Absolute morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter whyeyeman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is absolute truth, but humans are not always able to understanding absolute truth. When we express the truth, we may leave something out because we didn’t think it was important. Or we might add something because “it just makes sense” to us. That is why, when someone on the Internet tells me an “absolute” truth, I am skeptical.

Example: The death penalty. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
Click to expand...
I believe that that passage, taken in its entirety, is the truth. Others, however, conveniently leave out or downplay some of those words, to justify the death penalty in the United States in this day and age. They are either being dishonest, or they have an incomplete understanding of the truth.
 
Last edited:
whyeyeman said:
“If anyone says that man cannot be raised by God to a knowledge and perfection which surpasses nature, but that he can and should, by his own efforts and by a constant development, attain finally to the possession of all truth and good, let him be anathema” (De Revel., can. 3).
Click to expand...
With God’s help, we might possess the truth. However, a little humility is in order. In fact, that may be an essential part of the truth, knowing the limits of our knowledge.

Now let us return to the death penalty, since you brought up in your original post. By now you have had time to read the CCC passage I posted. How do you apply it to the death penalty in the 21st Century?
whyeyeman said:
Sorry, wrong quote.
Click to expand...
But I thought that quote was most apt.
 
Last edited:
So do you accept that there is such a thing as absolute truth?
 
I agree with everything written in that passage of the catechism. Pope Francis says that the catechism should be changed, though. He is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Wait a second… Did he actually say change the catechism? I do not keep up with all the latest Pope Francis news, so I might have missed it, but it doesn’t sound like something he would say, or could say, to change the catechism. I’m guessing he said something more to the effect that the Church could clarify how its teaching is to be applied in the world today.

I’m going to slip out of the forum for a few or several hours. See you all later, God willing.
 
Last edited:
A remarkably clear and informative article. It explains well another important point in the Catechism, that the Church can come to a better understanding of the truth:
Growth in understanding the faith

94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:

– “through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts”; it is in particular “theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth”.

– “from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience”, the sacred Scriptures “grow with the one who reads them.”

– “from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.

95 “It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”
Click to expand...
The Catechism is not only true, it is beautiful.
 
Last edited:
whyeyeman said:
It does not mean that one day the death penalty is moral and the next day is immoral.
Click to expand...
The death penalty cannot today be rightly deemed intrinsically evil if it was in the past rightly declared not intrinsically evil.

Perhaps (name removed by moderator)’s point is that the earlier declaration was wrong? I am unsure if that is the possibility he has in mind.
 
Last edited:
The basis of doctrinal development is that future statements of doctrine do not contradict past statements. If the Pope declares, as he wants to, that the death penalty is always wrong, then he is contradicting previous doctrinal statements. This is not doctrinal development.

The church has always condemned usury. Usury has and always will mean excessive interest. In feudalist society, “excessive” had different implications to on today’s capitalist society. The truth remains - usury is sinful.
 
You clearly know more about this subject than me. I apologize for my pride. Could you explain how these two statements don’t contradict eachother?

“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” - Pius XII

“It is, in itself, contrary to the Gospel, because a decision is voluntarily made to suppress a human life, which is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of whom, in the last analysis, only God can be the true judge and guarantor.” - Pope Francis
 
And this:

"The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives. " - Catechism of the council of Trent
 
The death penalty is abused and many people are put to death who’re not really that dangerous. Why put a one time murderer to death when we have villainous scum running drug rings and cartels? Why put one serial killer to death when a organized crime boss can run his business from within a jail? We’re not even considering politicians and world leaders who’ve done heinous crimes against humanity! The death penalty can only be employed when the person is so dangerous that nothing can stop them.
 
Thanks for the response. Is it legitimate for the “foundational principles”, as you call them, to be defined after teaching has already been issued on the subject? Because I don’t think the authors of the council of Trent would have had those in mind when proclaiming such teachings.
 
whyeyeman said:
.
It does not mean that one day the death penalty is moral and the next day is immoral. This is simply illogical, to say the least.
Click to expand...
Jesus was condemned to death, what does Jesus say about the death penalty?

From my understanding the women found guilty of adultery should have been stoned to death. But Jesus said, let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Any other words from Jesus on the subject.
 
When Jesus was on the cross, he told one of the thieves that they were forgiven and that he would be with Christ in paradise. Why did he tell him this? Because he confessed his sins and admitted that this punishment was just.

“And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes” - Luke 23:40
 
whyeyeman said:
Answer my question. Is truth absolute?
Click to expand...
Not always. Consider the question of slavery. At one time it was true that slaves should be obedient to their masters, but now slavery is wrong. At one time it was OK, under certain conditions, to torture someone by stretching on the rack, but now it is wrong.
But most mathematical truths are absolute, at least in the correct context. In physics it is different, because in physics you have to deal with time. So the law of physics are not really absolute laws but are subject to change in time. Take for example the law of gravity, or the speed of light. It must have been different at the time of the big bang since there was an extreme repulsive force.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top