jesus with socialism.

Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, and the point of following Christ should not be to gain earthly benefits.  The saints and martyrs who first grew the Church did not take up Christ's cross to gain earthly rewards, or government handouts.  And you can't merge the Church of Christ with that which is contrary to it.  

 

Quote

 . . .  The large multinational corporations, as well as Westerners addicted to materialism, need to be reigned in by a strong, centralized government.

Da, Comrade Stalin!  The bourgeois pigs will be crushed under our iron fist! 

 

But seriously, Polski.  Dude.  You really need to get out and find a girlfriend or something.

7 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

No no, literally everything is about the economics of sex, and women being whores. Thus spake PolskiRedPillserce. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a man-hating capitalist pig dog, or something.

Anyone who has any issues with socialism is a crazy rightwing nutjob.

We need to be sane, like Comrade Polski.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Socrates

[polskieserce]

On 11/7/2016 at 11:18 PM, Socrates said:

I don't have the time or a big enough shovel to plow through all of the enormous heaping pile of bs you've dumped here, so I'll have to keep it brief.

Of course.  Exactly.  The only reason full socialism has always failed miserably in the past (and continues to fail miserably, and has been the source of untold oppression, death, and  misery around the globe) is simply that "science" has not progressed far enough yet.  I'm sure that with the magical march of Progress, when the Machines take over, The People's Socialist Soviet Republic will work beautifully and create paradise on earth for all.  After all, Marx told us it's inevitable.

Yeah, riiiiiiigggghhhhhhht.

About the same time science progresses to where all pigs organically sprout wings and soar like eagles.

A lot more could be said, but attempting to reason with a Marxist True Believer is about as productive as trying to reason with a guy convinced he's really Napoleon Bonaparte.  (Or is it Napoleon Dynamite?)

You can't change the laws of economics and human nature.  Harry Potter has a lot more grounding in reality than your fantasies.

Socialism does not help the poor.  If it did, North Korea (the closest thing in existence to a pure socialist state) ought to be the envy of the world, rather than a hell-hole where the poor literally starve to death.  (And it's not coincidence that such bastions of socialism are among the most oppressive and backwards places on earth.)  But, yeah, I'm sure the problem is nothing that a little more Scientific Progress won't fix.

Can you give me an instance of socialism actually reducing abortions?

Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, and the point of following Christ should not be to gain earthly benefits.  The saints and martyrs who first grew the Church did not take up Christ's cross to gain earthly rewards, or government handouts.  And you can't merge the Church of Christ with that which is contrary to it. 

Da, Comrade Stalin!  The bourgeois pigs will be crushed under our iron fist!

But seriously, Polski.  Dude.  You really need to get out and find a girlfriend or something.

Anyone who has any issues with socialism is a crazy rightwing nutjob.

We need to be sane, like Comrade Polski.

Are you living in a bubble?  Did you completely forget how humans started out?  People originally started out at primitive hunter gatherers, often killing each other for basic resources.  For most of human history, the majority of people were fighting a daily battle just to stay alive.  Modern medicine did not exist.  Racial/ethnic/religious tensions killed countless people.  If you traveled back in time to 1000BC and tried to describe our present reality to those people, they would not believe you.  Even a hundred years ago, most people would have laughed at you if you told them that in the future, there will be weapons that can vaporize large cities or machines that can take people into space.  The Wright brothers, and many other inventors, were seen as fools and cranks by those around them.  NEVER UNDERESTIMATE WHAT TECHNOLOGY CAN DO!

Full socialism is not guaranteed by any means (primarily because people could always destroy themselves before they even reach that stage.  Karl Marx's blueprint for socialism has already been debunked a while ago.  He predicted that socialism would replace capitalism once working conditions get bad enough.  That has not happened and will not happen.  Capitalism's rough edges have been sanded off (at least in most of the developed world).  True socialism (if we make it that far) will come about as a result of automation, mass unemployment, and over-consumption of natural resources (very different from what Marx proposed).  Technology will allow us to side-step the limitations of human nature.

Western Europe has a lower abortion per capita rate than the US.  Obviously, there are many factors that determine the abortion rate.  But being dirt poor sure doesn't help.

Human beings are incentive-based creatures.  Humans engage in certain behaviors in hopes of pleasure.  To say that Earthly incentives have no bearing on Christianity is foolish.  You adamantly cling to a utilitarian, materialistic, environmentally unsustainable economic system.  Yet at the same time you think you can overcome human nature and have a Church without incentive.  As the incentives to be Christian have waned, so has the Church itself.  There is nothing inherently anti-Christian about socialism.  Keep in mind that the Marxist-Leninist brand of socialism is by no means the only kind out there.  Branding all forms of socialism as Marxism is like saying that a prepared food made from milk curdled by the action of cultures is the only kind of dairy product.  Taking care of the poor and not hoarding wealth is inherently Christian.  Remember what Jesus told the rich man?

Your side is on a collision course with reality.  The inconvenient facts are what they are.  The "American way of life" is not environmentally sustainable.  The Earth can't hold an unlimited number of people living a western lifestyle.  At some point, a sizable portion of the population will get kicked out of the workforce due to automation.  Most of humanity's problems exist because we think we are independent of one another and that our actions don't impact others.  Abortion, materialism, over-consumption of natural resources, etc are symptoms of that problem.  If you think our current system will produce good results over the next two centuries, then they really pulled the wool over your eyes.

[Norseman82]

On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 9:45 AM, polskieserce said:

And once again, what good is a strong job market if you can't compete?  The problem with these fanatical neo-liberal free market policies is that they leave so many people behind.  Please tell me what you would plan to do with these groups of people if the decision was up to you:

1. People with severe mental and neurological disabilities, many of whom will require expensive mental health services and/or lifelong institutionalization
2. People who are working a lot of hours but for very low wages and can't pay for their cost of living
3. People with very expensive chronic medical conditions
4. People who go to college, get a degree, but can't find meaningful work to support themselves (keep in mind that most people simply can't through engineering)
5. Children with dysfunctional parents (ie, mentally ill, addicted to drugs, abusive, etc)
6. People who are suffering from drug addiction themselves
7. People with serious criminal convictions who are trying to turn their life around but find they can't get a decent paying job
8. Families displaced from their homes due to natural disasters
9. People who have been working in 1 industry for years and then lose their jobs due to outsourcing/automation/decline of that industry/etc
10. People with legal problems who can't afford a proper lawyer
11. Elderly people with no family who can't take care of themselves

This is by no means a comprehensive list of all the marginalized groups in society, but it's a start.  The only way the free market is interested in a group of people is if that group can pay enough money to receive goods/services.  If not, those marginalized people basically fall off the face of the Earth as far as the free market is concerned.  The type of economic system you are proposing is flat out inhumane.  Also, there is the fact that it's environmentally unsustainable.

This is exactly one of the reasons why people are turned off to Catholicism and go with a more liberal version of Christianity.  Not only does the Catholic Church lack a practical game plan, but many Catholics believe in far right capitalism.  We as Catholics don't have to water down Christian teachings with secularism like the Episcopalians do, but it's silly to think that people will consider returning to the Church if we don't even have a socio-economic model that we are promoting.  That's one area where the Amish are actually on to something (although they executed it poorly and went way too far with trying to hide themselves from the outside world).  That's one of my consistent criticisms of the Church that I have voiced on here and on the other Catholic forum.

I happen to be one of those people who grew up in a dysfunctional family situation.  It only inspired me to work harder to make something of myself.

But you are correct in your original premise in that the Church needs to back up people seeking marriage.  Too often people who seek marriage are "shamed", especially people who play by the rules and seek their just reward.

[Norseman82]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 6:35 PM, CountrySteve21 said:

The problem is we would no longer be following Christ's teachings if we did that. Besides why should the Church have to change for people? Our Faith cannot turn into some sort of "popularity contest" in which for the sake of "conversions" we change Truth.

If we're worried about the Church changing for people, let's direct our focus on those - including clerics and Cardinals - who want to allow the divorced and remarried (without annulments) to receive Communion.

[CountrySteve21]

6 hours ago, Norseman82 said:

If we're worried about the Church changing for people, let's direct our focus on those - including clerics and Cardinals - who want to allow the divorced and remarried (without annulments) to receive Communion.

Indeed. Clergy cannot change Church teaching either. All of us need to continue growing in holiness and a part of that is embracing all the Church's teaching, including the difficult part of her message.