Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Mark 79 on November 27, 2019, 09:34:57 AM
-
It's a simple question, Ascanio, would you object to posting porn here?
I will answer but I feel that my reply will be pointless, as you will not respect the fact that you and I disagree and you will continue to try to convince me that free speech can be wrong.
.
I could not find my reply to your question because the thread (ban poche) where I posted it, was deleted.
.
I would not object to posting porn here if something specific was being addressed and the verbal description were insufficient.
.
I would employ the same caution as when addressing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs. If I were describing the rape of male guests then I would not object to posting the word sodomite, here, instead of gαy, as gαy would be insufficient to properly and accurately convey the meaning.
.
In the end, no, I would not object to posting porn and I would leave it all to the individual and personal sensitivity of the poster. It's the fundamental principle of free speech: it does not protect the freedom to say what does not offend, it protects, specifically, the freedom to say what does offend.
.
But your true reason for asking me if I would allow porn here, is a pretext to introduce the false similitude, to which I will not concede, that pornography equates lies and/or opinions that are insulting and therefore should be banned. poche may lie and/or post offensive opinions but, still, who believes in the concept of free speech will protect poche's right to post such lies/opinions even if these offend the reader.
.
Mark, kindly, would you create a new thread to discuss this? It is not pertinent to visitors of the thread seeking only content regarding the laws of Moses.
"Cafeteria Catholicism" is not Catholicism. Why pretend to seek the Truth in order to reject it?
“Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed at which are contained in the written Word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the church, either in a solemn pronouncement [ex cathedra extra ordinary Magisterium ], or in her ordinary and universal teaching power [a.v., “what has always been taught,” ordinary Magisterium ], to be believed as a divinely revealed.” Vatican Council, Session III Dogmatic Constitution Concerning the Catholic Faith (April 24, 1870) in Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, §1792
What part of "all"" don't you understand?
A proposition condemned in Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors:
X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM
…79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.…
-
From Pope Pius IX's Quanta Cura:
…9 and that nothing is so deadly, so hastening to a fall, so exposed to all danger, (as that which exists) if, believing this alone to be sufficient for us that we receive free will at our birth, we seek nothing further from the Lord; that is, if forgetting our Creator we abjure his power that we may display our freedom.…
-
I have changed the subject title for this post because "error has no rights" is the underlying principle in several related issues, including religious liberty and freedom of speech. I found an old Mundabor blog article https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/error-has-no-rights/ (https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/error-has-no-rights/) that gives a good explanation:
How, then, do we distinguish those who are right from those who are wrong? Simply by knowing what is right and what is wrong. The Church is right, the Heresies are wrong. Christianity is right, Atheism is wrong. God is right, those who oppose Him are wrong. How do I know that? Because the Church says so. And who is the Church to say so? She is the Bride of Christ.
It’s simple, really. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and what is important is on which side one is. To say Muslims should have the right to build mosques if we want to have the right to build churches neglects the fundamental difference between a church and a mosque, Truth and Error, true God and false god.
There is a common idea, even among Catholics, that we have to accept freedom of speech as a right to justify speaking about Christianity. But this is an idea that presumes that Christianity is just one idea among many and equal to the others.
There may be situations in which it is prudent to tolerate false religions and other errors, but they do not have any intrinsic rights.
-
What part of "all"" don't you understand?
... for example the part that refers to the doctrine of Vatican II. If it were not for freedom of speech, you would not be allowed to criticize it.
-
... for example the part that refers to the doctrine of Vatican II. If it were not for freedom of speech, you would not be allowed to criticize it.
Methinks the 'freedom of speech' you are referring to is not exactly what you think it is.
-
... for example the part that refers to the doctrine of Vatican II. If it were not for freedom of speech, you would not be allowed to criticize it.
Firstly, I made no reference to "Vatican II."
Second, You made no reference to Vatican II in this tread.
So, there is no "part that refers to Vatican II."
Since the Ordinary Magisterium and Extraordinary Magisterium are infallible, I require no "freedom of speech" to promte Magisterium. What you call "Vatican II" is full of error, so must be criticized by practicing Catholics.
You are twisting yourself in knots to resist the Catholic teaching.
-
Tommaso, I'm sure that you haven't had any time to look over the Encyclicals I recommended, and I understand that it can be difficult to come to terms with some of the information being presented to you. However, in charity, I believe you are misguided.
Bellator, thank you for all the time that you invest to help me and, yes, I have not had time to read through what you recommended as the list is, truly, over 100 items and, presently, catechism is my priority.
.
However, perhaps I allowed a misconception to develop.
.
I have been educated of the doctrines against free speech and I do not contest their existence but I choose to engage in free will and to not follow these doctrines because, in good faith, I belive that they are not in the best interest of the Church.
.
Just as I have been educated of the doctrines of Vatican II and I do not contest their existence but I choose to engage in free will and to not follow these doctrines because, in good faith, I belive that they are not in the best interest of the Church.
.
I am not unaware of the doctrined against free speech. I simply choose to disregard them. I hope that the misunderstanding that I might have caused is now clear: it is a concious choice, in good faith :)
.
.
Firstly, I made no reference to "Vatican II."
You did not. I did in my previous post. You choose to disregard some teachings I choose to disregard others.
.
What you call "Vatican II" is full of error, so must be criticized by practicing Catholics.
Agreed.
.
I will let God judge me for my choice of believing that free speech is in the best interest of the Church.
-
Methinks the 'freedom of speech' you are referring to is not exactly what you think it is.
I believe that free speech is the protection of the right of any individual to express his opinions freely even if these are offensive, wrong or even plain false. Such individual will answer to God alone, and not to man for his actions.
.
Similarly, I belive that free will is a fundamental aspect of moral liberty because, without it, there would be no merit in staying the correct course. How one uses his free will, can be judged only by God, not by man as man answers to God alone for his choices.
.
God created man and commanded him to obey a moral law, later doctrines (including restrictions on free speech, I grant) and God promised to reward or punish man according to man's observance or violation of God's laws.
.
God will judge if present circuмstances vouch for my disregard some of His doctrines: free speech and Vatican II plus all the other sins that, undoubtedly, I commit in my human imperfection.
-
I am not unaware of the doctrined against free speech. I simply choose to disregard them. I hope that the misunderstanding that I might have caused is now clear: it is a concious choice, in good faith (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
*******
Tommaso, you cannot say that you are aware of the doctrine of the faith and choose to disregatd them and at the same time be a faithful Catholic. A Catholic choses to obey all the the Church teaches.
The dilemma of Vatican 2 is really not an issue, as Faithful Catholics with a sensus fidelium know that Vatican 2 itself contradicts the contiuous doctrine of the Church.
As has been pointed out, from the beginning, the Church has never allowed freedom of speech. It's a long standing tradition.
How can you say what is good for the Church with your short experience, while the Church has 2000 years to know what is good and what is bad?
-
I believe that free speech is the protection of the right of any individual to express his opinions freely even if these are offensive, wrong or even plain false. Such individual will answer to God alone, and not to man for his actions.
.
Similarly, I belive that free will is a fundamental aspect of moral liberty because, without it, there would be no merit in staying the correct course. How one uses his free will, can be judged only by God, not by man as man answers to God alone for his choices.
.
God created man and commanded him to obey a moral law, later doctrines (including restrictions on free speech, I grant) and God promised to reward or punish man according to man's observance or violation of God's laws.
.
God will judge if present circuмstances vouch for my disregard some of His doctrines: free speech and Vatican II plus all the other sins that, undoubtedly, I commit in my human imperfection.
But people do not answer to God alone for their actions. Virtually every authority-subject relationship is one in which people answer for their actions to one in authority. This occurs within families, within civil government, and within Church government. You, for example, have authority over your daughter and would be failing in your duty as her father if you did not judge her moral choices and reward and punish as necessary. Similarly, civil authorities have a duty to protect the common good by judging, rewarding and punishing actions. Free will does not mean that we are in a state of anarchy.
-
Tommaso, you cannot say that you are aware of the doctrine of the faith and choose to disregatd them and at the same time be a faithful Catholic. A Catholic choses to obey all the the Church teaches.
The dilemma of Vatican 2 is really not an issue, as Faithful Catholics with a sensus fidelium know that Vatican 2 itself contradicts the contiuous doctrine of the Church.
Who chooses what constitutes sensus fidelium?
.
How can you say what is good for the Church with your short experience, while the Church has 2000 years to know what is good and what is bad?
I have very short experience and I lack the knowledge and scolarly studies of this community and, therefore, I recognize that I may very well err, even if always in good faith.
.
I belive that today free speech is best for the Church as Truth does not require censorship and, rather, censorship can cause rejection.
.
I appreciate the sincere charitable efforts and love that I feel from Mark, jaynek, you and others who - am certain - in good faith insist only in my interest. I may very well change my mind in future but I am very comfortable in this decision, for the moment, and I will continue to advocate for free speech.
.
Again, thank you for your help and prayers and, please, do not interpret my stance as something personal against mark or you as nothing could be farther from truth.
.
.
But people do not answer to God alone for their actions. Virtually every authority-subject relationship is one in which people answer for their actions to one in authority. This occurs within families, within civil government, and within Church government.
I agree. But, from what I learned, only the Church is against free speech, not the government. So I will have to answer to God alone.
.
Similarly, civil authorities have a duty to protect the common good by judging, rewarding and punishing actions. Free will does not mean that we are in a state of anarchy.
Exactly. If you do not have laws you end up in anarchy and if you do not have free speech you end up in tyranny. Laws protect from anarchy and tyranny.
.
And this is why the Founding Fathers of America introduced the concept of God given rights to all humanity, protected by the Constitution.
-
.
.I agree. But, from what I learned, only the Church is against free speech, not the government. So I will have to answer to God alone.
.Exactly. If you do not have laws you end up in anarchy and if you do not have free speech you end up in tyranny. Laws protect from anarchy and tyranny.
.
And this is why the Founding Fathers of America introduced the concept of God given rights to all humanity, protected by the Constitution.
Even the government does not support unlimited free speech. One is not free to incite violence or ιnѕυrrєcтισn. One is not free to harm the reputation of others. Here in Canada, we even have laws against hate speech that trump its supposed right to free speech. There are many places that supposedly have free speech where it is illegal to say that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a sin, that people cannot really change their sex, or to question that Germany killed 6 million Jews during the so-called h0Ɩ0cαųst. Free speech laws do nothing to prevent tyranny. There are endless exceptions and loop holes and we are well on our way to Catholicism being illegal due to allegedly being being homophobic, bigoted and generally evil.
The Founding Fathers of America cannot be taken as moral or religious guides. Their underlying philosophical position comes from the "Enlightenment" an error-filled anti-Catholic view. Did you know that one of the "intolerable acts" of England by which they justified their rebellion was that England allowed Catholicism to be practiced in its colony in Canada? The Founding Fathers have no authority to teach about what rights God has given to humanity. The Catholic Church is the only body with that authority.
The Church has clearly taught that error has no rights and that there is no right to free speech. You are using the current crisis as an excuse to ignore teachings from a time when there was no reason to question Church doctrines. Everyone here has a right to judge that your thinking on this is wrong because it is objectively wrong according to Church teaching. It is not something for God alone to judge.
-
Who chooses what constitutes sensus fidelium?
When we receive the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the Holy Spirit enters into us, and if we are faithful to prayer and the practice of the Faith we have a sense of right and wrong that is not given to those who are not Baptised/Confirmed and do not practice the faith. A sensus fidelum is a marvellous gift direct from the Blessed Trinity.
*****
.... I recognize that I may very well err, even if always in good faith.
.
I belive that today free speech is best for the Church as Truth does not require censorship and, rather, censorship can cause rejection.
When we receive the great gift of Faith, we do not negotiate which doctrines we agree with and which we don't agree with. When there is a difference between what the Church (God) teaches and what you believe, you can be absolutely sure that you are wrong. Then you acknowledge humbly that God knows best. That is a path which is perfectly safe, but you say "I may very well err, even if always in good faith" when you have been given the knowledge required to know the church teaching, and such an path is a very dangerous one. Beware of who wants to stop you and your family from attaining eternal salvation.
-
…You choose to disregard some teachings I choose to disregard others.…
The Catholic Faith as it has been infallibly transmitted for two millennia is knowable.
Hence it is knowable that "Vatican 2" is a gross departure from what has been infallibly transmitted for two millennia.
We Catholics are not merely free, but duty-bound to reject novelties.
You are rejecting a knowable tenet of the Faith (error has no rights). I am rejecting novelties (e.g., Dual Covenant Heresy) that are diametric opposites of what has been infallibly transmitted for two millennia. "Sodomy is a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance" is the opposite of "Who am I to judge?" "The Mosaic Covenant has been replaced" is the diametric opposite of "The 'Jews' still have the Mosaic Covenant." It is knowable which of those propositions is Catholic and which is Satanic.
Don't fall into Meg-ism, conflating dissimilar concepts (in her case conflating sententia communis with proposito haeretica; in your case conflating fides ecclesiastica dogma and proposito haeretica novelty as similar categories).
-
Who chooses what constitutes sensus fidelium?
As I said, the Faith is knowable.
The knowable Faith develops your sensus fidelium.
Since you freely stipulated your poor formation, the rational step is to suspend your opinions and review each against the knowable Faith. Pay special attention to the tenets of the Faith that most make you recoil! Those require the most and earliest work. If you shirk or delay, there is high probability that those will be the sticking points that take you down.
-
Pornography doesn't fall under free speech, nor does free speech refer to private institutions. Do you think teachers should also have the "freedom of speech" to show students pornography? I normally agree with you Ascanio but you're just being frankly ridiculous here. Porn is not the hill to die on.
-
Pay special attention to the tenets of the Faith that most make you recoil!
That's it in a nutshell.
It is easy to love those who love us. It is hard to love those who hate us.
Similarly, it is easy to obey the tenets that we like to obey, but the Christian life comprises more than what we like. Jesus shows us how to take up our cross. We just have to bite the bullet.
-
I think that posting porn would be grave matter and you would have to go to confession. Your immortal soul would be in danger and if you don't go to Hell you could spend a very long time in Purgatory.
-
I think that posting porn would be grave matter and you would have to go to confession. Your immortal soul would be in danger and if you don't go to Hell you could spend a very long time in Purgatory.
I never said that I would post porn. I affirm that I would support your right to post porn.
.
.
Pornography doesn't fall under free speech, nor does free speech refer to private institutions. Do you think teachers should also have the "freedom of speech" to show students pornography? I normally agree with you Ascanio but you're just being frankly ridiculous here. Porn is not the hill to die on.
I disagree that pornography does not fall under free speech but I agree that private institutions should be free to regulate free speech and pornography.
.
I never affirmed that the owner cannot regulate free speech. I affirmed that (in my opinion) he should not. He is perfectly entitled to regulate and censor whatever he likes because this is a private platform.
.
Private schools and teachers operate under a different profile from state owned schools. The former can offer whatever instruction they freely contract with the parents of the pupils, even porn (but I doubt that any parent would then send their children to that school). The latter do not enjoy the same freedom because they are funded by and, utlimately governed by (through the democratic voting process), the taxpayers.
-
As I said, the Faith is knowable.
The knowable Faith develops your sensus fidelium.
Since you freely stipulated your poor formation, the rational step is to suspend your opinions and review each against the knowable Faith. Pay special attention to the tenets of the Faith that most make you recoil! Those require the most and earliest work. If you shirk or delay, there is high probability that those will be the sticking points that take you down.
I agree that Faith is knowable but I do not agree that interpretation is univocal because we have been endowed with free will.
.
I also stipulated my ignorance and I agree that the rational step is to suspend my opinions and review them against the knowable Faith. But I choose not to assuming the responsibility in front of God for the use of my free will.
.
I understand how you differentiate V2 and free speech based on knowable knowldge and opinion. I appreciate how you obey the doctrine of suppression of free speech and reject the doctrine of V2. I very simply do not agree with your interpretation and I also believe that the suppression of free speech will hurt our Church in these difficult times when discussions, debates and confrontations must be sought rather than suppressed.
.
.
--------
@ Nadir,
"A sensus fidelum is a marvellous gift direct from the Blessed Trinity."
I am less fortunate than you as I only recently begun to enjoy the Grace of our Liturgy. This lesser state of mine, probably skews my sensus fidelum because it induces me to protect free speech against the teachings of the Catholic doctrine as others reject V2.
.
"When we receive the great gift of Faith, we do not negotiate which doctrines we agree with and which we don't agree with. When there is a difference between what the Church (God) teaches and what you believe, you can be absolutely sure that you are wrong. Then you acknowledge humbly that God knows best. That is a path which is perfectly safe, but you say "I may very well err, even if always in good faith" when you have been given the knowledge required to know the church teaching, and such an path is a very dangerous one. Beware of who wants to stop you and your family from attaining eternal salvation."
Maybe, through my own fault, I have not yet received the knowledge required to know the Church teachings to attain eternal salvation and I pray to God that he will be merciful as my intentions are genuine and in good faith.
.
.
Even the government does not support unlimited free speech. One is not free to incite violence or ιnѕυrrєcтισn. One is not free to harm the reputation of others. Here in Canada, we even have laws against hate speech that trump its supposed right to free speech.
This is an excellent point. I reject Canada's approach and I embrace the US First Amendment.
.
I agree that free speech does not include calling for physical violence but I do not agree that pornography or spreading lies is equivalent to calling for physical violence.
.
The Founding Fathers of America cannot be taken as moral or religious guides. Their underlying philosophical position comes from the "Enlightenment" an error-filled anti-Catholic view.
I am aware of the error-filled antu-Catholic views and I am not taking the Fuounding Fathers' of America as moral or religious guideline.
But I am endowed with free will and I freely choose what I like and don't like from good and bad sources. An evil person may still perform a good deed and an evil book may still contain a good concept.
The First Amendment is a personal inspiration. My choice to protect free speech certainly derives from this inspiration but is not bound by it. It is an expression of my free will.
-
I never said that I would post porn. I affirm that I would support your right to post porn.
.
.I disagree that pornography does not fall under free speech but I agree that private institutions should be free to regulate free speech and pornography.
.
I never affirmed that the owner cannot regulate free speech. I affirmed that (in my opinion) he should not. He is perfectly entitled to regulate and censor whatever he likes because this is a private platform.
.
Private schools and teachers operate under a different profile from state owned schools. The former can offer whatever instruction they freely contract with the parents of the pupils, even porn (but I doubt that any parent would then send their children to that school). The latter do not enjoy the same freedom because they are funded by and, utlimately governed by (through the democratic voting process), the taxpayers.
I can remember a time when you could go to jail for distributing pornography.
-
I never said that I would post porn. I affirm that I would support your right to post porn.
.
.I disagree that pornography does not fall under free speech but I agree that private institutions should be free to regulate free speech and pornography.
.
I never affirmed that the owner cannot regulate free speech. I affirmed that (in my opinion) he should not. He is perfectly entitled to regulate and censor whatever he likes because this is a private platform.
.
Private schools and teachers operate under a different profile from state owned schools. The former can offer whatever instruction they freely contract with the parents of the pupils, even porn (but I doubt that any parent would then send their children to that school). The latter do not enjoy the same freedom because they are funded by and, utlimately governed by (through the democratic voting process), the taxpayers.
Why do you feel like the owner of a Catholic forum should not ban pornography? What relevance has it to the topic - why should he allow users to be disgusted, scandalised and put into occasions of sin?
Regulation of free speech on all platforms is a must. You'd hardly also argue that the owner of a children's TV channel should not ban pornography? Now, we aren't children, but it's still harmful and not at all relevant to us too.
All the right to free speech has ever meant is that the government won't come after you, and that right has actually never really existed in its broadest sense. Even in America you wouldn't get away with broadcasting troop movements, etc. But it's just speech, right? Lie about someone and you could find yourself sued to ****.
-
Even the government does not support unlimited free speech.
The US Constitution does. Anything short of inciting physical violence if permitted and I strongly, vigorously, support this freedom that my country, Italy, unfortunately does not enjoy.
.
One is not free to harm the reputation of others.
Yes one is free to harm (not physically harm) others, through free speech, but then one will answer for the damages that he causes.
.
This is exactly the principle that I uphold! poche is free to lie and spread falsehoods (if indeed such they are) through free speech, but then one will answer to God for the damages that he causes. Not to man.
.
There are many places that supposedly have free speech where it is illegal to say that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a sin, that people cannot really change their sex, or to question that Germany killed 6 million Jews during the so-called h0Ɩ0cαųst.
And I disagree with these laws. One should be free to say that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a sin.
.
In a school (Opus Dei) fathers' forum conversation I was accused and attacked for saying exactly this: "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is wrong and we should pray that those with inverted sɛҳuąƖ preferences be cured by the Holy Spirit". I was almost banned by the (Opus Dei) School management.
.
This is why I am so vigorously in favour of free speech: to protect the Church's teachings. I belive, in good faith, and God will judge me, that to protect some doctrines of the Church I must violate other doctrines of the Church.
.
There are endless exceptions and loop holes and we are well on our way to Catholicism being illegal due to allegedly being being homophobic, bigoted and generally evil.
Again, a perfect argument in favour of free speech.
.
You are using the current crisis as an excuse to ignore teachings from a time when there was no reason to question Church doctrines.
I disagree on this point. The very reason why I support free speech, is to protect the freedom of expression of our Church's teachings and the freedom to practice of our precepts.
.
Everyone here has a right to judge that your thinking on this is wrong because it is objectively wrong according to Church teaching. It is not something for God alone to judge.
I agree 100%.
.
And this right to express your opinion is granted by the right to free speech.
-
Why do you feel like the owner of a Catholic forum should not ban pornography? What relevance has it to the topic - why should he allow users to be disgusted, scandalised and put into occasions of sin?
He can ban it.
.
But, if a pornographic image is the only way to explain something that words cannot explain, then the owner should choose to not ban it, to allow the conversation to develop. If he does not want the conversation to develop, that is another matter.
.
Personally, I believe that we should have as many controversial conversations as possible because today the new "radicals" are the traditionalists. Today who suffers most from de-platforming and censorship are traditional conservatives!
.
I was banned from a webstie for asking that all candidate nannies would teach Catholic precepts to my daughter and refrain from offering influences contrary to the Catholic precepts.
.
We are in very dangerous times where censorship is used against the Catholic Church. It is extreemely dangerous to allow any form of censorship because we cannot pick and choose what to censor and what not based on our Faith because we live in a free world: we cannot hope to enforce freedom of speech only for Catholic ideas and censorship only for heresy and error.
.
Given reality (i.e. we live in this context) it is preferable to allow all free speech rather than allow states to regulate it.
.
I would agree to censorship, according to Catholic doctrine, if we lived in a perfect Catholic world. Given the special and very dire circuмstances, like Cardinal Lefevbre, we must act out of necessity and violate a doctrine that supresses free speech to preserve the freedom to protect and talk about our Faith.
.
Regulation of free speech on all platforms is a must. You'd hardly also argue that the owner of a children's TV channel should not ban pornography? Now, we aren't children, but it's still harmful and not at all relevant to us too.
I like this example because it offers the opportunity to discuss context.
A children's TV channel is constrained by the channel owner interest. If the channel owner publishes pornography on a children's TV channel, very soon parents will not allow children to watch it. Owners of other channels, who seek different audiences, in fact do publish porn.
Similarly, the owner of this platform will determine what audience he desires.
.
If the owner wants to protect Truth and the Church then, I believe, he should allow lies to be published so that these lies can be demonstrated such and proven wrong.
.
If the owner wants to protect an depth discussion, exlucively amongst individuals who already agree on certain matters then he should not allow lies to be published as these distract from the scope of the platform.
.
Now, we aren't children, but it's still harmful and not at all relevant to us too.
Of the harm of lies in this context I am not certain.
.
In this context I believe that they are relevant because viewers can benefited from lies been exposed and proven wrong. I, for one, found rgeater convition reading why the lies were wrong than simply when members stated that they were wrong. The exercise of proving them wrong was beneficial to me.
-
He can ban it.
.
But, if a pornographic image is the only way to explain something that words cannot explain, then the owner should choose to not ban it, to allow the conversation to develop. If he does not want the conversation to develop, that is another matter.
.
Personally, I believe that we should have as many controversial conversations as possible because today the new "radicals" are the traditionalists. Today who suffers most from de-platforming and censorship are traditional conservatives!
.
I was banned from a webstie for asking that all candidate nannies would teach Catholic precepts to my daughter and refrain from offering influences contrary to the Catholic precepts.
.
We are in very dangerous times where censorship is used against the Catholic Church. It is extreemely dangerous to allow any form of censorship because we cannot pick and choose what to censor and what not based on our Faith because we live in a free world: we cannot hope to enforce freedom of speech only for Catholic ideas and censorship only for heresy and error.
.
Given reality (i.e. we live in this context) it is preferable to allow all free speech rather than allow states to regulate it.
.
I would agree to censorship, according to Catholic doctrine, if we lived in a perfect Catholic world. Given the special and very dire circuмstances, like Cardinal Lefevbre, we must act out of necessity and violate a doctrine that supresses free speech to preserve the freedom to protect and talk about our Faith.
Your opinion isn't novel here, a pope expressed a similar view(he expressed that America's free speech was much better than the alternative, Protestant suppression of Catholicism), but porn is really not the hill to die on. You'll never need to post it to express a point, and it's normal for any site(even sites I know with 0 restriction on what you can say) to ban it. You're reducing your own position to absurdity, frankly. I'm generally with you on being against censorship, etc. but I think you're weakening your argument by stretching to to the extremes.
-
You'll never need to post it to express a point, and it's normal for any site(even sites I know with 0 restriction on what you can say) to ban it. You're reducing your own position to absurdity, frankly. I'm generally with you on being against censorship, etc. but I think you're weakening your argument by stretching to to the extremes.
Forlon, citing porn was not my choice of example. It was Mark's. I simply agreed to develop the consequential dialogue.
.
I fact, I criticised Mark for using porn as an example as, I agree with you, there would be very few practical or real instances where porn would be necessary to explain a concept. But, nonetheles, in principle, it would be permissible.
.
It is like those who attack pro-life positions: "...what if the mother is about to die?"... they cite extreeme cases to make a general case. It is wrong. Mark was wrong to use pornography in analogy. But, just as I would still debate against pro-abortion, even on exceptional circuмstances like the mother dieing, I still debate against suppression of free speech, even on exceptional circuмstances, like porn.
.
Protecting the freedom to publish porn is merely an exercise to protect the principle, not porn itself. Obviously I am against porn!
.
You're reducing your own position to absurdity, frankly.
No I am not reducing it to absurdity. Mark is reducing free speech to absurdity as no one ever will post porn here (I hope). I am merely defending the principle on Mark's (absurd) chosen ground of debate.
.
I agree with you, discussing about porn is absurd and I would much rather discuss about freedom of speech rather than freedom of porn. Mark chose this thread title to attck the principle and, if I want to defend the principle, this is my stance.
.
Forlon, you have no idea (or maybe you do) to what absurd logics I am subjected to defend my Faith. Yet I do not walk away and I confront them. At school, other fathers presente ridiculous theories that would prove that honosɛҳuąƖity is natural. I cannot back down on the principle, even if there are absurd exceptions.
.
I'm generally with you on being against censorship, etc. but I think you're weakening your argument by stretching to to the extremes.
I am not stretching it to the extreems, I am only following Mark's stretching of free speech to the extreems of porn.
-
Even in societies which value free speech, porn is a red herring. Free speech does not mean obscenity, blasphemy, obscene/offensive language, etc. I am not permitted to walk around in public naked on account of "free speech". Free speech is meant to allow people to express IDEAS, and to protect them from persecution by the government for thoughts contrary to their policies ... to prevent the practice, common among tin-pot dictators, of merely eliminating or jailing their political opponents. And, in fact, while REAL free speech is being taken away, being labeled "hate speech," they leave the porn out there to make people THINK they have free speech while in fact it's being taken away. While people are routinely persecuted for saying anything against the Jews, for instance, (e.g. +Williamson), people are free to surf their porn, so they think they still have free speech. Not to mention that the Jews have made it clear that they're using the porn to weaken and soften the goy so that they can more easily be controlled. Many historians have concluded that the Roman Empire fell once their people got used to luxury and gave themselves over to hedonism.
So, for instance, free speech would allow someone to express the idea that porn should be legal, but it doesn't actually give them the right to have porn or to sell it.
-
Protecting the freedom to publish porn is merely an exercise to protect the principle, not porn itself. Obviously I am against porn!
So what would you say about blasphemous art? Is that protected? Am I allowed to depict Our Lord in dung?
Again, you're misconstruing the principle (not that I grant it in the first place). You protect the freedom for someone to walk around with a sign saying "make porn legal" ... but porn doesn't have to be legal to safeguard this principle. PORN ITSELF is NOT FREE SPEECH. What intellectual or political point is being communicated through porn? None. Also, do not construe so-called "artistic freedom" with "free speech". They are not the same thing. Free speech is the right to express IDEAS and THOUGHTS.
-
But, if a pornographic image is the only way to explain something that words cannot explain, then the owner should choose to not ban it, to allow the conversation to develop.
There's nothing of any intellectual substance that requires a pornographic image.
Plus, you really start having to think like a Catholic about this. Exposure to a pornographic image could cause sin ... the death of a soul. Even secular societies curtail the exercise of free speech to things that do not cause harm to others ... with yelling "Fire!" in a theater being the canonical example given. But displaying porn causes harm to others, not to mention the harm that the porn industry causes. It's well docuмented how human trafficking and all manner of criminal activity are induced by porn. By far the vast majority of people who commit sex crimes have a history of exposure to porn. Heck, even Vatican II limits religious liberty to things that do not bring harm to others.
Do I not have a right to be able to walk around in public without having to see naked people everywhere? Oh, but if it's necessary to communicate some idea, then it should be legally protected for a woman to walk into a church completely nude, right? Come on, man, even the most pagan societies acknowledge that free speech is not absolute and unlimited.
So you would think it should be permissible for someone to start using graphic sɛҳuąƖ language in front of your daughter, or to show her a picture of two people copulating ... in the interests of free speech? Even our society would classify this as criminal due to "corruption of a minor" laws.
-
So what would you say about blasphemous art? Is that protected? Am I allowed to depict Our Lord in dung?
Unfortunately, if you want the freedom to say that Allah is a false prophet, then you must allow muslims to say that Jesus was a false prophet.
.
Blasphemy, at least conceptually, is the same. What may be blasphemy to you may be sacred to others. Specifically to your example I would, of course, denounce it as a pointless insult as nobody (I hope) can hold sacred Our Lord in dung! Or, perhaps, worshippers of the devil could. But, in order to protect our freedom to profess the Catholic faith one must accept the freedom of devil worshippers to worship blasphemy.
.
My position is not even a lay, government, position. I believe in free will. God endowed devil worshipers to worship Our Lord in dung and God will judge them.
.
It is my duty and obligation to denounce blasphemy. But is it not my right to use violence to suppress it.
.
PORN ITSELF is NOT FREE SPEECH.
I agree. But Mark decided to use freedom to post porn, as his argument against freedom to post lies. I, repeatedly mentioned that porn is not the same as lies. But the principle is the same.
.
I am in favour of protecting all what is offensive to others, because it is offensive. If it were not offensive, it would not need to be protected. I protect all expressions until these cause physical (not soul) harm.
.
What intellectual or political point is being communicated through porn? None.
I agree. But lack of value of content does not compress the value of the principle. I defend freedom of expression not because of the political or intellectual value but becase of the value of the principle.
.
Also, do not construe so-called "artistic freedom" with "free speech". They are not the same thing. Free speech is the right to express IDEAS and THOUGHTS.
Here I disagree. Art is a form of expression of ideas and thoughts.
-------------------------
As much as I would like to continue this interesting and helpful conversation, I cannot invest more time to it as I must devote time to study. There are too many valuable comments that I would like to address and I do not want to address one in disregarding others.
.
I have gained valuable perspectives on which I will linger and consider and I hope that I expressed my ideas in a way that can be helpful to others to consider, if not, I am sorry for having invested time in a way that was not productive.
.
So much has been said that I feel that all aspects have been discussed and I feel that I can not contribute other useful comments and, so I prefer to return to it if and when my convictions concerning free speech will change.
.
Until then I pray that God will understand that I disregard the doctrines against free speech in good faith because I believe that we are in a state of necessity caused by modern aggression to the freedom to express and practice our religious precepts, which state of necessity induces me to fight for the freedom of expression and practice, always and in any context.
-
Unfortunately, if you want the freedom to say that Allah is a false prophet, then you must allow muslims to say that Jesus was a false prophet.
See, that is not Traditional Catholic teaching, according to which only the truth has a right to be expressed. Errors and false religions harm souls. You can only say this from the standpoint of total relativism. To equate saying that Allah is false with saying Jesus is false is completely invalid, since one of those is true and the other is not.
-
See, that is not Traditional Catholic teaching, according to which only the truth has a right to be expressed. Errors and false religions harm souls. You can only say this from the standpoint of total relativism. To equate saying that Allah is false with saying Jesus is false is completely invalid, since one of those is true and the other is not.
We agree on this doctrine but we will have to agree to disagree on the consequences.
.
You will have to accept that, in your and others' opinion, I am a bad Catholic. I hope that God will judge me differently.
.
I will now retire from this thread due to lack of time, not lack of interest. Thank you to all who contributed to his thread.
:) :applause:
-
Seriously disordered.
-
See, that is not Traditional Catholic teaching, according to which only the truth has a right to be expressed. Errors and false religions harm souls. You can only say this from the standpoint of total relativism. To equate saying that Allah is false with saying Jesus is false is completely invalid, since one of those is true and the other is not.
I think his point regarding this is that we don't live in a Catholic society. A lack of free speech wouldn't mean a ban on saying Jesus is a false god, it'd mean a ban on stating Catholic dogma, for example that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is intrinsically disordered.
-
I think his point regarding this is that we don't live in a Catholic society. A lack of free speech wouldn't mean a ban on saying Jesus is a false god, it'd mean a ban on stating Catholic dogma, for example that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is intrinsically disordered.
This is why I think we need to make the distinction between an intrinsic right to free speech and situations in which it may be prudent to tolerate errors. Even though we know from Church teaching that error has no rights, this principle may need to be applied differently in a Catholic state and a non-Catholic state.
The particular example you give, however, does not work well. On the contrary, it shows that assenting to the false idea of free speech does not ensure our ability to freely express Catholic teaching. In some places, saying that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is intrinsically disordered is classified as "hate speech" and therefore an exception to laws protecting freedom of speech.
-
We agree on this doctrine but we will have to agree to disagree on the consequences.
.
You will have to accept that, in your and others' opinion, I am a bad Catholic. I hope that God will judge me differently.
What God thinks about this issue has been expressed in the various quotes from Church teaching that have been cited in this and other threads. You are taking a position diametrically opposed to Catholicism.
What you are doing is not the same as people who question or even reject teachings from Vatican II that (seem to) contradict previous Church teaching. Such people are not denying the Church's authority to teach. If anything, they affirm it. You are not looking to the Church at all, but throwing out her teaching because it does not seem right to you.
Not only will God judge you, but your future self will look back on the thoughts you are expressing here. I hope that with time and study you will learn to think in a more Catholic way. If you do, you may end up feeling as embarrassed and regretful as I do about my early posts on trad forums. I wish that I had focused on learning rather than arguing. I see that you already decided to drop this topic, but your reason seemed to be primarily lack of time. Your reason should ideally be a recognition that you are far to new to traditional Catholicism to understand it well.
-
This is why I think we need to make the distinction between an intrinsic right to free speech and situations in which it may be prudent to tolerate errors. Even though we know from Church teaching that error has no rights, this principle may need to be applied differently in a Catholic state and a non-Catholic state.
The particular example you give, however, does not work well. On the contrary, it shows that assenting to the false idea of free speech does not ensure our ability to freely express Catholic teaching. In some places, saying that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is intrinsically disordered is classified as "hate speech" and therefore an exception to laws protecting freedom of speech.
If I correctly remember, the Church "tolerates" freedom of speech only when it has no power to do otherwise. Perhaps it expresses the "tolerance" as a prudential matter, but that kind of subjectivism/relativism smacks of тαℓмυdic style.
"Is it good for the Jews" morphed large into "Is it good for the Catholics?"
(http://judaism.is/images/2%20greatest.jpg?crc=4152981114)
-
If I correctly remember, the Church "tolerates" freedom of speech only when it has no power to do otherwise. Perhaps it expresses the "tolerance" as a prudential matter, but that kind of subjectivism/relativism smacks of тαℓмυdic style.
I am hoping that more knowledgeable posters can expand on the topic of tolerating error. I do not know much about the conditions for this. I just thought it would be useful to make the distinction between toleration and claiming that something is a God-given right.
-
IIRC this topic is covered in Solange Hertz's Americanism. If there wasn't a ton of Thanksgiving preps to still be done, I'd pull it out, but… (more excuse to follow). :D
-
And We are all sinners and we are all learning to love Jesus.
Our society today is in chaos because these “freedoms” which are making us slaves.
Freedom of religion is placing false gods equal to Jesus. This is why we have a Pope worshipping a false goddess.
No one has a right to post porn. If we allow it, we are accomplice to sin. Look how pornography has destroyed marriages and families. And yes, we are to pray for people who are gαy and lost. There are nine ways of being accomplice to sin.
Abortion used to be illegal as murder should.
God’s law is above man’s laws.
Europe, USA should be Catholic but the faith was watered down by the lukewarm. It was Catholics fighting and dying for USA while opportunist men with very little religion implemented a Masonic government.
The first Thanksgiving was Catholic and there was the Te Deum.
You aren’t a “bad Catholic”. You are like me and so many other Catholics. Poorly formed Catholics but as you grow in faith, you will see truth in Christ. Reading the douay rheims bible has helped me.
-
Yes, Social reign of Jesus.
-
If I correctly remember, the Church "tolerates" freedom of speech only when it has no power to do otherwise. Perhaps it expresses the "tolerance" as a prudential matter, but that kind of subjectivism/relativism smacks of тαℓмυdic style.
"Is it good for the Jews" morphed large into "Is it good for the Catholics?"
(http://judaism.is/images/2%20greatest.jpg?crc=4152981114)
Only 2 rules in Jew World Order: Rule 1 -- Jew is always right. Rule 2 -- When Jew is wrong Rule 1 takes precedence.
-
IIRC this topic is covered in Solange Hertz's Americanism. If there wasn't a ton of Thanksgiving preps to still be done, I'd pull it out, but… (more excuse to follow). :D
https://www.tumblarhouse.com/products/the-star-spangled-heresy-americanism-solange-hertz
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0545/7101/products/americanism_reg_300x300.jpg?v=1545767184)
The Star-Spangled Heresy: Americanism
Americanism is a heresy which five different popes have condemned. But what is it? Perhaps the best characterization of Americanism was given by Leo XIII's biographer Msgr. T'Serclaes: "A spirit of independence which passed too easily from the political to the religious sphere."
"That the Church and State ought to be separated is an absolutely false and pernicious error ... It limits the action of the State exclusively to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life, though this is only the proximate raison d'etre of political societies." - Pope St. Pius X in Vehementer
"It is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point not in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue." - Leo XIII in Immortale Dei
"Believe me, the evil I denounce is more terrible than the Revolution, more terrible even than the Commune. I have always condemned liberal Catholicism, and I will condemn it forty times over if it be necessary!" - Pius IX
Read the First Chapter Now (https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0545/7101/files/star-spangled-heresy_sample.pdf?16092476173951151082)
More Books by Solange Hertz
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0545/7101/products/sin-revisited_reg_large.jpg?v=1545767171) (https://www.tumblarhouse.com/products/sin-revisited-solange-hertz)
Sin Revisited (https://www.tumblarhouse.com/products/sin-revisited-solange-hertz)
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0545/7101/products/WWW-cover_large.jpg?v=1545767248) (https://www.tumblarhouse.com/products/women-words-wisdom-solange-hertz)
Women, Words & Wisdom (https://www.tumblarhouse.com/products/women-words-wisdom-solange-hertz)
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0545/7101/products/the-thought-of-their-heart_reg_large.jpg?v=1543010894) (https://www.tumblarhouse.com/products/the-thought-of-their-heart-solange-hertz)
The Thought of their Heart (https://www.tumblarhouse.com/products/the-thought-of-their-heart-solange-hertz)
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0545/7101/products/utopia-nowhere_reg_large.jpg?v=1543011158) (https://www.tumblarhouse.com/products/utopia-nowhere-solange-hertz)
Utopia Nowhere (https://www.tumblarhouse.com/products/utopia-nowhere-solange-hertz)
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0545/7101/products/apostasy-in-america_reg_large.jpg?v=1543896512) (https://www.tumblarhouse.com/products/apostasy-in-america-solange-hertz)
Apostasy in America (https://www.tumblarhouse.com/products/apostasy-in-america-solange-hertz)
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0545/7101/products/come-down-zacchaeus_reg_large.jpg?v=1543896626) (https://www.tumblarhouse.com/products/come-down-zacchaeus-solange-hertz)
Come Down, Zacchaeus (https://www.tumblarhouse.com/products/come-down-zacchaeus-solange-hertz)
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0545/7101/products/searcher-of-majesty_reg_large.jpg?v=1543011112) (https://www.tumblarhouse.com/products/searcher-of-majesty-solange-hertz)
Searcher of Majesty (https://www.tumblarhouse.com/products/searcher-of-majesty-solange-hertz)
Solange Hertz's Biography:
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0545/7101/files/Solange-Hertz.jpg)
An established writer before the Second Vatican Council, Solange Hertz wrote for most Catholic periodicals and had five books to her credit, one a selection of the Catholic Literary Foundation. When she refused to adjust her theology to the new “Spirit of Vatican II,” her manuscripts almost overnight became unacceptable to her former editors. After a series of articles on feminine spirituality for the old Triumph magazine, she continued speaking for tradition by successfully producing The Thought of Their Heart and Sin Revisited on her own.
-
Thank you for all that.
(http://judaism.is/images/spirit%20of%20v2.jpg?crc=3846973779)
-
... for example the part that refers to the doctrine of Vatican II. If it were not for freedom of speech, you would not be allowed to criticize it.
Be on guard because your adversary the devil will come like a theif in the night.
-
Be on guard because your adversary the devil will come like a theif in the night.
You're mixing up Bible verses.
Our Lord says he'll come (return) like a thief in the night.
A completely different verse says Satan prowls like a lion devouring souls.