I.

1. When the initial questions were asked, I was not having a very good week. For the extent of the week I had been getting myself into undesirable "situations" let's say, and I was not enjoying them one bit. Naturally, that would be reflected into my responses on that question sheet. Given the situation was beyond anything I could control, my responses usually spanned somewhere along the lines of not being able to do anything or just not doing anything at all about "What did you do the last time you were in a fight with someone?" Most of my responses were rather neutral, having not been able to do much about it, therefore they were also neither moral or Christian or Catholic for that matter. The Sermon on the Mount is very interesting in that it is Jesus' key teaching where he takes the Old Law and compares it with the New Law. Although he did that all the time, this time around he directly addresses the old way and confronts it with the new way. Many of the things Jesus says are very hard to swallow because they are so against the natural inclination of human nature (or at least my understanding of human nature if anyone wants to argue technicalities...!). The outline was a nice refresher on the Sermon. I find that if I can write something down it makes it easier to remember. I discovered in doing that questionnaire that I am not a very Christian person. I wouldn't say that I'm not a moral person because I think that I am actually quite moral, I just didn't have much choice within the confines of the situation I decided to use as my example. In most other instances, I think I would have reacted rather morally.
2. 
   From www.dargate.com
3. It goes without saying that the Sermon on the Mount, especially the Beatitudes are particularly special things that we should remember. If our purpose as Christians is to live out these teachings, then it should be something we think about every day, or at least close to it. I have not been like this. I think that these teachings are good to know, but ask so much that it would be hard to try and live them out in every little thing that we do. I will agree that we should all try to be pure in thought and action. This much is true, but striving to be the downtrodden so ours is the kingdom of heaven? Seems a bit off to me.

   Another thing I would like to remember is the rights of man on page 30 of Catholic Social Teaching. Right to live, Right to respect, Right to culture, Right to worship God, Right to choose for ourselves, Right to find opportunity to work, Right to engage in economic activities suited to degree of responsibility, Right to form associations with their fellows, Right to freedom of movement and residence in his own state, Right to an active public life, Right to legal protection. These are all fine and agreeable (although I question the reason why anyone has to write them down but that's beside the point). I think every man should know that they are "entitled" to these rights, but on the other hand if their government doesn't allow these or that it's not like any single man is going to be able to do anything about it. I'm not even sure the United States government provides all of these Rights to everyone. And if the United States doesn't provide them all to everyone, then who does? ... Upon reflecting upon these Rights, I have just concluded that they are extremely idealistic and almost impossible to live up to, but nonetheless they are admirable and something that we should remember.

4. Here's my question, I'm sorry if it isn't a nice one: Why does learning all this drive me crazy? My intention here is not to complain or insult the course, but to examine why I have such a hard time swallowing all of this. First of all, morality is such a sketchy, relative topic that there aren't ever any straight answers to be had. Because I disagree with the Moral Theology text in both the way it is written and (oftentimes) content, it makes it harder to take what they say as truth. I don't care if it's Christian truth. The way it is presented is obnoxious and confrontational. It's mind-fodder for people who already think that way. It's not trying to persuade other people that "this way is right, or at least worth considering." It begins by assuming it is right, or at least "not wrong in anyway" as proven by the Nihil Obstat Imprimatur on the copyright page. The Moral Theology book is unbelievably lofty and close-minded almost like the Case for Chastity book last year, but at least that one was FUNNY to read because it was so ridiculous. There is the first, and major reason, why I can't put my head around all this information. The morality definitions are the sketchiest of all! If you want people to understand what your stance is, shouldn't you try to make it simple enough to understand rather than using lofty words to skew the definition (the most obnoxious example of this is when certain Archbishops use the word "intrinsic" to describe everything bad)? When I'm told that "if I am Christian I should think this way, or strive to think this way, or do this and that" I feel angry and offended. Because I go to an entirely Christian/Catholic school, these "if you are Christian..." questions are obviously mind-probing questions to make you think, "Hey am I really a Christian?" and they are great for that purpose, but the more people ask them, the more I feel that I am NOT a Christian nor do I have the particular intention of improving that because I am happy with where I am. I don't have any definite answers and neither does anyone else. No amount of reading terribly written, (or even wonderfully written) morality textbooks is going to improve on any of that because the subject matter is not definite itself.