Are all other worlds deprived of God?

[inocente]

1. What is a “some element?”

Suppose something like Galileo. At a time when the heavens are held to be perfect you observe sunspots, the acne of craters on the Moon and so on. So do you ignore your own eyes and conscience, and stay silent, even though you now know it’s completely false to state that the heavens are perfect?

2. The CCC is a bad source for quote mining.

I didn’t take at all kindly to that, as if I’m part of a conspiracy or something.

One needs to read both sentences in 1790 and then follow through by reading CCC 1791 -1794.
Please refer to post 470. Thank you.

No court or jury on the planet would agree with you that once said, any following sentences can deny any part of “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself”.

 

[inocente]

If our conscience is not our ultimate authority in this life please explain why Pope Benedict wrote:

“Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed above all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.”

From subsequent posts, apparently we’re not allowed to read with our own eyes what is clearly stated any more. Even so, I agree with you and the Pope, and when accused of quote mining will not say I ignored my conscience to follow orders.

 

[inocente]

Inocente, it’s an odd sort of scenario to suggest that Jesus would willingly allow himself to be crucified by the one other guy on earth. Most adult males are strong enough to resist being crucified by another full-grown male. I suspect Jesus would try to reason with the guy as a first resort.

I think you kind of missed the point there!

 

[LittleSoldier]

I wrote my scenario in post #464 to ensure you were not in ignorance, you had not rejected the Church, and so on, so I only needed to quote what I did. Perhaps rather than quoting the CCC again, could you explain in your own words why you think it is remotely possible to override any part of “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself"?

As a faithful Catholic, I accept all Church teaching as presented in the CCC. My own words are not necessary nor do I feel any need to explain what has already been presented by the Magisterium.

 

[LittleSoldier]

An argumentum ad hominem need not be an insult. It is the fallacy of referring to a person instead of addressing the issue.

Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

The personal attack is also often termed an “ad personem argument”: the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor’s character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.

The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of “getting personal.” The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.

philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

---

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is “ad hominem”. It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don’t need it when they’ve got ad hominem on their side. It’s the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn’t there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person’s arguments.

Therefore,** if you can’t demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can’t demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem.** If your opponent’s sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

I did not try attack you. You cannot demonstrate that I tried to counter your argument by attacking you.

It was not an argumentum ad hominem.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Who decides whether a person’s conscience is well-formed when that person has made every effort to reach the right conclusion and is absolutely convinced it is evil to allow some one to be killed rather than tell a lie?

Yes, indeed, who decides? I hope you recognize the similarity of your question to the following question (which is meant only to clarify, not as any sort of implied attack - I am here to try to find truth):

Who decides whether a person has correctly interpreted Scripture when he is convinced that he has been guided by the Holy Spirit - while at the same time another person, who has interpreted the same Scripture in a way which contradicts the interpretation of the first person, also is convinced that he has been guided by the Holy Spirit?

This is why Church teaching is so important and why I accept it, usually without question (I am having a problem accepting one doctrine but I am sure that the problem is my confusion - not the teaching). The Church’s teaching is here to guide us in the development of a well-formed conscience. Any well-formed conscience *must *take Church teaching into account.

As for lying - I didn’t think I would be able to stay online long enough to give a full response to that part of your post and so I didn’t even start.

Here I must admit that after reading an article for the first time (which I will present in part), I came to a screeching halt regarding what I believed the Church taught about lying. I’ve been in enough “lying threads” to understand that the word “lie” has different meanings (and I’m not referring to “lie” as in “lie down on the bed”). I was even in a thread in which I was accused of sinning for feeding ice cream to my Mom (a diabetic with a very low blood-glucose reading). Another poster in that thread had done the same and asked her priest if her “lying” about the sugar content of the ice cream was a sin. The priest said “no.”

So - either lying is not a sin in all situations or the priest didn’t understand Church teaching (or maybe he “lied?”). I wondered what Mary would have done if she had been in the situation in which I found myself. Certainly God didn’t zap Mary out of every situation in which she would be forced to choose one sin over another! (Well, I suppose He could have, but it just doesn’t seem to be very fitting.)

This is now a work in progress in my mind; I am trying to develop a well-formed conscience. Of course I would not let someone die if “lying” would save his life! My confusion (and what is confirmed by the article) may be in the definition of “lie.” What is a lie? Well, it turns out that this is a very complicated question.

And I don’t even know how to choose what to post from the article I just read. The whole article is relevant, from beginning to end.

Please read it. It’s very, very good - if what the author states is true.

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=242

In a past thread I had been told (and I believe it was backed up by Church teaching, although not the CCC) that it is not a lie if the person to “whatever” is told does not deserve to know the truth. So, for example (please don’t bring up Godwin’s Law because that law is really just tongue-in-cheek) I do not have to tell the Nazi soldiers that the Jewish people are hidden in the attic. If I am asked I can say “Nein!” while knowing that I am doing something good; I am preventing the murder of several people (I hope). One person in a thread told me I should just remain silent or change the subject, to which I replied that standing there silent would be pretty much an affirmation that there *are *Jewish people hiding in the attic, and that the soldiers probably wouldn’t respond well to a suggestion to go get some of that great German beer we all hear about. I would be shot, the Jewish people would be found and shot or sent to a concentration camp (or both).

Now I have discovered that I may have been misled, and not for the first time.

I will not lie and try to dig my way out of this deep hole in which I have suddenly found myself. I don’t know what the Church teaches about lying. I thought I did. Now I have to do some studying and researching.

How did we get onto the subject of “lying,” anyway? Because you believe it is the lesser of two evils? Do you think the Church teaches this? I don’t think she does because if lying is always evil it is always a sin (isn’t it?) and if Mary had been with my Mom (with that low blood-glucose reading) she would have been forced to sin and Mary never sinned and that brings us right back to God zapping her out of any situation in which she would be forced to sin (there’s also that priest saying that the “lie” was not a sin).

I do not believe it has anything to do with the “lesser of two evils.” I believe it is a problem with the definition of “lie.” There are those in that article that agree.

I desperately want to follow God’s Law, as the Magisterium presents it. I believe that our understanding of God’s Law is clarified over time. I’ve argued that many times. I can only hope that our understanding of “lying” is someday clarified by the Magisterium.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Everyone, could we please be a bit nicer to each other? Does every thread have to escalate into arguing? I’m not leaving myself out, here.

I’m here to understand truth. I’m not here to belittle, attack, poke fun, or do anything else that is uncharitable. I honestly want only to obey God, to become a saint, and to help others. If my language appears insulting, it is not my intent. I have trouble with processing language because of long-term opiate use. I also have a very dry sense of humor.

I had thought we were actually getting along and now I sense a battle beginning. I don’t like it and I don’t think anyone else does, either.

Please - could we all make an attempt to get along?

 

[LittleSoldier]

From subsequent posts, apparently we’re not allowed to read with our own eyes what is clearly stated any more. Even so, I agree with you and the Pope, and when accused of quote mining will not say I ignored my conscience to follow orders.

I would like to point out that the quoted statement came from Fr. Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict. When he made the statement he wasn’t even part of the Magisterium. We would need to find out if he clarified or changed his views when he became a bishop. Otherwise it carries no more meaning than any other statement made by any other priest.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Edit to post #504 (I missed the 20-minute limit for edits!)

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

[CCC 2483, bolding and underlining added by this poster for emphasis]

I’m not sure what the bolded, underlined part means. If anyone knows, please tell me. To me, a “lie” said in order to save a person’s life is not said in order to lead someone into error but to lead them *away *from error!

I don’t understand.

The dignity a person has, just by virtue of being a person, is certainly more important than a “lie” spoken in order to preserve that dignity! Isn’t it?

 

[grannymh]

Regarding “quote mining”.

This is an old CAF phrase. There is no conspiracy. It is when an individual digs up (as in the olden days) nuggets of informaiton. Out of context, nuggets may enhance a post. But taking nuggets out of context from the CCC is like thinking an elephant is made out of ivory from examining the tusks.

Quote mining is a general statement regarding a process which may be used within a post…

Unlike a modern court trial or jury on any planet, the Catholic Church spends a super amount of time, even centuries, clarifying truths. Nuances are important but cannot always be minimized to one sentence.

I do not mean to be rude to you or anyone else. However, in my old neighborhood, the response to someone who did not like the structure of the Catechism of the Catholic Church would be “tough cookies.”

 

[grannymh]

From subsequent posts, apparently we’re not allowed to read with our own eyes what is clearly stated any more. Even so, I agree with you and the Pope, and when accused of quote mining will not say I ignored my conscience to follow orders.

The CCC was considered a source and not a person.

 

[tonyrey]

How did we get onto the subject of “lying,” anyway? Because you believe it is the lesser of two evils? Do you think the Church teaches this? I don’t think she does because if lying is always evil it is always a sin (isn’t it?)

If an evil is the lesser of two evils it is not a sin.

I shall leave the matter there because I do not wish to confuse or upset anyone.

 

[LittleSoldier]

ANOTHER EDIT:

OK, I have now found the following in the CCC from 1995. It appears that what I was told is correct.

Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

[CCC 2483, underlining added by this poster for emphasis]

And *that *is why it is not a lie to say something in order to save someone’s life. The problem is in the definition of “lie.”

The article referred to previously was published in 2008; I can’t find an online CCC with a copyright date of 2008 or later. I don’t know if part of the CCC 2483 was dropped.

As for stealing:

The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing…) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.

[CCC 2408, underlining added by this poster for emphasis]

This is why I said that I wouldn’t lie in order to save a person’s life - because what I would say would not be a lie.

I hope this clarifies my position. I’m sorry to keep editing; I guess it’s good in a way because I’m learning as I do so.

 

[LittleSoldier]

If an evil is the lesser of two evils it is not a sin.

I shall leave the matter there because I do not wish to confuse or upset anyone.

I think we’ve been talking past each other. Sometimes English is a horrible language when it comes to communicating.

I agree to leave the matter there. And I do not wish to confuse or upset anyone, either.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Regarding “quote mining”.

This is an old CAF phrase. There is no conspiracy. It is when an individual digs up (as in the olden days) nuggets of informaiton. Out of context, nuggets may enhance a post. But taking nuggets out of context from the CCC is like thinking an elephant is made out of ivory from examining the tusks.

Quote mining is a general statement regarding a process which may be used within a post…

Unlike a modern court trial or jury on any planet, the Catholic Church spends a super amount of time, even centuries, clarifying truths. Nuances are important but cannot always be minimized to one sentence.

I do not mean to be rude to you or anyone else. However, in my old neighborhood, the response to someone who did not like the structure of the Catechism of the Catholic Church would be “tough cookies.”

Sometimes it’s difficult to know what to post. We’re supposed to keep everything in context while at the same time keeping our posts as short as possible in terms of quotes. It’s very hard to post Scripture because it’s all tied in together. It’s like posting one piece of a jigsaw puzzle and expecting everyone to see the completed puzzle, but then just how much does one post? All of Genesis? This is a skill I have not mastered at all.

I agree that with the CCC at least the entire part identified by a number should be posted and I will do that from now on. I called someone to help me with discussing lying and she looked up the CCC online for me (the storm has done something to my computer; it keeps getting stuck and I have to keep turning it off manually) and read the part about lying. She also checked “stealing”. I wanted to post the whole part and she kept saying “but it doesn’t matter - it doesn’t have anything to do with what you’re talking about.” I finally told her to just read it to me because it was important.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I wrote my scenario in post #464 to ensure you were not in ignorance, you had not rejected the Church, and so on, so I only needed to quote what I did. Perhaps rather than quoting the CCC again, could you explain in your own words why you think it is remotely possible to override any part of “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself"?

I wanted to respond to this again as I feel my original response was rather uncharitable. But I don’t know what to write. This is new to me. I believe that Aquinas and Augustine discuss it and I want to read what they had to say.

I would never want to override any part of what the CCC states. I think the phrase “certain judgment” is confusing and I also need to know if “condemning oneself” means “damning oneself.” I’m also troubled by an impression I’m getting that people might use this quote as a means of rationalizing their behavior and/or as a basis for supporting moral relativism.

I don’t think the quote can stand by itself as it makes no mention of a well-formed conscience and a well-formed conscience is what everyone should strive for. That’s why I think it is taken out of context when presented by itself.

Does this answer your question?

 

[inocente]

I wanted to respond to this again as I feel my original response was rather uncharitable. But I don’t know what to write. This is new to me. I believe that Aquinas and Augustine discuss it and I want to read what they had to say.

I would never want to override any part of what the CCC states. I think the phrase “certain judgment” is confusing and I also need to know if “condemning oneself” means “damning oneself.” I’m also troubled by an impression I’m getting that people might use this quote as a means of rationalizing their behavior and/or as a basis for supporting moral relativism.

I don’t think the quote can stand by itself as it makes no mention of a well-formed conscience and a well-formed conscience is what everyone should strive for. That’s why I think it is taken out of context when presented by itself.

Does this answer your question?

No.

I merely made an observation to granny, that ultimately we condemn ourselves when we act against our conscience, and to me this is entirely uncontroversial and is born out by scripture, the CCC, all systems of ethics, and by common sense.

Imho neither you nor granny have made a convincing counter-argument but it’s off-topic and since I seem to be on the same side as tonyrey and the Pope I’ll leave it there.

 

[LittleSoldier]

No.

I merely made an observation to granny, that ultimately we condemn ourselves when we act against our conscience, and to me this is entirely uncontroversial and is born out by scripture, the CCC, all systems of ethics, and by common sense.

Do you believe that you are the final authority? Do you really believe that what you have said is, on its own, born out by all Scripture, the CCC, and ALL systems of ethics? If you do, I really wonder about what is going on here. It may be entirely uncontroversial to you and it may fit in with *your *concept of common sense. What I am saying is that it cannot stand alone and that fits in with *my *concept of common sense.

Imho neither you nor granny have made a convincing counter-argument but it’s off-topic and since I seem to be on the same side as tonyrey and the Pope I’ll leave it there.

That seems hardly fair, as I have attempted to answer your question in good faith. You did more than “merely [make] an observation to granny.” You may have made an observation to granny; you also asked *me *a direct question. I have brought up the problems with accepting your quote, as it stands alone and most likely out of context. I have seen no definitions of the phrases that trouble me; not from you, not from other posters, and not from the Pope (I will be searching for other quotes presented by the Pope).

Your response troubles me for the reasons I stated in my previous post. I believe that some people will use that teaching, poorly worded as it is when taken on its own, as a sort of loophole which will lead them to believe that they can abort their children, use artificial birth control (both of which are condemned by the Church) and commit other grave acts while believing they are faithful to the Church and to even claim that the Pope agrees with them.

One quote cannot stand on its own. As I have already stated, there is no mention in your quote of a well-formed conscience or any explanation of the meaning of “condemning oneself.”

One section of the CCC does not stand on its own. There are other sections which need to be taken into consideration. Even the CCC does not stand on its own. That is why there are footnotes. The CCC was never meant to be more than a guide book; if it were to list all Church teaching it would have to contain the bible in its entirety and traditional teachings that are not present in the bible.

You may indeed agree with Tonyrey, but there is a very good chance that you do *not *agree with the Pope.

After reading your question to me I believe there is a possibility that you have introduced a straw man. That is a logical fallacy; you have misrepresented my position (the misrepresentation is that I believe it is permissible to override any part of the quote you provided, even though I have never stated that I believe it is permissible and I have now made that quite clear in my second response to your question) and have dismissed the misrepresentation of my position. I’m not sure of this as your question is ambiguous.

I’m also troubled and saddened that you simply dismissed my answer and imply that what you have decided is true. I’ve seen this happen before with other posters. You have evidently concluded that your agreement with one poster and your belief that you agree with the Pope ends the debate. The debate cannot end at that point and should not end with such flimsy “support.” No poster is infallible and the Pope is not infallible except under very restricted conditions (only on matters of faith and morals and spoken ex cathedra - and this is very rare; only two infallible papal statements have been made in the last few hundred years (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven)).

Any aspect of Church teaching *cannot *be reduced to one quote and agreement with one poster and a supposed agreement with the Pope (neither of whom comprises the Magisterium). It is much more complicated than that. I wonder why anyone would be content with such oversimplification; in fact, it is simplification taken to the extreme. There is too much room for error.

I can only hope and pray that you study this further (I will be doing so) in order to more fully understand Church teaching. To understand Truth is a life-long process; to accept something as truth based on one quote, one poster, and one’s personal belief that one agrees with the Pope (surely he has presented more than one quote on this subject!) shows, IMHO, a lack of understanding of the process of learning Church teaching and and a very incomplete understanding of that teaching. It’s similar to believing that 1+1=2 and then not even acknowledging that the rest of algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus even exist. I don’t understand why anyone would be content to remain in such ignorance. God’s Truth is beautiful; we need to always try to clarify our understanding of it.

Rationalization of one’s behavior.
Moral relativism.

They are both traps by which people, even with good intentions, can be ensnared.

 

[grannymh]

No.

I merely made an observation to granny, that ultimately we condemn ourselves when we act against our conscience, and to me this is entirely uncontroversial and is born out by scripture, the CCC, all systems of ethics, and by common sense.

Imho neither you nor granny have made a convincing counter-argument but it’s off-topic and since I seem to be on the same side as tonyrey and the Pope I’ll leave it there.

Please note that my counter argument is that one needs to accept the structure of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is simple common sense.

Apparently, there are people in the world who wish to counter-argue the structure of the CCC to fit their own perceptions of how the world should be run. That’s free speech. However, all the free speech in the universe cannot change Catholic doctrines as written in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Nor can free speech change the context of Catholic teaching just because someone prefers one sentence.

My apology.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The following is taken from the article I have already quoted. The link is presented at the end of the quotation:

The moral conscience in ethics and the contemporary crisis of authority

1. The voice of conscience
   1.1 What conscience is not

It might scandalize you to hear that I keep a lady in my car to instruct me on which way to go in life. “In three kilometers turn left,” she commands. “Turn around,” she pleads. “Coming up, on your right, you have arrived,” she advises. She is, of course, a global positioning satellite navigator and I would be lost without her calm voice telling me where to go. She can be wrong at times, due to mechanical faults or wrong information. Sometimes I ignore her or switch her off. But usually I obey her; and if I don’t I am usually sorry later.

In lots of ways conscience might seem to function like my satellite navigator and so we might call her Conscientia. Though I will argue that conscience is not like a satellite navigator, many people think it is a sort of angelic voice distinct from our own reasoning which comes, as it were, from outside us, even if we hear it in our heart; it is generally trustworthy, but we must decide to obey it or not. There is more than a hint of this at several points in our theological tradition. But whatever these texts mean, they clearly do not mean a divine or diabolical voice intrudes into our ordinary reasoning processes, commanding or complaining, a rival with our own moral thinking. If we experience such voices we should probably see a doctor or an exorcist! Were conscience really a voice from outside our reasoning it would play no part in philosophy and there might be some kind of double truth in the moral sphere.

Late scholastic voluntarism and post-scholastic legalism took moral theology down just such a blind alley. Magisterium became the satellite navigator and the role of conscience was to hear, interpret and obey. Many contemporary theologians and pastors are heirs to this. For some the solution to the crisis of moral authority is to keep calling for submission to the navigator. Moral tax lawyers, on the other hand, try to find ways around the moral law, or ways to “sail as close to the wind as possible” without actually breaking the moral law. Can you do a little bit of abortion or embryo experimentation or euthanasia without breaking the moral law? Can we reclassify some of it as something else and thereby avoid the law? What both approaches have in common with the late schoolmen is a view of the magisterium as a voice external to conscience which commands things to which conscience is not naturally disposed.

By the 1960s it meant something like strong feeling, intuition or sincere opinion. TO APPEAL TO CONSCIENCE WAS TO FORECLOSE ALL FURTHER DISCUSSION AND TO CLAIM IMMUNITY TO REASONED ARGUMENT OR THE MORAL LAW. “Follow your conscience” came to be code for pursuing personal preferences over and against Church teaching, especially in sexuality, bioethics, remarriage and communion. Conscience was now the highest court of appeal: it had “primacy” or infallibility. Sophisticated consciences yielded judgments in accord with the New York Times rather than L’Osservatore Romano. Conscience became, as the then-Cardinal Ratzinger put it, "a cloak thrown over human subjectivity, allowing man to … hide from reality."

zenit.org/article-19058?l=english

[underlining, italics, and upper-case letters (except those used at the beginning of sentences and at the beginning of proper nouns) have been added by this poster for emphasis]

---

Please read the entire article. I am trying my best to provide proper context.

Note the quote from **then-Cardinal **(and member of the Magisterium) Ratzinger?

As has been pointed out several times now, “conscience,” as used by the Church, is referring to a “well-formed conscience.” I hope that no one (and please do not take offense as I am not referring to any specific poster, lurker, or anyone else) assumes that the use of the word “conscience” as used by the Church means anything other than what it has been defined as by the Church.