I could not agree more.  I have been working on this very topic in small bits with my freshmen students - today we talked briefly about how relatavism tries to state as absolute truth that there is no absolute truth.  I hope they see how it is a self-defeating philosophy - the stuff built around it might sound okay to their ears, but it’s based entirely on a logically implausible statement so the philosophy as a whole can’t stand.  I am so glad that they have a morality course that they have to go through as part of their curriculum!

Agree completely.  This very problem has torn my family asunder.  My child thinks I am ‘rigid’ because I think there is right and wrong and am willing to say so.  His father taught him this (!), and the child has been brainwashed all the way to believing mom is crazy because she believes in an authority outside of herself and to thinking that if no one sees you do something wrong it has no consequence and is not wrong.  And lest you think he is very young, no, the child is a teen!  Not knowing a common morality, not recognizing the difference between freedom and license, not accepting external authority or boundaries at all—these lies are tearing families apart.  The innocent child does not even realize he was deceived because the one who believes in truth, morals, and the like is vilified for these beliefs, despite the fact that under the relativism rubric each person’s ‘truth’ is supposed to be equally valid.  Quite a tragic mess….the world seems upside down.

Catch 22. Parents have been trained by the school teachers too, to be blamed for the failures of their children at school when the school refuses to acknowledge the child’s immortal soul and the duty of the state to preserve, protect and propagate virginty, innocence and unalienable human rights. The schools, too, have been brainwashed(there is no other word for it, brainwashed) to teach the enslavement of mankind to sin, death and corruption. It is not only easier sliding downhill to hell, it gives the corrupt one places to hide. If everybody is corrupt, who will notice? God is watching…and keeping count of the hairs on your head. Just in case you do not believe in God, oh, well, too bad for you.

I don’t necessarily question the general tenor of the findings, but I find it a bit odd that the young people were asked about “moral dilemmas.” Most people aren’t often faced with genuine moral dilemmas, which aren’t just situations where one has a hard time deciding what is right but situations where one can’t choose any option without violating some duty. Maybe this is a technicality, but I do think the basically educated, articulate “chattering classes” also tend to fumble when they talk about morality on a more abstract level.

I can’t see how you figure that young people don’t often face moral dilemmas.  I’d say they do all the time, especially in high school.  To drink or not to drink when everyone around you is; to do drugs or not to; to have sex or not to; to cheat when you know you’re going to fail or not to.  All of these things would certainly be considered moral dilemmas, especially if the person knew they wouldn’t get caught.  Then the only thing holding them back would be their morality.

What are ‘objective’ morals? Was is moral when, for 19 centuries the Church supported slavery? Slavery is an evil if there ever was one yet it was not the case of the church turning a blind eye to it. It simply did not think it was evil. This fiction that morals are dependent on god begs the Euthyphro dilemma. God can no more tell us what ‘objective’ moral values are than can anyone else. To pretend otherwise is to believe fiction

Cassy, what Apple Pie means is that facing a decision like your examples isn’t a moral dilemma…if there’s one moral choice and one immoral choice, there isn’t a dilemma. What you describe is an opportunity to make a moral decision (or fail to make a moral decision), not a dilemma.
An actual moral dilemma is more along the lines of the hypothetical “Two people, one old and one very young, are stuck in a car on a railroad crossing. A train is coming and you only have time to save one. Which do you choose?” Either decision is moral, but either has a severely negative consequence (death) for the other person. Many people (myself included) freeze in the face of making such a decision, which allows greater harm to come. The dilemma causes inaction.

They can’t give what they don’t have (re: parents punting responsibility).  I think we have seen the full ugliness and consequences of relativism and how we have failed passing on the faith, either thru CCD, Catholic School or at home.  The one thing pushed to “help” the generation missed is the Why Catholic program that oddly enough is led by, none other than themselves - there are no real teachers, just leaders.  If you get a group of that age, how are they to determine right and wrong on their own if they don’t have a teacher to teach them?  But this is supposed to be an answer to the group’s abhorrence of teachers.  I wonder why they dislike teachers so much.  Could it be that 12+ years of Catholic School + mandatory CCD for at least most of those years resulted in nothing of substance?  This idea that the parents are responsible is something new and is still misused as most are not recognized by their own parish as valid teachers. 
It is not over for these young people tho.  And I have hope that one day they find a parish that isn’t afraid of speaking the truth.

When you do not have God in your life you don’t even think that you are accountable to anyone but yourself. Moral decisions? There are none. The “it’s all about me” generation speaks to accountability just to oneself. Where were the parents when these young people were growing up and where are they now? Perhaps involved in the same “it’s all about me” mentality? We do live in a very scary time. I face it every day in my work environment where as a person of faith my beliefs are challenged while homosexuality is presented as “diversity” and the twenty somethings are given the opportunity to get drunk at company parties and misbehave.

As a retired college professor I saw that so much with students. That Relativism which was the Pope’s homily as Cdl. J Ratzinger for JP11’s funeral and echoed since is scary. I spent a lot of time teaching simple logic- a thing cannot be true and not true at the same time; and explaining subjective and objective: subjectively I can believe the moon is made of green cheese but objectively it is not. That lesson was very helpful for their thinking.

Bob, I would love to see proof that the Church condoned the type of slavery you’re thinking of for 19 centuries.  As is typical with our society, you likely think of slavery as what happened to black slaves here in America, which is a seriously narrow view of what the word “slave” means.  This isn’t the best link in the world since its a little disorganized at the beginning, but it at least attempts to properly define slavery and then the morality of the different types - http://www.thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com/slavery.html

Suffice it to say that since man is made in the image and likeness of God, the Church has always taught that man has a particular dignity that must always be respected.  A situation that ignores that dignity - such as the slavery that is most often spoken of in American history - is to be condemned as an offense to the dignity of a person precisely because God made him.  However cases where that dignity is not overlooked - like just servitude for crimes committed or indentured servitude where the person is treated as a person with all their rights intact - is not immoral and thus not condemned.  The entire teaching stems from man’s dignity as God’s creation in His own image and likeness.  That same teaching is not extended to animals because they are not God’s image.  It all depends on Him and what we believe He made us to be.

The link will provide you with several examples of papal bulls or other Church writings doing exactly what you claim it does not do - condemn immoral dehumanizing slavery.

MRS O: The family has for a long time been seen as the Domestic Church, the place where parents and older adults show by EXAMPLE what their personal faith means by setting aside time and distractions so the family can worship and learn and PRACTICE. An hour a week from late August until May/June with time off for “Winter Break”  as it is now dubbed, and the schools’ Spring break is not much of an antidote when Dad especially does not attend Mass. The sociological studies make that last point clear. Same for Catholic schools.
PAMELA: You are so correct that, slowly as it came from missionaries to non-Caucasian nations, in educating Europe’s Popes and others, the influence of papal teaching was instrumental in ending slavery. Sadly, English Protestantism and the religious-political establishment in the colonies and later US had no such moral compass to guide them. Economics trumped morality when the Congress did not abolish slavery in the Constitution and the nation is still bleeding over it.

Bob, Bob,Bob… Just where and how did you elucidate this statement. I too, would love to see your sources (with footnotes please!)statement. If you would study church history, you would find the record in opposition to your proclaimation. This is why, after christianity became legal in the Roman empire, that slavery within the empire rapidly vanished.
If you are looking solely at the actions of individuals or nations who operated outside of church teaching, then you may have some points. Many outsiders believe(except Stalin of course) that the pope has a vast army of divisions to enforce the teachings Gospel(?)who could transcend the political and national will of nations and their boarders with military might rather than with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
If you are looking at the major purveyor of slavery in the world, to this day(!!!) then look at Islam.

Bob,

Was is moral when, for 19 centuries the Church supported slavery?

No.

Morality is objective.  Our perceptions of morality are subjective.  We can be wrong.  Moral Law cannot.  Moral Law does not change, or evolve.  Our understanding of it does.

When we dropped the A bomb, was it morally wrong?  Should we throw out science because it gave us the A bomb?  We didn’t understand the ramifications of such a weapon.  It was wrong when we dropped it, it is wrong now.  Objective.  We didn’t know how wrong it was then, we know now.  Subjective.

Clarification…the above “supposes” correctly or not that a church, some church, somewhere, supported slavery.  Since Bob didn’t stipulate which Church, I simply addressed the question of whether morality changes, not whether his accusations was true.  Ironically, what Bob thinks does not affect the veracity of his statement.  Because it is either true, or not true.  Objectively.

Such nonsense. The CHURCH outside Europe did not know about SLAVERY. The leaders had indentured servants, captive slaves earlier but there were hospitals and monasteries and education for some- universal education is recent development so the culture was decently human for its time. The later Declaration of Human Rights was begun by a former lawyer turned Bishop a missionary in Peru, Bartolemeo de Las Casas who experienced the local people and developed the sense of their human dignity and rights. Slavery in the early US was fine when they were given proper care, not mis-treated and not “bred"like animals for profit.  The Pope who saw English slaves in the market in Rome sent St Augustine to Canterbury to bring them the Faith and civilisation. So much ignorance marks the prejudiced understanding of the Church over the centuries and presumes that 1400th century moral development was like our(very selective !) 21st century understanding. Killing the pre-born is legal as is same gender unions and starting wars in the Middle East while folks beat-up on the Inuisition and allow China to jail and harass Catholics loyal to the Pope and as at present will not force ISRAEL to drop its Gestapo tactics or move off center to stop and destroy the settlements and give the original inhabitants some of the LAND they once owned. Helicopter gunships fired indiscriminately on citizens’ villages in Gaza in revenge are immoral and do not stop VIOLENCE.  The US has no moral compass neither has the Israeli Knesset.

Just listening to EWTN and a programme on Cardinal Echevery - spelling? of Africa who went to Europe to stop African slavery, got a woman religious foundress to start a writing campaign, started donations which still go there. St Peter Claver of course with her not related or her contempory that I know were the spiritual European father and mother of Africa.

Hermit Talker:
Catholic schools + Weekly mandatory CCD classes do not amount to an hour a week.  True, if those avenues failed, the parents should have picked up the slack in the very least by example BUT you can not pass on what you do not have. Although the family is seem as a domestic church, in reality, if the parents want to educate their children at home in the faith, they have a long hard battle ahead of them when it comes to receiving the sacraments, etc.

CCD is usually one hour- Catholic school has five classes in the Faith, plus some Masses and presumably an atmosphere conducive to faith-formation. HOWEVER weekly Mass in the most efficient way for normal adults and older minors to learn and grow. The Liturgical Year covers the major feasts and doctrines, and the three-year cycle covers the whole Bible. A parish team approach to preparing for Mass, homily suggestions and honest evaluation, well chosen music (two verses is aick habit also) and silence where called for, especially for five minutes beforehand, stop the silly practices, do the annoouncements before it. Post communion five minutes also, keep the homily to ten maximum as the recent Loyola workshop said. 
Catholics have no tradition of growing in the Faith as Sunday School does for Protestants, and many of them have Sunday evening and Wednesday as well. The sick habit that many have of leaving at or just after communion is an old habit that should be dropped with education. Explained as rude, crude unawareness of the Sacramental Body of Christ and total disrespect for the oneness of the Body of Christ- the Church.

Agreed.  Weekly Mass should be where a person can continue in growing in their faith.  I am not sure I understand what you meant by “Catholics have no tradition of growing in faith as Sunday School does for Protestants”.  We enjoyed a rich tradition of catechism classes usually offered by the priest or a competent person that has been trained by the priest.  These were usually offered on Sunday’s but sometimes other days.  Also, when public school here in the US started taking off, the Catholic Church, especially parishes, asked for the Catholic children to be dismissed during their religion classes so they could go to a nearby Church/parish for instruction.  Our instruction, and how we passed it on, suffered tremendously when the old styled Q&A B.C was abandoned and replaced with books which lacked substance but made up for it in pictures.  It seems to be turning back and the realization that the Q&A is a good way to pass on the faith - take YOUCAT and Compendium.  You have a large group still that didn’t get this.  I had thought if the priest would start at the beginning of the CCC and add just one part per sermon, it would help tremendously.  But still.  As far as those leaving early, it would do best if we set the example and not worry what they are up to.

Not familiar from my days in the USA for decades of any adult school Sun or weekdays. Time was benediction on Sun evenings was dropped after the Council it seems, it asked for Evening Prayer, still is Evensong for High Church Anglicans not sure if they still have it. Doing the CCC would not be smart for the homily. For one it contains all the feasts and dogmas so if they are explained that would as I noted above are celebrated in the liturgical Year biblical cycle Putting some paragraphs, or listing their numbers would help - got to be careful of copyright for printing the whole text. Rote repetition of the old B-C was not a good idea. That did not lend itself to the more mature EXPERIENCING and gradually developing a personal RELATIONSHIP with the HOLY TRINITY living within us and most effectively present in COMMUNITY within the COMMUNION- EUCHARIST.
Delighted to see your evangelisation spirit. Peace.

This week, media reported that a ninth grade student was suspended for remarking to his friend that he thought homosexuality was wrong- in German class, when the teacher added the German culture of homosexuality in the class. Yes, more parents need to make “right and wrong” kids in this world!

The learning of the Catechism by memorizing Q&A is and was a good idea. It could be seen as similar to children learning math facts, etc.  One hopes this foundation grows and blossoms into a deeper relationship and understanding.  It is up to the person once they are an adult tho.  One thing totally different from those born in the 20’s and those in the 70’s is that the earlier group have been laughed at for their “rote” knowledge but the later is clueless and couldn’t give an answer if they had to.

I agree - but both approaches have their merits. KNOWING JESUS and KNOWING about Him.
Our homilists could inject more INTERACTION in homilies- asking if they bellieve, find Jesus in themselves, in others, in the Readings, in the Eucharist and in the poor and people dying overseas with their taxes!
I taught Uni/College HUMANITIES, did my own thing as the texts were two octaves above Pavorotti! Now writing a Companion to the topic in my retirement to bridge the gap for them

Moral relativism is everywhere. Parents,teachers,church leaders, etc. are all responsible for the problem. No ONE person. What is important now is to teach the truth, support and love those who live and suffer with the truth, and have the courage to live the truth. It is the grace of God that provides the insight and energy to do this. This means we must follow the first commandment: To love the Lord your God with your whole heart, soul and mind. To put God first. It is really hard to do.

What we are seeing is protestantism in a pluralistic democracy being taken to its logical conclusion. Of course, most protestants say they believe in morality and absolute truth, but if everyone interprets the Bible for himself, who is to say his moral understanding is wrong? Why would we expect anything different in a culture that is primarily secular?

Bad parenting ,no matter the religion or other belief system,or even none, leads to decay in moral standards.

Ritalin and ADD therapy was really a response to the psyche community being unable to treat the children or improve the situation that to simplify - was due to lack of providing stability,consistency and minimum standards in parenting.

When Mom went to work, instead of being frugal and doing better for the family,  families bought into more excess. Instead of Dad helping out more there was even less and less consistent parenting. Now that has fueled more problems.

Every secular and nonsecular organization pitching in and teaching parenting and logic skills and consequences and helping to provide stability where it is not, could help reverse the trend.

When one considers that the Supreme court can say under the “Stolen Valor act” that lying is supported by the constitution, then we dont need the Bible anymore, not even in a court of law to lay our hand upon and Affirm or swear to tell the whole truth (or even a relative factsimile. When a person is impowered by law or our constitution, they come away bragging that its their “right” to behave a certain way and for everyone else to go screw themselves. For the Supreme Court to say that a “liar” is protected under freedom of speech, is ridiculous. We can all Challenge the Truth now should we have to testify in court. Stolen Valor act’s only stipulation is; that the constitutionally protected liar, shouldnt take money or earn any financial rewards for their less then honorable “Munchausen” story telling. Otherwise, no crime of importance has been committed. How do I teach my kids that “lying” is wrong-incorrect behavior, when my Countrys supreme court aided by my country’s Constitution says otherwise? What degree of “Harm” does a lie have to reach to make it WRONG, or criminal anymore? Evidently financial gain is a “No no” and the only RED FLAG raising signal that a crime is committed but what about psychological and emotitional damage the liar and the lie create? How are we able to sue a Tabloid, or person(s) who LIE about us,discredit us, soil our reputation, or bring discredtit upon our Armed forces? What are we teaching our Kids here? All because of Freedom of speech?  Lying is a disorder among many people….so we need to enforce the “You have the RIGHT to remain SILENT, portion of the Miranda act…simply because anything YOU say can and will be used against you in a Court of Law.(well…not anymore) What the F@#$%????

“Brooks writes that “when asked to describe a moral dilemma they had faced, two-thirds of the young people either couldn’t answer the question or described problems that are not moral at all.”

What specific moral dilemmas was he thinking of?  It had to be one they faced already not a scenario they created.  I’d like to know the specifics of what problems were described by the 18-23 that were not moral at all.  Why did he go about it this way instead of giving specific scenarios and having them answer?
Is it wrong to rob a bank?  It is wrong to murder someone?  Is it wrong to rape a woman?  It is wrong to steal from your employer?

What moral dilemma have all of you faced recently and how did you deal with it?  Can you easily come up with an answer?  If you were asked on the spot would it be on the tip of your tongue?

I may be way off base Matt but often when I stop by your blog it seems you are always writing about how awful everyone else is and how terrible the world is.  I think I hear that alot here at NCR.  Yet I do learn from the discussion at times.  Maybe it is time to go beyond that.  We all know the world is a sinful place to live and raise children.

I’m going to think about my moral dilemma and get back to you.

Beth,
My last two posts before this one were funny stories about my children and my family. These stories certainly weren’t pessimistic and I don’t think my family is awful and terrible but I guess I’ll leave that to your judgment.

When did it become o.k. to have children and not be married? Some young women,in fact,have more than one child and with different fathers! The first child is born when they are attending high school. What would have been considered the unthinkable at one time has now become acceptable. How did their moral decision making become so flawed that they choose to live this way and to deny the children the right to be raised in a house with a mother and father who are married! Drugs and alcohol abuse are a way of life in many schools among the privileged and underprivileged.  If you are lucky enough to be in an intact family, chances are that you don’t practice your faith. People of faith as a whole tend to live moral lives. It does not mean that we are perfect. What it means is that we are aware that we are accountable for our decisions not only in the present but in eternal life. As a person of faith I really am not concerned with making moral decisions on committing adultery, getting drunk, or about any of the other so called acceptable behaviors of our time. Gratefully, God is in my life, and His grace sustains me. I could not live the life I do without His grace. It really does make a huge difference. I don’t intend for this to come across as boasting. I am keenly aware that it is God sustaining me and not me sustaining myself. When we choose to keep God out, we set ourselves up for all kinds of bad behavior that hurts us and society as a whole. We become selfish creatures. This is not the best that we can be; it is the worst. Our moral compass is set on “off”.

Did I miss something? The US Supreme Court did not it seems nullify the Stolen Valor Act signed by POTUS G “W” Bush. The loose canon ACLU and the way out left Ninth Federal District Court did. However, it seems a Congressman is planning to revise a new version. If it is Constitutional under “free speech” to lie about being in service what stops anyone from lying in ways that hurt others, despite their caveats ss to when it is wrong.
YOUNG ADULTS and MORALITY:  Further the main topic I would ask; What 18-23 year old has not dealt with temptations to steal, have sexual intercourse, lie and cheat in school, at games at tests,  at work by not being diligent, to adults/parents re drugs, alcohol, start or spread fasehoods or damaging info. about another?

Matt, I have no doubt your family is lovely:)  In general, too much time is spent in the blogosphere raving about how holy we are has Catholics and how awful the rest of the world is.  It gets old but I have a choice to read what I want.  That is only my perception which I admit is not a scientific study.

What moral dilemma have you faced recently and how did you deal with it?

I was very interested to hear your answer and answers from others.  I was surprised that you even respond to comments as some writers seem to post and run.  Certainly we all all faced with moral dilemas?  Had they studied 30 to 60 year olds we all would have come up with something?

I believe this is misguided. There are no more totalitarian, morally judgmental and oppressive places in our society than the completely secular university campuses. It is not true that moral relativism has replaced Christian morality. Rather, a new morality that is foreign to Christianity has become dominant. Relativism is reserved for aspects of life that this new code believes to be unimportant; much like how Christian morality is essentially relativistic about what color one paints one’s house. For those aspects of life that the new code does deem morally relevant, however, absolutely no dissent will be tolerated. The new moral landscape is scary not because morality doesn’t exist, but because the new morality is totally hostile to Christian morality and it is totally committed to its suppression.

Good and too true observation Andrew. Today’s absolutists are truly that unless they dismiss objectors and make themselves relativists. Irrational but they are in charge now.

A few kooky professors and administrators aside, the university academy is not overrun with absolute relativists who have no standards. Most educated people can articulate a coherent set of values, a structured system about right and wrong. Asserting that secular people are incapable of moral reasoning is ignorant. We emphasize different principles flowing from a different understanding of the world, but we don’t want to live in anarchy.

Being open-minded and humble does not require one to give up all judgment. It isn’t a binary choice. Some things are clearly right and wrong, like drunk driving. Some things can be left to individual conscience at no real cost to others. Some things involve two conflicting values that are individually worthy.

Understanding different points of view and not teaching about one and only one sort of thinking is part of being educated. If you don’t want that understanding, I feel sorry for you. Many participants in this thread claim to know how people quite unlike themselves think. You don’t have a clue.

No doubt, there is a lot of mutual distrust between religious and secular people these days, largely a faux-debate between the total fundamentalists who seek to impose their lifestyle on others and the total relativists who make excuses for evil. Most people are not either one of these, and ought to find a way to co-exist.

I teach history in a very liberal part of the country, and was hired after interviews in which I made a point of criticizing flimsy relativistic thinking and excessively touchy-feely baloney substituting for academic thinking. Let’s take a look at some of the assertions made in the original post:

“Through the imposition of secularism, we’ve created a Babel of morality.”

Secularism? You have to love using _ism_, a suffix denoting ideology, to criticize moral relativity, which requires a distinct lack of ideology. This ill-defined ideology has not been imposed because it does not exist. In any case, most secular people do not believe in relativism, where everything is relative and subjective.

“And the only sin worthy of castigation in secular America is to impose “your truth” on “my truth.”

The only one? This assertion is clearly false. Bearing false witness I think it is called. I also can’t figure out what it means to impose one’s truth on another. You can claim something to be true, and I can disagree. Neither one of us is imposing anything by talking out the moral dilemmas of life that young people are apparently not grappling with in a meaningful way. Secular people do not want the power of government imposing your morality across the board, that does not mean there is no morality or no truth out there.

And then there is the zealot-moron and amateur hatemonger Dennis Prager, claiming that Richard Rorty believes in moral relativism. Taking some complex piece of philosophy out of context is tricky, but here’s a Rorty quote to chew on: “The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own—unaided by the describing activities of humans—cannot.”

Which means: the world on its own is not true or false, it just is true. There is only one truth. At least some of our descriptions of the world is false. Metaphysical linguistics are a bullshit game to me, but it appears to me that Rorty is an absolutist who believes humans can never achieve omniscient understanding because we lack the ability to accurately describe truth. So he was an atheist. Seems to me that he has made a crucial distinction between the existence of absolute truth and claims to having had worked out what the absolute truth is. Do we not all doubt? Does not Catholic teachings embrace doubt as a part of faith? If we doubt, then we admit that we fail to construct an absolute truth. That doesn’t mean we don’t need with some standards that lead to a more decent and just society, or should give up looking for the truth.

Academics was born of theology because of a mutual commitment to trying to uncover the truth. Only some religions claim to have already figured it all out for us. Many of those religions are openly hostile to empirical truth, impervious to evidence and reasoning. They already know; they have a phone line to God, and we should let them set the rules for all of us accordingly.

America is one of the most religious countries in the world, and yet is an immoral place full of greed and spite. Huh. Maybe young people would be more attuned to moral reasoning if more religions encouraged thoughtful engagement and not a bunch of simplistic commands. Following orders doesn’t make you moral. It takes work. Acknowledging that some things are subjective doesn’t make you immoral. It is sad to see the great Catholic (Jesuit, anyway) tradition of intellectual inquiry !@#$% by binary black/white fundamentalist visions of morality.

The prior post should have read “baloney” instead of BS. I would edit that if I could.

But I have no idea why NCR censored the word “b a s t a r d i z e d, ” a word that is not an insult so much as a word for twisting something away from its original meaning.  By replacing that word with &^% symbols, it makes it appear that I am even more vulgar and puts a more vulgar notion in the reader’s mind.

Maybe that Rorty guy was onto something with this linguistic constructions of “truth.”

@ns - “Do we not all doubt? Does not Catholic teachings embrace doubt as a part of faith? If we doubt, then we admit that we fail to construct an absolute truth.” Catholic teaching does not embrace doubt. Catholic teaching “embraces” not fully understanding everything but assenting to that which is not completely understood nevertheless. Catholicism unlike Judaism or Islam or even Evangelical Protestantism does not say that other faiths do not contain some elements of Truth. Some may see Catholicism as hostile because what she teaches does not fit in with their subjective views of morality. That’s really the issue here. Never in my life have I seen such hostility towards Christianity and the aggressive angry mob mentality that exists today. The angry mob mentality seeks to impose its view on everyone so where is the tolerance in that?

There are rules for everything in life and that includes religion. If you believe in God then you follow His way; not your own. I don’t see it as following rules but acknowledging that I am a finite creature and He who created me is infinite. I don’t submit out of fear but out of love. My parish, has do many Catholic Churches, have youth groups where thoughtful engagement is encouraged. But you do reach a point where you have to say “o.k. I’m either going to do it God’s way or not”. Catholicism does not teach that everything is black or white but that on some key issues there are no areas of gray. Faith is not about following orders but submitting to doing God’s will and not your own. And, you are right, it does take work but the rewards are far greater than any of the perceived work that is involved.

As one who worked in the academic world, and the world of journalism I beg to differ ns. The students had to be taught objective and subjective truth to try and understand basic concepts, thanks to their prior home and public school background. The academics were so far left it was scary to try to discuss simple ethical issues with them. Relativism and my truth and your truth are both valid they said as the naive students did also for the most part.
ns I admire your integrity that got you the job but can you give examples of areas where two sides clash and are the same value.

Amen! I may not have always understood why I was following the morals I did, but praise God that my parents loved me so much to teach me right from wrong (and I somehow managed to squeak through my youth making mostly right choices… mostly…)

Congrats Liesl. Glad you sinned a little so you could grow in grace and trust in your weakness. Do not recommend that BEFORE the act, but a back-up plan B thanks to Jesus’ Mercy!

This is nonsense.  Say a Catholic upbringing is better, but don’t imply that atheists don’t know not to be cruel.  That’s just dishonest.
We raise our kids well too.  Read up for an authentic source.  Educate yourself and you’ll be less afraid of the dark.
http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/