Argument for relativism?

[soccerdad57]

Talking to a friend who is Catholic I was given this argument for not speaking out against wrongdoing (which supports relativism I think):

Since I cannot know whether or not someone who I believe is doing wrong has the stain of sin upon their soul afterward - and as a Catholic myself I agree with that part as only God knows if someone has the stain of sin upon them from a particular action - that therefore one cannot say that someone is doing something wrong because only God knows if they are sinning/will have the stain of sin upon their soul?

I think this argument fails from a Catholic pov because we are compelled to admonish sinners but in respect to the above argument how do we know they are sinning and that therefore we are compelled to speak out - does that make sense?

 

[1ke]

yes, you are correct.

 

[soccerdad57]

but in respect to the above argument how do we know they are sinning and that therefore we are compelled to speak out?

 

[1ke]

but in respect to the above argument how do we know they are sinning and that therefore we are compelled to speak out?

We do not know that they are sinning, necessarily.

We do know that they are doing wrong.

 

[soccerdad57]

We do not know that they are sinning, necessarily.

We do know that they are doing wrong.

In the case of an objective evil like abortion that is more obviously the case but what about if someone is saying “Oh my God” all the time - not in prayer either - if they didn’t know it was wrong or for some reason thought it was ok for them to say, then maybe they would be less culpable and it might not even be sinful? - couldn’t someone argue that since it is not a sin ( for them ) that it is not wrong - for them? - I don’t agree with that but am trying to put my finger on what is wrong with that - keep in mind the person arguing this way is definitley a church going cradle Catholic.

 

[soccerdad57]

I know this argument is sort of splitting hairs but also know that this is the place to get some catholic (name removed by moderator)ut on this - thanks ahead of time

 

[1ke]

**

In the case of an objective evil like abortion that is more obviously the case but what about if someone is saying “Oh my God” all the time - not in prayer either - if they didn’t know it was wrong or for some reason thought it was ok for them to say, then maybe they would be less culpable and it might not even be sinful? - couldn’t someone argue that since it is not a sin ( for them ) that it is not wrong - for them? - I don’t agree with that but am trying to put my finger on what is wrong with that - keep in mind the person arguing this way is definitley a church going cradle Catholic.

Something is either a sin or it’s not (i.e. it is wrong or not). It is not wrong for one person while being “not wrong” for another. that is moral relativism, a heresy.

 

[cxh584]

I am a new convert to the Catholic Church and we can make as many excuses as to why something is right or wrong. The most important thing that we can do is pray for them. If they have already been confornted with it and denies it than there is not much else that we can do. You have to know that you have done wrong before it can be forgiven. Most Cradle Catholic that I know have very little knowledge of what the church believes or what the Cathehism says about their beliefs. So, I say when in doubt pray pray and pray.
Chuck

 

[dmar198]

Talking to a friend who is Catholic I was given this argument for not speaking out against wrongdoing (which supports relativism I think):

Since I cannot know whether or not someone who I believe is doing wrong has the stain of sin upon their soul afterward - and as a Catholic myself I agree with that part as only God knows if someone has the stain of sin upon them from a particular action - that therefore one cannot say that someone is doing something wrong because only God knows if they are sinning/will have the stain of sin upon their soul?

I think this argument fails from a Catholic pov because we are compelled to admonish sinners but in respect to the above argument how do we know they are sinning and that therefore we are compelled to speak out - does that make sense?

He is right about the fact that we do not know if the person is culpable for what they have done or not. But what they have done is still objectively wrong. The wrong might not be imputed to them, because of their ignorance, but it is still a wrong action. You’ve got to separate the sin from the person – they person might not know it is a sin, and if they don’t know it’s a sin they wouldn’t be guilty, but the action is still an evil action, it’s just not imputed to them – due to their ignorance. Meanwhile we still have a duty to speak out against the evil and call people not to do it, and warn them of its sinfulness in case they don’t already know. Let me know if that answers your question.

 

[soccerdad57]

He is right about the fact that we do not know if the person is culpable for what they have done or not. But what they have done is still objectively wrong. The wrong might not be imputed to them, because of their ignorance, but it is still a wrong action. You’ve got to separate the sin from the person – they person might not know it is a sin, and if they don’t know it’s a sin they wouldn’t be guilty, but the action is still an evil action, it’s just not imputed to them – due to their ignorance. Meanwhile we still have a duty to speak out against the evil and call people not to do it, and warn them of its sinfulness in case they don’t already know. Let me know if that answers your question.

I think the part you said about the wrong MIGHT not be imputed to them also says that it could be imputed to them and for that reason - since we don’t know if it was or not - we should not assume that it wasn’t and risk them being condemned for it - afterall we are not talking about an innocent child but an adult with a catholic education and upbringing who knows what the church teaches but rejects certain teachings on the basis of ‘conscience’ either for herself or for others. Also, part of the issue is that I am compelled to speak out regardless of whether or not the other person feels they did or did not do something wrong - like views on abortion and views regarding homosexuality in regard to voting also.

 

[missadeangelis]

I think the part you said about the wrong MIGHT not be imputed to them also says that it could be imputed to them and for that reason - since we don’t know if it was or not - we should not assume that it wasn’t and risk them being condemned for it - afterall we are not talking about an innocent child but an adult with a catholic education and upbringing who knows what the church teaches but rejects certain teachings on the basis of ‘conscience’ either for herself or for others. Also, part of the issue is that I am compelled to speak out regardless of whether or not the other person feels they did or did not do something wrong - like views on abortion and views regarding homosexuality in regard to voting also.

We cannot judge the intention of a person’s actions, however there are actions which are objectively wrong. The degree to which that person is culpable is questionable based upon ignorance or in some limited cases personal circumstances. The latter really is a determination of whether a sin is mortal or venial. You can find this in the Catechism for example:

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

This should not be construed as a means by which to generate an excuse to blatantly sin though.

Regarding conscience:

“Man’s dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end.”

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

There are some matters that are black and white (abortion) and some which may be trickier to work out with one’s reason. One must educate oneself with Church teachings extensively to exercise a rightly formed conscience.

I would say if one wanted a blueprint for the methodology that should be used when forming one’s conscience, St. Thomas’s Summa is a great example of how to go about it.

mda