Author Topic: Better than nothing?  (Read 492 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 20614
  • Reputation: +18245/-61
  • Gender: Male
Better than nothing?
« on: October 22, 2015, 12:46:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Many Catholics -- optimists, perhaps -- are falling for the "better than nothing" fallacy.

    They think that if a layman is "rock solid" in his doctrine, then anything goes -- he should be prominent, respected, etc. even if he is committing gross violations of the moral law.

    1. Every layman should be rock solid in doctrine. That doesn't mean that each of us should run a public media apostolate.

    2. Casting aside one layman whose evils outweigh the good he does, is not a huge loss for the Catholic world.


    So if a man is running around naked, saying the Rosary and professing the Apostles Creed, we should leave him alone because he's saying the Rosary and professing good, solid Catholic doctrine?  Or, rather, does the indecent exposure override the rather mundane, common virtue of professing the Apostles Creed and saying the Rosary. We have plenty of people in that category; we're not so desperate we need to defend a streaker!

    Defenders of apostolates such as TradCatKnight and Fr. Pfeiffer's Boston, KY seminary are using the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT as the classic Trad Catholic teenager who wants to go on dates with non-Catholics, because he's impatient to wait for God to send him good marriage material.

    It doesn't matter if there are no eligible bachelors/bachelorettes at your chapel, if you've tried dating Trads already, or you aren't having any luck on CatholicMatch. Dating bad candidates for marriage is a stupid idea, period! If dating a man who doesn't want to work, a woman filled with feminism, etc. is REALLY the best you can do, then perhaps you should open your mind to the idea that God doesn't intend marriage for you!

    And if keeping around a man like Pablo is the only way to keep the Seminary going, well...

    Yes, it's not a good idea to be picky either. But there are certain "minimums" or standards that you must stick to -- when seeking a marriage partner, or deciding if a given seminary is worthy to exist.

    The guy can have physical defects. But what if he doesn't work and doesn't intend to? What if he doesn't value the Catholic Faith? Likewise for a woman: she can have many flaws that you can settle for or put up with. But what if she is proud, un-docile, fully brainwashed by feminism to the point that she would want to be in charge, not have many children (if any), etc.

    TL;DR: "Settling" is not a smart idea. In marriage, in seminaries, or YET ANOTHER Trad Catholic media/news source (we have plenty of those).
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 20614
    • Reputation: +18245/-61
    • Gender: Male
    Better than nothing?
    « Reply #1 on: October 22, 2015, 01:18:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Actually, my analogy above (streaker reciting the Apostle's Creed) is a bad example, since everyone has the Apostle's Creed memorized.

    Let's take a different analogy -- What if a man named John Smith was  teaching Catholic doctrine in general? Then it comes to light that John Smith has all kinds of moral failings including a willingness to deceive the public and lie about large matters.

    Everything he says would fall into two categories:

    1. Stuff I already know
    2. Stuff I don't know -- stuff he's "teaching" me.

    Now if you stopped listening to him because he was proven to be a liar, you wouldn't get to hear EITHER category -- #1 or #2.

    But you don't need #1 -- it's stuff you know already! As for #2, how can you trust that he's not lying or distorting to suit his purposes, being as you already know he's comfortable with lying.

    See what I mean? In some cases, you just have to cut that mooring and let that boat drift off to sea. No loss.

    When you find out that a well is contaminated, you don't cry about, "Oh, but there's so much refreshing H20 in there -- if only it didn't have too much arsenic!" You forget about using that well, period. Who cares how cold the water is, how refreshing it would be without the poison, etc. You look for another well.

    This isn't a desert. We're not desperate. There are plenty of other wells.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline LucasL

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 458
    • Reputation: +1/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Better than nothing?
    « Reply #2 on: October 22, 2015, 02:04:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • People in the traditional movement thinks that one should live in a modern world but going to Latin Mass is good enough.

    The root of all evil is the satanic idea that you can have only one or two kids, that your ultimate dream is to live in a comfortable house with max two kids and a dog.

    Before radio/tv/mass media there was no such thing as "I'm going to marry but I won't have more than 2 kids".

    Satanic, indeed.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16