c.1200, from Old English sceolde, past tense of sceal (shall). Preserves the original notion of "obligation" that has all but dropped from shall.
shoulder (v.) c.1300, "to push with the shoulder," from shoulder (n.). Meaning "take a burden" first recorded 1580s. The military sense is from 1590s. Related: shouldered; shouldering.
Old English ahte "owned, possessed," past tense of agan "to own, possess, owe". As a past tense of owe, it shared in that word's evolution and meant at times in Middle English "possessed" and "under obligation to pay." It has been detached from owe since 17c., though he aught me ten pounds is recorded as active in East Anglian dialect from c.1825. As an auxiliary verb expressing duty or obligation (late 12c., the main modern use), it represents the past subjunctive.
114. Can we resist the grace of God?
We can resist the grace of God, for our will is free, and God does not force us to accept His grace.The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes clear that though we possess free will, we require the help of God's grace to attain perfection.
CCC 1700 The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God (article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude (article 2). It is essential to a human being freely to direct himself to this fulfillment (article 3). By his deliberate actions (article 4), the human person does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral conscience (article 5). Human beings make their own contribution to their interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into means of this growth (article 6). With the help of grace they grow in virtue (article 7), avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son to the mercy of our Father in heaven (article 8). In this way they attain to the perfection of charity.
There are some, however, who would deny to Catholics and non-Catholic religious people alike our inalienable right to freely express our religious convictions in the public square. There are some who might contend that, contrary to complaints from Catholics and others, there is no restraint being imposed upon religious people, and that all are free to practice whatever creed they profess. They would be the hardcore secularists who claim tolerance of all positions, yet by their refusal to admit to the reasonability of a moral order which accords to all an inalienable dignity, the implications of which require man to act responsibly with due respect toward all, they deny others the inalienable rights that those same elitists attempt to reserve to themselves as they seek to impose a form of morality, or lack thereof, upon all.
Hardcore secularists propose, of course, anything but morality. In fact, the amoral secularist frequently suffers an allergic reaction whenever the topic of morality, i.e., right action or right living, enters a conversation. The amoral secularist desires to impose a form of fascism that attempts to eliminate all competing systems of thought for fear of his loss of freedom to engage in every manner of undignified behaviour. That is, behaviour which is by any reasonable standard of conduct or appreciation of consequences well beneath the dignity of man.
It is shockingly obvious that we live in an era when man's sense of entitlement drives him to live without reasonable restraint. Obvious, that is, to those who are not ruled by their gonads. Ironically, those who would have all of us deny any moral law frequently attempt, like control freaks on steroids, to entrench in legislation their own twisted morality. The control freaks who lobby for no morality are out-of-control and are driving Western societies into the dirt. Which is to say, driving societies toward a devastating loss of inalienable rights and freedoms. Given that diagnosis, why should anyone indulge the anarchy of the amoral?
Here's one reason why we should not.
We in the West frequently have people with a strong adolescent proclivity toward self-centredness driving legislation that undermines the very foundations of Western civilization. We should not be surprised that, having created societies freed of any foundation on self control and self sacrificial love that places the common good above narrow self interest, our communities will be subject to more restrictive laws legislated by the same hedonists in power which attempt to reign in behaviour deemed unacceptable according to the new secular norms but which ultimately rob people of their inalienable rights.
What man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?—St. Matthew 7:9-10
Advent reminds us that we have a choice, the choice to do what is right and holy. May our 'yes' be made with nothing less than the full power God gives us as His children, the power to purify our wills and give our Amen so that we, too, may be faithful handmaidens of the Lord.