A theological argument FOR abortion

[R_Daneel]

Limbo is a hypothesized place where otherwise innocent infants who only had original sin would be deprived of the vision of God, but spared of any other torments. Therefore, you are implicitely saying that you do not think that a just God would deny infants the beatific vision only because of original sin.

The fact of the matter is that the Church does not have revelation about the fate of such infants. While baptism by water is the normative way of removing original sin, there may be non-normative means which God employs to remove original sin from infants. Therefore, your objection to Catholicism is not valid- for we do not know that God damns those who die without normative baptism. Using reason, I conclude that such a course of action is irreconciable with a just God- as you corectly point out- and therefore I reject limbo on account of my own reason. I do not claim to have revelation on the matter, but I can still use my reason. There is nothing heretical about this- we don’t know from the standpoint of revelation whether God removes original sin from infants, but we can conclude that He does fso rom reason. As long as we clarify whether we are speaking from the perspective of reason or revelation, there is no conflict here- and I fail to see how you think this disproves Catholicism

When the CC says that the fate of unbaptized infants is “undecided,” this does not mean that God hasn’t made up His mind or that their verdict has not been passed- rather, it simply means that we do not know from the standpoint of revelation. God also gave us the faculty of reason, and reason tells me that God would not damn infants because of such a technicality. There is no conflict here.

In this case I criticize the Church for what it does not say. It could declare loud and clear: “we do not have a Biblical support for the fate of the unbaptized, but, using our reason, we can declare that God’s love, justice and mercy assures that the unbaptized will be admitted to heaven”. Now, such a declaration would be an intellectually honest statement.

This is a frequent misunderstanding. It is true that there is only salvation through Jesus (God). Since there is only one being that has the attributes of God (there is a lot of philosophy summarized here), there simply can’t be salvation from by any other means- those means simply do not exist.

So, God is the only means to salvation, because He is the only one there. God founded a Church to be the normative means of proclaiming His will and bringing people to salvation. That’s why we engage in missionary work. God desires everyone to be in the Catholic Church because He instituted it specifically for bringing people to salvation. If a person knowingly regects this Church, understanding her role and mission, this is an outright rejection of God, which does not lead to salvation.

On the other hand, there are those who are not exposed to the Church and those who do not understand the Church. If this ignorance is invincible, such people may still be unknowing members of God’s people if they follow God to the best of their knowledge. Such people may be saved as unknowing members of the Church, even if they have never heard of Catholicism before in their life. This still isn’t the ideal situation- understanding the truth of Catholicism is better because truth is better than falsehood- but God will judge people in light of what they are fairly expected to know and do.

So, there is no salvation outside of the Church- but people are unknowing members of that Church due to ignorance. We still have an obligation to seek out the truth, which will ultimately lead us to Catholicism. This doesn’t mean that Catholicism is not necessary for salvation. Catholicism is the normative means of salvation that God employs, and He wants everyone to be Catholic to have the fullness of truth- but He will still judge people fairly in light of their invincible ignorance.

In the case of babies, they are still saved through the Church because the Church is part of reality- it is God’s action in the world, and babies do not exist in a vacuum outside the world.

That is called “conversion by redefinition” - one of the most ludicrous assertions by the Church. It declares all the non-Catholics to be “proto-Catholics”, and define the problem out of existence. Totally unacceptable as a simple word-game.

 

[JohnDamian]

For example, failing to attend mass is called a mortal sin, so none of the non-Catholics will pass “that” particular test - and thus they are “doomed”. Is this true, or is it false? Or is it true only for Catholics, but not for the rest? Maybe some of the “mortal” sins are not so mortal after all, and thus many of the Church’s stipulations are in error. Can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

Failing to attend mass is only a mortal sin when it meets the nessecary requirements for a mortal sin

1. Grave Matter
2. Full Consent
3. Full Knowlege

No one thing is a mortal sin regardless; for example - murder is only a mortal sin when it meets those categories.

Furthermore, people who do not hear the Gospel or do not understand it are free from the full knowlege of Mortal sin; their Ignorance prevents them from this type of sin.

 

[R_Daneel]

Failing to attend mass is only a mortal sin when it meets the nessecary requirements for a mortal sin

1. Grave Matter
2. Full Consent
3. Full Knowlege

No one thing is a mortal sin regardless; for example - murder is only a mortal sin when it meets those categories.

Furthermore, people who do not hear the Gospel or do not understand it are free from the full knowlege of Mortal sin; their Ignorance prevents them from this type of sin.

Ok. What is “grave matter”? Who defines it? Also “full knowledge” of what? Instead of “full consent” it would be better to talk about “informed intent”, but that is just a minor matter.

I was told that missing mass is a “grave matter”. I avoid it in full knowledge of this assertion. I intentionally avoid mass with “full consent”.

I heard it, understood it and reject it. Now what? Mind you, I do not reject everything. There are some general attributes of moral systems, which are prevalent across all societies and times. The golden rule is the most important one. According to my own conscience and the opinion of all my acquintances (both religious and not) I lead an exemplary life, so much so that many of my religious acquintances mistake me for a deeply religious person. But all that is for naught, if one believes the Bible.

 

[JohnDamian]

I don’t like to overly-quote but I’ll put this here incase you don’t have a Catechism / Don’t know where to look… This is the churches official stance;

Atheism

2123 "Many . . . of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time."58

2124 The name “atheism” covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be "an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history."59 Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. "It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man’s hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth."60

2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."62

2126 Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God.63 Yet, "to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God. . . . "64 "For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart."65

Agnosticism

2127 Agnosticism assumes a number of forms. In certain cases the agnostic refrains from denying God; instead he postulates the existence of a transcendent being which is incapable of revealing itself, and about which nothing can be said. In other cases, the agnostic makes no judgment about God’s existence, declaring it impossible to prove, or even to affirm or deny.

2128 Agnosticism can sometimes include a certain search for God, but it can equally express indifferentism, a flight from the ultimate question of existence, and a sluggish moral conscience. Agnosticism is all too often equivalent to practical atheism.

 

[R_Daneel]

I don’t like to overly-quote but I’ll put this here incase you don’t have a Catechism / Don’t know where to look… This is the churches official stance;

That is quite all right. Clarifications are always welcome, though I don’t know what does that have to do with the question of “what is grave matter” and “full knowledge of what”?

Atheism

2123 "Many . . . of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time."58

2124 The name “atheism” covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be "an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history."59 Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. "It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man’s hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth."60

2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."62

2126 Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God.63 Yet, "to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God. . . . "64 "For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart."65

Agnosticism

2127 Agnosticism assumes a number of forms. In certain cases the agnostic refrains from denying God; instead he postulates the existence of a transcendent being which is incapable of revealing itself, and about which nothing can be said. In other cases, the agnostic makes no judgment about God’s existence, declaring it impossible to prove, or even to affirm or deny.

2128 Agnosticism can sometimes include a certain search for God, but it can equally express indifferentism, a flight from the ultimate question of existence, and a sluggish moral conscience. Agnosticism is all too often equivalent to practical atheism.

Now here I will disagree. What is said is simply incorrect, misleading and wrong.

The two terms cannot be used as different “levels” of non-belief. Atheism is a metaphysical term, since it deals with “what exists?”. Agnosticism is an epistemological term, it deals with “how do know it?”. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god, or gods, where the term god describes an entity residing outside the physical universe. The usage of agnosticism as an “alternative” or a “middle ground” between theism and atheism is not acceptable. If one believes in a god, one is a theist, if one does not believe in a god, one is an atheist. One cannot “suspend” a belief. A belief is either there or not there.

Since this is a forbidden topic right now, we should not go any further, though I would love to rip it into shreds, sentence by sentence. Maybe some other time.

 

[Sarpedon]

In this case I criticize the Church for what it does not say. It could declare loud and clear: “we do not have a Biblical support for the fate of the unbaptized, but, using our reason, we can declare that God’s love, justice and mercy assures that the unbaptized will be admitted to heaven”. Now, such a declaration would be an intellectually honest statement.

They are moving in that direction. The following link brings you to the most recent publication of the Vatican’s International Theological Commission.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

That is called “conversion by redefinition” - one of the most ludicrous assertions by the Church. It declares all the non-Catholics to be “proto-Catholics”, and define the problem out of existence. Totally unacceptable as a simple word-game.

It goes much deeper than definitions. Look at is this way- God exists, the Church is His instrument, and He desires everyone to be saved. Would it be just for Him to condemn some native tribe that had never heard of Catholicism? I think not, and I think most atheists would be outraged if He did…

The Church is an instrument of God. It does not exist in a vacuum outside of reality. If a person has invincible ignorance about the Church, God can still act to save his or her soul if they followed God to the best of their ability. This isn’t “redefining” out terms. By definition the Church is an instrument of God, and indeed she is the normal instrument that God uses and the one that He wants everyone to participate in, but this does not mean that God is restricted to this one tool.

This is subtle but critical. Catholicism is the only true religion in that it is the only formal tool used by God in salvation. God normally acts through the Church, but He is not obliged to do so. A person who is in another religion due to invincible ignorance is wrong about the true faith- but his error will not be held against him if he is not responsible for that error. I do not understand why you object to this. Would you rather argue that God would damn someone just because they had never heard of Catholicism? That’s absurd, and the Church has never taught that.

 

[Areopagite]

I have been wondering about this. Too many times do I get the same response: “The Church has no offical teaching” on this and on that. Looks like a Jolly Joker to me. If one cannot offer an answer to an embarracing question, it is maintained that the “Church has no offical teaching” on that particular problem.

The first place to look is Scripture. However, the words used in the Bible are sometimes not understood in the context in which they were written, leading to possible misinterpretation. This is true of all literature of course.

The primary way to find how the Church has correctly understood the meaning of Scripture is through the writings of the Church Fathers (a rather vast body of literature). Each Church Father of course is not necessarily infallible in everything he is written. But if they all agree on an interpretation or theological idea with a kind of moral majority, then it is considered by the Church to be true, and hence part of Sacred Tradition.

The third source one looks to for Catholic teaching is the Church Councils. These address the particular questions of their age and puts particularly relevant doctrine in the language of the time.

And the fourth source one looks to are official papal promulgations.

I could say more … but let me address this …

What does the Church have “offical” teachings on? Is there a list? And please don’t refer to the Cathecism. It is neither clear, nor useful. I tried to look up problematic questions and never found more than bald assertions and empty phrases. For example, the Cathecism states that one can know God’s existence through reason alone - without referring to faith and revelation. I was most curious what that “purely rational thought process” might be. Guess what: there is nothing there. Zilch, nada, nitchevo, nothing. The empty assertion, and no details. That is the value of the Cathecism.

There have been lists of Catholic dogmas set out by the Church constantly. Some of those lists do not satisfy particular unbelievers due to the potentially infinite amount of objections an unbeliever can have. Sometimes some of the lists the Church has given do satisfy some … many converts I know actually are quite impressed by the current Catechism and said it aided in their conversion. Some people accuse it of lacking precision in the exact issues that they want addressed. I feel their pain, but I don’t sympathize in their demands for wanting a list that answers all possible objections to the Catholic faith. I mean, come on. Does any list exist anywhere that answers all possible objections to anything anywhere? The answer is no.

In this case I criticize the Church for what it does not say.

This is a silly criticism. The Church can’t say everything that people want to hear. People criticize the Church for saying too much (amongst its millions of theological writings) and then criticize it for saying too little. You want a clear concise list of Catholic beliefs but such a list would obviously not satisfy everyone’s detailed objections. But don’t worry … over time, the Church seeks to answer the issues of the age to a degree that is possible in human language. That’s why there are so many freakin’ documents.

It could declare loud and clear: “we do not have a Biblical support for the fate of the unbaptized, but, using our reason, we can declare that God’s love, justice and mercy assures that the unbaptized will be admitted to heaven”. Now, such a declaration would be an intellectually honest statement.

This statement would seem to assume that simply “not having sinned” is good enough for getting in heaven, but that would be contrary to a basic doctrine that is repeatedly stated everywhere in Catholic theology, namely, that supernatural grace allows one to enter heaven. Even if you were a perfect human (i.e. completely virtuous in your human nature), that would not make you fit for heaven. However, it would not make you fit for hell either, for only actual sinners go to hell. Infants, since they don’t sin, but do not have the supernatural grace that they were supposed to inherit (but did not inherit due to Adam’s sin, and this lack of grace they were suppose to inherit is called Original Sin) would then be neither fit for heaven nor hell. Hence, they would conceivably go to a place where they neither had the Beatific Vision nor suffering. Hence, the place commonly called Limbo … a well-reasoned theological possibility that the Church has not officially denied, despite what is being reported (unless someone can correct me on that).

Now, it is conceivable that God can give infants supernatural grace if they die and hence bring them to heaven. It is not correct to say that God MUST do so, as if the infants had a right to heaven. One thing that is sure, however, even in the Church Fathers, is that infants DO NOT GO TO HELL. Hence, if infants die, they either go to heaven or limbo.

Now, is there any benefit for dying later as an adult rather than dying as a necessarily sinless infant if in fact limbo does not exist (i.e. if all babies go to heaven)? There is. All saints do not enjoy homogenous amounts happiness. They all have perfect happiness (i.e. they have no sadness). However, some have higher/extra states of joy than other do according to the greatness of their works performed on earth. So, ideally, one would want to die an adult having accomplished great works for Christ. Thus, killing an infant, even if it’s going to heaven, may stop if from gaining a greater happiness if it lived longer.

 

[Areopagite]

Now, there is the issue also about murder and when it is right to take a life, and let me just say that the words “kill” and “murder” have fluctuated in meaning throughout the history of the English language, which has aided in the confusion. Now, forgive me, R Daneel, I’m unclear whether you believe in a distinction between just killing and unjust killing. I’ll try to read more carefully what you believe and answer your questions more professionally in some upcoming posts … hopefully.

To answer some of your other stuff …

What about those who heard the “good news”, but reject some of it, on account of finding them ludicrous? They may follow some of the moral code, which is part of, but not unique to the Church’s teachings, but reject the rest?

Part of the Church’s teachings are truths that are discoverable from natural reason (i.e. without divine revelation). So, if someone does not have the faith (through no fault of their own), then they are not held accountable for not following faith-specific laws, such as attending mass.

The Church also says that one is allowed to follow one’s own conscience. So there are no “clear” guidelines.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. What’s the connection between these two sentences? I could try and guess what you exactly mean, but I might be wrong. (and feel free to open another thread on this issue)

It is easy to cherry-pick some of the Church’s teachings, no matter what the objections are, and present them as “refutations” to that objection. Just like the Bible, where one can cherry-pick the verses, and find support or objection for almost anything, the Church’s teachings suffer the same “shortcoming”, self-contradictory assertions all the way.

Obviously I don’t agree to that. Get into specifics. Start another post. You know the drill.

For example, failing to attend mass is called a mortal sin, so none of the non-Catholics will pass “that” particular test - and thus they are “doomed”. Is this true, or is it false? Or is it true only for Catholics, but not for the rest? Maybe some of the “mortal” sins are not so mortal after all, and thus many of the Church’s stipulations are in error. Can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

As stated by others, mortal sin requires full knowledge. Now, this means that you have full knowledge that it’s sinful, not merely that you have full knowledge that you’re doing the thing (i.e. not attending mass). Obviously, if you don’t have the understanding that an act is sinful, then you are not blameworthy for the evil act … and hence it’s not a mortal sin. Does that answer your question?

On one hand, the Church states that there is no salvation outside the Church, while on the other hand it says that one should never make a judgment, who gets to heaven, and who is condemned to hell.

No contradiction whatsoever. While it is true that there is no salvation for those outside the Church (i.e. for those who do not die in a state of grace … i.e. those who do not die incorporated in the mystical body of Christ), it is nonetheless uncertain to humans who is in a state of grace or not. All grace is not necessarily channeled through the Catholic Clergy. God can dispense grace to anyone He wants, even to those who are not in visible communion with the Church. It is nonetheless true that sacraments necessarily provide grace (and thus establish a more secure means of dispensing grace), but that does not mean the sacraments are the only means of grace. Hence, people not receiving sacraments could still be in a state of grace, and thus part of the Church (not visibly part of the Church but invisibly part of the mystical body of Christ which is the Church). Does that answer your objection?

Now this tactics is relatively new. A few hundred years ago there was no problem of asserting that all Protestants and atheists will be sent to hell.

Really? News to me. The Church did say, though, that people who believed in Protestantism and Atheism in full knowledge of the faith would go to hell. That’s what they DID say. Nothing more. Unless you can point me to something I’m missing.

 

[Areopagite]

Isn’t this a new addition to the Cathecism? The Muslims were called “infidels” and fought agaist. This is one of the reasons that I cannot take the “declarations” of the Church seriously. They change, as the wind blows… though the wind must blow very strongly, for sure.

The Catholic Church never denied that Muslims were “infidels.” An infidel is merely someone who does not adhere to your religion. And the Church never denied that fighting Muslims was intrinsically wrong. The Muslims were fought against in the middle ages for legitimate reasons. We could go into this on another thread, but in short, Muslims, within a hundred years after Muhammad, created the largest empire in the history of the world at that point. Their domain stretched from Spain to India. And they didn’t do it out of self-defense. They did it in the name of Islam, as the Qur’an, Hadith, and Arab Historians all unambigiously demonstrate. Everyone they conquered too was either forcefully converted or subjected to harsh repressive religious laws. Much of the lands they conquered were European/Christian lands … so naturally, Europe fought them … and thank God they did. The Church has never denied that Muslims should not have been fought against during that time. Sometimes they use gentler approaches in addressing Islam, sometimes much scarier sounding words, depending on what seems more effective. There is no dogmatic necessities to stick to one approach or the other. But the Church has never contradicted itself in the way you are implying. They sometimes change the presentation of the divine truths depending on how words are understood in a current age or what people’s attitudes are, but they do not change the divine truths themselves. Simply referring to Muslims as “infidels” at one point, and then refraining from that term later on (but not denying that they are infidels despite holding some truths in common) is not what I would call changing with the wind. But you can call it that if you want. It’s an ambiguous phrase.

 

[Betterave]

The two terms cannot be used as different “levels” of non-belief. Atheism is a metaphysical term, since it deals with “what exists?”. Agnosticism is an epistemological term, it deals with “how do know it?”. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god, or gods, where the term god describes an entity residing outside the physical universe. The usage of agnosticism as an “alternative” or a “middle ground” between theism and atheism is not acceptable. If one believes in a god, one is a theist, if one does not believe in a god, one is an atheist. One cannot “suspend” a belief. A belief is either there or not there.

Since this is a forbidden topic right now, we should not go any further, though I would love to rip it into shreds, sentence by sentence. Maybe some other time.

False dichotomy, RD. And forbidden topic, yes. But just to clarify the terms metaphysics and epistemology: both atheism and agnosticism can express a range of particular doxastic attitudes (i.e., make various *epistemological *claims) about an ontological proposition (i.e., a *metaphysical *claim).

In case you’re wondering, the writers and editors of the catechism are familiar with the fields of epistemology and metaphysics, obviously much more so than you. Probably a little humility would be warranted on your part. Sometimes it’s not a bad idea to think to yourself: “Perhaps I’m over-estimating my own knowledge and intelligence relative to those whom I am so disdainfully dismissing.”

 

[R_Daneel]

It goes much deeper than definitions. Look at is this way- God exists, the Church is His instrument, and He desires everyone to be saved. Would it be just for Him to condemn some native tribe that had never heard of Catholicism? I think not, and I think most atheists would be outraged if He did…

Well, to begin with, I don’t think that it is “just” to condemn anyone for a finite, temporal deed to an eternal damnation. But what you say is also applicable to those unbaptized fetuses. And would it be “just” to conemn anyone for not believing an unbelievable story? For rejecting an unsubstantiated assertion, which is contradicted by everything we actually know? For rejecting a tribal myth, which is one among the zillions of other mythical stories?

The Church is an instrument of God. It does not exist in a vacuum outside of reality. If a person has invincible ignorance about the Church, God can still act to save his or her soul if they followed God to the best of their ability.

What does it mean to “follow God”? This is too vague. The Scriptures are pretty clear about the inadequacy of simply doing “good works”. Without explicitly submitting to God’s will, his commandments, the temporal good deeds are declared irrelevant. No matter how decently, lovingly one conducts his life it is not “really” following God, or is it?

This is subtle but critical. Catholicism is the only true religion in that it is the only formal tool used by God in salvation. God normally acts through the Church, but He is not obliged to do so. A person who is in another religion due to invincible ignorance is wrong about the true faith- but his error will not be held against him if he is not responsible for that error. I do not understand why you object to this. Would you rather argue that God would damn someone just because they had never heard of Catholicism? That’s absurd, and the Church has never taught that.

My original question is still the same: “what about those who heard it, and reject it - on account of having found it totally unbelievable?”

 

[R_Daneel]

The first place to look is Scripture. However, the words used in the Bible are sometimes not understood in the context in which they were written, leading to possible misinterpretation. This is true of all literature of course.

Not “all” literature. And the Scriptures are so easy to interpret to “mean” what one wants it to “mean”.

The primary way to find how the Church has correctly understood the meaning of Scripture is through the writings of the Church Fathers (a rather vast body of literature). Each Church Father of course is not necessarily infallible in everything he is written. But if they all agree on an interpretation or theological idea with a kind of moral majority, then it is considered by the Church to be true, and hence part of Sacred Tradition.

The third source one looks to for Catholic teaching is the Church Councils. These address the particular questions of their age and puts particularly relevant doctrine in the language of the time.

And the fourth source one looks to are official papal promulgations.

Majority never rules. Also, deferring to the authority of the Church Fathers or Councils or the Pope can only be accepted by Catholics. That is not a valid argument for Protestants, or followers of other faiths, and especially not for unbelievers. I am sure you know that.

There have been lists of Catholic dogmas set out by the Church constantly. Some of those lists do not satisfy particular unbelievers due to the potentially infinite amount of objections an unbeliever can have. Sometimes some of the lists the Church has given do satisfy some … many converts I know actually are quite impressed by the current Catechism and said it aided in their conversion. Some people accuse it of lacking precision in the exact issues that they want addressed. I feel their pain, but I don’t sympathize in their demands for wanting a list that answers all possible objections to the Catholic faith. I mean, come on. Does any list exist anywhere that answers all possible objections to anything anywhere? The answer is no.

My friend, I do not wish to get the “list of all lists”. But an explicit list of the officially declared dogmas is not a whole lot to ask for? A list which would enumerate the do’s and don’t’s of salvation? A detailed proof of the asserted “God can be known through reason alone” stipulation?

This statement would seem to assume that simply “not having sinned” is good enough for getting in heaven, but that would be contrary to a basic doctrine that is repeatedly stated everywhere in Catholic theology, namely, that supernatural grace allows one to enter heaven. Even if you were a perfect human (i.e. completely virtuous in your human nature), that would not make you fit for heaven. However, it would not make you fit for hell either, for only actual sinners go to hell. Infants, since they don’t sin, but do not have the supernatural grace that they were supposed to inherit (but did not inherit due to Adam’s sin, and this lack of grace they were suppose to inherit is called Original Sin) would then be neither fit for heaven nor hell. Hence, they would conceivably go to a place where they neither had the Beatific Vision nor suffering. Hence, the place commonly called Limbo … a well-reasoned theological possibility that the Church has not officially denied, despite what is being reported (unless someone can correct me on that).

Unfortunately what you call “well-reasoned theology” is simply speculation for me. The concept of “original sin” is a horribly unjust idea. God says that he will visit the fathers’ sins up to the seventh generation. Yes, I heard the analogy that one’s deeds will affect others. But that is just a physical law, which allegedly does not limit God. In my eyes, nothing can justify to allow the domino-effect reach the descendants of the guilty ones - and not only to the seventh generation, but all the way until this world stands.

 

[R_Daneel]

Part of the Church’s teachings are truths that are discoverable from natural reason (i.e. without divine revelation). So, if someone does not have the faith (through no fault of their own), then they are not held accountable for not following faith-specific laws, such as attending mass.

How can the lack of faith be anyone’s “fault”? Faith, beliefs are not under volitional control. No one can decide: “from now of I will believe something that I found unbelievable”? That is impossible.

As stated by others, mortal sin requires full knowledge. Now, this means that you have full knowledge that it’s sinful, not merely that you have full knowledge that you’re doing the thing (i.e. not attending mass). Obviously, if you don’t have the understanding that an act is sinful, then you are not blameworthy for the evil act … and hence it’s not a mortal sin. Does that answer your question?

Not really, though I appreciate your effort. I simply do not accept the concept of “sin” (the act of disobedience to God). As such I cannot have “full knowledge of the sinful nature of any act” - does that mean that I can never commit a “mortal sin”? Before you tell me, that I am told of the “sinful nature” of an act, remember, that I do not accept such a declaration if it is only based on a supposed “authority”.

The Church did say, though, that people who believed in Protestantism and Atheism in full knowledge of the faith would go to hell. That’s what they DID say. Nothing more.

Again, what is the “full knowledge of faith”? I was told about the faith, and I reject it.

 

[R_Daneel]

False dichotomy, RD. And forbidden topic, yes. But just to clarify the terms metaphysics and epistemology: both atheism and agnosticism can express a range of particular doxastic attitudes (i.e., make various *epistemological *claims) about an ontological proposition (i.e., a *metaphysical *claim).

In case you’re wondering, the writers and editors of the catechism are familiar with the fields of epistemology and metaphysics, obviously much more so than you. Probably a little humility would be warranted on your part. Sometimes it’s not a bad idea to think to yourself: “Perhaps I’m over-estimating my own knowledge and intelligence relative to those whom I am so disdainfully dismissing.”

Tertium non datur - even to the writers and editors of the cathecism.

 

[Sarpedon]

Well, to begin with, I don’t think that it is “just” to condemn anyone for a finite, temporal deed to an eternal damnation. But what you say is also applicable to those unbaptized fetuses. And would it be “just” to conemn anyone for not believing an unbelievable story? For rejecting an unsubstantiated assertion, which is contradicted by everything we actually know? For rejecting a tribal myth, which is one among the zillions of other mythical stories?

Your whole quote is full of questionable statements. What constitutes a believable story? What constitutes a “tribal myth?” What we we live in an American myth of scientism? What constitutes an “unsubstantiated” position? What are the criteria for substantiation? What do we actually “know”- and how do you restrict such a term to materialism? Why must be conclude that all philosophies are equal? Nothing you state is readily apparent. An “unbelievable position” is really an “unbelievable position by my own personal philosophy.” Whether or not your philosophy is on track, and whether or not you know what you are talking about, is a whole different matter. If you are going to trust your own understanding of things, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of your trust- and not try to hide behind bland stereotypes.

What does it mean to “follow God”? This is too vague. The Scriptures are pretty clear about the inadequacy of simply doing “good works”. Without explicitly submitting to God’s will, his commandments, the temporal good deeds are declared irrelevant. No matter how decently, lovingly one conducts his life it is not “really” following God, or is it?

We all exist as desiring creatures. We intrinsically recognize that we have desires and those desires need to be fulfilled. Despite this, all the things we encounter in life are unable to satisfy these desires- they may do so for a time, but they eventually lose their influence on us. Even intimacy with other people will only take us so far. Following God’s plan means recognizing the seeking out the most fundamental principal behind everything, which we intrinsically recognize as something desirable. That’s why we have so many tribal myths. It’s not because people are wholly ignorant. Rather, it’s because people recognize certain things and try to explain them to the best of their ability, even if that falls short. Once we encounter that principal, it transforms our lives in the give and take of intimacy at the highest level. This fulfills our telos (end) as human beings. Moral rules, good works, and liturgical rituals are necessary tools to bring us to this end, nothing more.

My original question is still the same: “what about those who heard it, and reject it - on account of having found it totally unbelievable?”

Passions affect our reason. Aristotle noted this centuries ago. A person who practices virtue can judge things more clearly, which makes the virtuous path clearer, which continually reinforces itself in a feedback loop. The same goes for vice, but in the reverse direction- vice clouds our judgement, which makes proper reasoning much more difficult. When we are children, we are faced with simple moral choices that are not complicated at all- and how we choose begins to send us in a certain direction. Every choice we make after that affects our direction, which then in turn affects reason. The two are intimately linked. If you judge something wrongly, but your error is due to your own moral choices, then you have little excuse. If you have clear reason from the practice of virtue, then you have nothing to worry about.

Human beings are not machines. They are living, adapting beings that reason as living beings. No person can be completely reasonable, but the practice of the virtues of discipline, self-control, and responsibility does free reason from the control of the passions. If you practice virtue, and you judge atheism to be true, then you have nothing to fear- for God does not exist. If, on the other hand, you practice vice, then your reason is corrupted and you are not able to see clearly- and you are responsible for that vice.

That’s why Catholics fast, practice sexual self-control, extol the virtues of hard work and responsible parenting, demand civic participation, protect the rights of others even when inconvenient, voluntarily suffer to gain discipline, work hard to end to involuntary suffering, and offer up the suffering they can’t end to God. It’s all part of a program to gain self-mastery, which frees the mind and soul to make the swift and clear ascent to the highest things.

 

[Betterave]

Tertium non datur - even to the writers and editors of the cathecism.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. *Tertium non datur *applies to an exhaustive dichotomy - so you’re saying there is no third, only metaphysics and epistemology? That sounds absurd, and in any case irrelevant, since I was pointing out that your dichotomy was non-exclusive, not that it was non-exhaustive. Try again.

 

[Betterave]

Your whole quote is full of questionable statements. What constitutes a believable story? What constitutes a “tribal myth?” What we we live in an American myth of scientism? What constitutes an “unsubstantiated” position? What are the criteria for substantiation? What do we actually “know”- and how do you restrict such a term to materialism? Why must be conclude that all philosophies are equal? Nothing you state is readily apparent. An “unbelievable position” is really an “unbelievable position by my own personal philosophy.” Whether or not your philosophy is on track, and whether or not you know what you are talking about, is a whole different matter. If you are going to trust your own understanding of things, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of your trust- and not try to hide behind bland stereotypes.

Thanks, S.

RD, I think it would be really worthwhile for you to slow your racing mind down and really ponder these questions until you realize that your answers to them (and many others like them), presupposed in your mind, cannot be presupposed for the purpose of (productive) dialogue here. We have no right to reject your premises without giving them a hearing, but you have no right to simply presuppose them against your opponent’s position. That is called begging the question, it pervades your posts, and it really kills clear thinking.

 

[R_Daneel]

I have no idea what you’re talking about. *Tertium non datur *applies to an exhaustive dichotomy - so you’re saying there is no third, only metaphysics and epistemology? That sounds absurd, and in any case irrelevant, since I was pointing out that your dichotomy was non-exclusive, not that it was non-exhaustive. Try again.

I can see that you have no idea what I am talking about. It would be absurd, if I had said (or insinuated) that. The “tertium non datur” refers to “theism” and “atheism”, which are still forbidden subjects. But pursuing and demanding linguistic precision is hopefully allowed. One either believes in anything or does not. There is no “in-between” alternative.

 

[R_Daneel]

Your whole quote is full of questionable statements. What constitutes a believable story? What constitutes a “tribal myth?” What we we live in an American myth of scientism? What constitutes an “unsubstantiated” position? What are the criteria for substantiation? What do we actually “know”- and how do you restrict such a term to materialism? Why must be conclude that all philosophies are equal? Nothing you state is readily apparent. An “unbelievable position” is really an “unbelievable position by my own personal philosophy.” Whether or not your philosophy is on track, and whether or not you know what you are talking about, is a whole different matter. If you are going to trust your own understanding of things, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of your trust- and not try to hide behind bland stereotypes.

It does not really matter, since I am talking about a personal acceptance of some story. What is my responsibility if I (personally) find a story unbelievable? As for the critique of the materialist approach, it is the default position. If you wish to show that there is a “spiritual realm”, then be prepared to show some foundation for such an assertion. As for substantiation, the criteria are simple. It should never be required that one a-priori lends credence to a claim, rather that the process starts from a mutually accepted position (for example the physical universe exists, etc…) and from that starting point you can show a reasonable and logical path to something “beyond” that.

We all exist as desiring creatures. We intrinsically recognize that we have desires and those desires need to be fulfilled. Despite this, all the things we encounter in life are unable to satisfy these desires- they may do so for a time, but they eventually lose their influence on us.

There are no generic desires, only specific ones, which vary from person to person, and from time to time. I read a few times that people have an intrinsic desire to know God, and that is just hogwash. I don’t have any such desire. My desires are to live a good life, to have a lot of fun, to play with my grandson, to love my wife and family, to read good books, to see beautiful places, to leave good memories behind, and zillions of other here-and-now things.

Passions affect our reason. Aristotle noted this centuries ago. A person who practices virtue can judge things more clearly, which makes the virtuous path clearer, which continually reinforces itself in a feedback loop.

“Virtue” is just a buzzword, which stands for “stuff I like”. It has no relevance.

If you practice virtue, and you judge atheism to be true, then you have nothing to fear- for God does not exist.

No problem for me. But I am curious about your reflection on this. What does the Catholic church teach on the subject of those who have been exposed to the “teaching”, find it “mene, tekel, ufarsin”, but otherwise lead a good life (without bothering to worship, of course). This is what I am curious about. And I don’t get an answer. Would you concentrate on this?

That’s why Catholics fast, practice sexual self-control, extol the virtues of hard work and responsible parenting, demand civic participation, protect the rights of others even when inconvenient, voluntarily suffer to gain discipline, work hard to end to involuntary suffering, and offer up the suffering they can’t end to God. It’s all part of a program to gain self-mastery, which frees the mind and soul to make the swift and clear ascent to the highest things.

Why do you think that those practices are exclusive prerogative of Catholics? (Again, excepting the part which refers to God.)

 

[crazzeto]

So would it be accurate to say, having utterly been disproved on their original premise the OP is now off topic grasping at starws?