Bisexuality / Homosexuality and Radical Feminism - Connection ?

[LemonAndLime]

Nice. You prove my point by over reacting with your rhetoric. Thank you.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The part that I am having a hard time understanding is WHY is it only a venial sin to tell you wife a lie about how she looks in a dress, when it is a mortal sin to tell a different lie. How do you decide which lie is venial, and which lie is mortal? That is all that I want to know.

Mortal sin requires (in addition to consent + knowledge of the extent of the sinfulness), the matter of the sin to be, itself, serious (“grave”). Clearly a lie, or a diplomatic less-than-fully-truthful comment, about someone’s clothing, does not fall into the category of “grave” matter.

Intent is also an aspect of sin. A relatively small lie which is nevertheless intended to hurt someone signficantly, deceive someone, or indirectly harm their reputation, could be a mortal sin by its intent (malice) and its reach (respect, justice, etc.).

In the comment about the dress, the intent is charity, and the matter is minor, and there is no disservice to justice (unless the asker is demanding accuracy. ). However, in a different situation – say, a lab technician or a physician who is concerned, charitably, about a patient’s negative reaction to bad news, would be sinning grievously to lie about lab results with the intent of charity, because justice is being ill-served, both as to legitimate knowledge of the patient, and as to potential objective risk in not disclosing. (Also, in that case the lie is raised to a higher level of gravity because additionally medical personnel are authority figures on whom the patient is relying, and whose words are assumed to be truthful. Thus, the deception and the “station” of the doer magnifies the gravity of the sin.)

See? We Catholics can be just as analytical and juridical as any Jew studying Torah and Talmud.

 

[meltzerboy]

Elizabeth did say something separately to the effect about societal rejection being secondary to an internal influence or sense of boundaries at work. Anyway, I am basically saying the same thing after I came upon the Dutch and Norwegian studies in researching depression and suicide ideation in homosexuals. There is a natural law in place, a law written in the hearts of men guiding them towards a certain order in sexual union with another. What I submit is that if violated repeatedly or habitually, it corrupts something inside which leads to significant depression. The Church is right in regarding homosexual behavior as intrinsically disordered. I do not think that non-Catholics and people without faith who are practicing homosexuals are exempted from this law written in their hearts. It is not forgotten or disregarded without causing a psychological disorder. That is what the the Norwegian study suggested, which I cited in a previous post.

In both Dutch and Norwegian societies with a history of (more) tolerance for homosexual behavior, basing on the legalization of SSM a good ten years ahead of the U.S. and counting, suicidality is associated more with homosexuals than heterosexuals. Chrysostim asked just how tolerant these societies really are. I think there is no study that can be conducted with a parameter of zero intolerance. Is there such a society? While public institutions and customs like marriage can be legislated and controlled, personal and family moral standards at play in social relations outside the home can’t.

I don’t do research for a living, at least not anymore, if that’s what you mean with me working in the field. However, when I was working until family duty called, I analyzed medical malpractice suits prior to disposition via settlement or trial over a period of 14 years. Hence, among other things, I honed and retained the faculty of checking medical/scientific information and issues.

Anyway, I’m almost sorry that I brought up in my post the matter about transgenders because I was not looking to invite a side discussion on it in this thread. It is a whole other sub-group, but still under the LGBT umbrella. Yes, I know that transgenders are a different category from homosexuals, with gender identity issues not the same as sexual orientation of homosexuals. LGBT groups have successfully pushed for accommodation of demands in the work place (i.e., coverage under public and employer health plans), and now in other areas as well. As a psychologist and a non-Catholic, you may hold a view in disagreement with the position of National Catholic Bioethics Center, that sex reassignment surgery is unethical, and that the medical profession should not ‘collaborate in the madness,’ offering SRS for a clearly psychological problem.

Actually, there are accounts of some parents who are going along with the wishes of their young children who want to be the opposite gender in their outward / physical appearance, even asking other children to address these kids with the gender of their choice, not the physical gender they were born with. Just where will the accommodation stop? If this is not insanity, I don’t know what is. Although transgenders comprise a small percentage among LGBTs, the effect on practical realities in society, not just the cost of medical services, is not insignificant. The fields in law and medicine are continually expanding to address the demands of a particular segment of the population. The pendulum has indeed swung too far to one side, with LGBT organizations flexing their power. This is why I brought it up, as part of the whole set of questions I posted upthread.
,

Thanks for your opinions, Grace, which are always valued. I too don’t want to pursue the transgender issue since this thread is already sidetracked enough. I would just point out that this group of people is ridiculed by so many others who should know better, including some homosexuals.

 

[chrysostim83]

Elizabeth did say something separately to the effect about societal rejection being secondary to an internal influence or sense of boundaries at work. Anyway, I am basically saying the same thing after I came upon the Dutch and Norwegian studies in researching depression and suicide ideation in homosexuals. There is a natural law in place, a law written in the hearts of men guiding them towards a certain order in sexual union with another. What I submit is that if violated repeatedly or habitually, it corrupts something inside which leads to significant depression. The Church is right in regarding homosexual behavior as intrinsically disordered. I do not think that non-Catholics and people without faith who are practicing homosexuals are exempted from this law written in their hearts. It is not forgotten or disregarded without causing a psychological disorder. That is what the the Norwegian study suggested, which I cited in a previous post.

I’m not saying this is wrong, just pointing out that the conclusion goes way beyond the evidence advanced in its support. I’ll try another analogy here to show why.

Suppose you found a study from a country where people who are reasonably inferred to have engaged in same sex sexual behaviors are put to death. The study reports: (1) the country in question has a pretty high degree of intolerance toward homosexuals; (2) the incidence of same sex sexual behaviors is low; (3) the incidence of suicide associated with homosexuality is virtually nonexistent, and therefore low relative to the incidence of suicide among heterosexuals. Would it be correct to conclude that the country in question is a better place for homosexuals to live? Would it be correct to say that the lower incidence of suicide associated with homosexuality was due to the low incidence of same sex sexual behaviors?

In both Dutch and Norwegian societies with a history of (more) tolerance for homosexual behavior, basing on the legalization of SSM a good ten years ahead of the U.S. and counting, suicidality is associated more with homosexuals than heterosexuals. Chrysostim asked just how tolerant these societies really are. I think there is no study that can be conducted with a parameter of zero intolerance. Is there such a society?

Probably not. But it’s not unreasonable to believe that the overall level of intolerance in a nation (again, whatever that means) is a worthless proxy for the exposure to intolerance actually experienced by the homosexual subjects who were studied. Or maybe someone could tell me the last time they saw an anti-gay marriage amendment beating up a gay kid in a high school.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

InSearchofGrace;7813873:

You have not

made the connection of the Netherlands Ministry of Public Health with Dr. Nicolosi or the group that you habitually disparage for not falling in line with the APA, notwithstanding its own following even after mainstream professionals continously discredit it.

Just provide a cite of a credible link or source instead of making a representation please and we can put your claim to bed with my thanks.
,

actually NARTH doesn’t fall in line with anyone it’s not just the APA -
The British Medical ***. is another that speaks out against this group

I am not sure what a credible link is to show you the connection - go to the NARTH website and you you should be able to see their affiliates -
I did look but there is too much in Dutch and i am way too tired right now to try and find what you think is credible …
ie - not from a secular site or a site that supports gay marriage…
and not in Dutch -

It would be a cleaner debate if you are prepared to back up claims before you make them in this forum. Otherwise, what you state would just be prattle and you can’t establish credibility. In addition, it is not okay to put the burden of verification on the other side to support what you assert to begin with.

The reason that you are not able to provide evidence to the particular claim you made is there is none. I am quite familiar with the NARTH site, even as you and some others routinely badmouth all professionals associated with it, from Dr. Nicolosi down to the bottom rung of the organization. There are reputable medical professionals such as Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons and Dr. Jeffrey Santinover among its consultants for whom Catholic Church officials, as well as those from other religious groups, Jewish and LDS, have high esteem. Just because Dr. George Rekers was personally involved in a scandal is not reason to trash the whole mission and program of NARTH. You brought it up gratuitously in the thread, right after a claim of connection (of the Dutch study I cited and NARTH) which you did not have the ability to prove.

NARTH and Dr. Nicolosi have a following, whether you and some others like it or not. No therapist, academician or scientist has the moral ground to stop homosexuals who have the right to seek treatment from the battery of professionals connected with NARTH, who are fewer and wields less power than the mainstream group the mighty APA endorses.

Then, as a parting shot, you lamely throw another distraction by implying that I asked a link from you which is only credible to me. Please.
,

 

[Peepers]

Again - I have laid out the Church’s position about the difference between venial and mortal sin, which is the model that I follow.

I presented you with quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

I have given you several examples of what those differences are, yet you respond as if nobody has explained anything to you.

I have done ALL of this to accommodate you - even though this is NOT the topic of the thread.

If you want to continue to hijack this thread, I will leave it up to the moderators because what you are doing is against forum rules as I have already pointed out.

I am tempted to say that your feigning not to understand the question is avoidance because you are cornered. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I tried to state the question clearly, but you just don’t understand. If you do understand, then I think it would have been more courageous of you simply to say that you choose not to answer it. That would be OK too.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am tempted to say that your feigning not to understand the question is avoidance because you are cornered. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I tried to state the question clearly, but you just don’t understand. If you do understand, then I think it would have been more courageous of you simply to say that you choose not to answer it. That would be OK too.

I myself tried to answer your question for you in my post 477.

Mortal sin requries grave matter. In general, the Church defines what that encompasses: through the Catechism, the 10 Commandments, the vices (cardinal sins), etc. In addition, there are some Examinations of Conscience, published by various Catholic sources & even parishes, which categorize by mortal and venial.

Some grave matter would have to be extrapolated from the above, and through common sense. Thus, in the example I gave, laboratory results are serious business, so to lie about those, even with supposedly good intent, would be a grave matter.

The other two conditions for mortal sin are full knowledge of its sinfulness and full consent to it (not being forced, not being under sedation, etc.)

Thus, a grave matter that is not known by the doer as such, would render an otherwise mortal sin venial.

 

[cathoichelp]

It would be a cleaner debate if you are prepared to back up claims before you make them in this forum. Otherwise, what you state would just be prattle and you can’t establish credibility. In addition, it is not okay to put the burden of verification on the other side to support what you assert to begin with.

The reason that you are not able to provide evidence to the particular claim you made is there is none. I am quite familiar with the NARTH site, even as you and some others routinely badmouth all professionals associated with it, from Dr. Nicolosi down to the bottom rung of the organization. There are reputable medical professionals such as Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons and Dr. Jeffrey Santinover among its consultants for whom Catholic Church officials, as well as those from other religious groups, Jewish and LDS, have high esteem. Just because Dr. George Rekers was personally involved in a scandal is not reason to trash the whole mission and program of NARTH. You brought it up gratuitously in the thread, right after a claim of connection (of the Dutch study I cited and NARTH) which you did not have the ability to prove.

NARTH and Dr. Nicolosi have a following, whether you and some others like it or not. No therapist, academician or scientist has the moral ground to stop homosexuals who have the right to seek treatment from the battery of professionals connected with NARTH, who are fewer and wields less power than the mainstream group the mighty APA endorses.

Then, as a parting shot, you lamely throw another distraction by implying that I asked a link from you which is only credible to me. Please.
,

I am not sure what you want as a link- do you want a link to NARTH using those studies?
Or the studies the Dutch PH minstry funded to counteract the study that ended up being used for organizations like NARTH?

That study was suppose to produce data showing the difference between suicide rates in gay men and lesbians -
Instead it made claims that can’t be backed about the Netherlands being tolerant and was given to NARTH…
Every single lecture by Dr. Nicolosi uses that study …
Why don’t you PM me and let me know exactly what it is you want to see.

 

[Peepers]

There is a natural law in place, a law written in the hearts of men guiding them towards a certain order in sexual union with another. What I submit is that if violated repeatedly or habitually, it corrupts something inside which leads to significant depression. The Church is right in regarding homosexual behavior as intrinsically disordered. I do not think that non-Catholics and people without faith who are practicing homosexuals are exempted from this law written in their hearts. It is not forgotten or disregarded without causing a psychological disorder.
,

So, you are stating that by its very nature homosexuality is confused or out of proper arrangement with a natural law, which results in some sort of emotional and cognitive dissonance which leads to depression. Am I correct in paraphrasing your opinion?

How do you explain the apparent emergence of the current generation of gay people who are self actualized and happy with their sexuality, who are demanding the right to marry? Any psychologist with the data may jump in here, but my understanding is that gay folks are as happy as anyone else, on average, when they live in a place which does not persecute them.

When the Church talks about “natural law”, it only speaks from a theological and moral position. If you were to read Benedict’s statements on current topics in biology, it is apparent to anyone with an even modest education in the topics he tries to address that he is unable to speak with any authority on topics of biology. He confuses terms and concepts, and does not even know what he is saying with the terms that he uses. In that sense, he is clearly not talking about any “natural law” from the scientific or “natural sciences” perspective. He is a theologian and a moralist, but he is no scientist.

The Church began using phrases like “natural law” at a time when there was little distinction between philosophy, religion and science. Those days are over. It is important to realize that theologians are not scientists, and also the converse it true. The Church should not be taken as an authority in areas of science.

It appears to me that you are confusing the differing ways in which the term “natural law” is used.

 

[Peepers]

I myself tried to answer your question for you in my post 477.

Mortal sin requries grave matter. In general, the Church defines what that encompasses: through the Catechism, the 10 Commandments, the vices (cardinal sins), etc. In addition, there are some Examinations of Conscience, published by various Catholic sources & even parishes, which categorize by mortal and venial.

Some grave matter would have to be extrapolated from the above, and through common sense. Thus, in the example I gave, laboratory results are serious business, so to lie about those, even with supposedly good intent, would be a grave matter.

The other two conditions for mortal sin are full knowledge of its sinfulness and full consent to it (not being forced, not being under sedation, etc.)

Thus, a grave matter that is not known by the doer as such, would render an otherwise mortal sin venial.

Thanks, Elizabeth. That makes more sense to me. I fail to see how this is not the dreaded “moral relativism” in practice. In the example given, I know that lying is a sin. I decide if the matter is a grave matter, depending on the outcome which I predict. The example which I gave was lying to save my Jewish guest from the SS at the door. An equally moral position is that the good SS men are acting for the greater good of society, and that any harm that comes to my guest is unintentional… merely a side effect of my morally upright action. Can you clarify how this is not “moral relativism”. My sense is that the Church has been on of the great “moral relativists” of all time, and that there is a fad or a radical change in the Church going on right now.

To be clear, my position is that an absolute moral standard is necessary, but with the vagaries, surprises, and twists and turns of life, that we are required to be “moral relativists” moment by moment in order to effectively apply and absolute moral standard in our lives. Does this disagree with the Church’s teaching, as you understand it?

 

[cathoichelp]

So, you are stating that by its very nature homosexuality is confused or out of proper arrangement with a natural law, which results in some sort of emotional and cognitive dissonance which leads to depression. Am I correct in paraphrasing your opinion?

How do you explain the apparent emergence of the current generation of gay people who are self actualized and happy with their sexuality, who are demanding the right to marry? Any psychologist with the data may jump in here, but my understanding is that gay folks are as happy as anyone else, on average, when they live in a place which does not persecute them.

When the Church talks about “natural law”, it only speaks from a theological and moral position. If you were to read Benedict’s statements on current topics in biology, it is apparent to anyone with an even modest education in the topics he tries to address that he is unable to speak with any authority on topics of biology. He confuses terms and concepts, and does not even know what he is saying with the terms that he uses. In that sense, he is clearly not talking about any “natural law” from the scientific or “natural sciences” perspective. He is a theologian and a moralist, but he is no scientist.

The Church began using phrases like “natural law” at a time when there was little distinction between philosophy, religion and science. Those days are over. It is important to realize that theologians are not scientists, and also the converse it true. The Church should not be taken as an authority in areas of science.

It appears to me that you are confusing the differing ways in which the term “natural law” is used.

I agree with this …
While a heterosexual relationship for me follows natural law … For my brother who is gay - his nature is to have a relationship with another man.
His nature is not to live a life of celibacy. Doing that is fighting his nature… He would have to fight against himself to do that-
that is not natural at all.
He is not depressed -suicidal - on drugs- unhappy- ect…
He he has a wonderful relationship w an amazing man- he graduate top of his class in high school and college… He has lived abroad - has a beautiful house is in great shape plays rugby ect …

To bring this thread back to the topic
-No homosexuality doesn’t have anything to do w radical feminism. There is no connection.
Homosexual people would exist regardless and the only reason there is a gender issue is because there is gender bias in our society.
There have always been homosexuals. We live in a world (in a country) where it is acceptable to stand up for civil rights.
There is a connection between woman’s rights and African American civil rights and gay rights …
But radical feminism is an ideology -

 

[Elizabeth502]

Thanks, Elizabeth. That makes more sense to me. I fail to see how this is not the dreaded “moral relativism” in practice. In the example given, I know that lying is a sin. I decide if the matter is a grave matter, depending on the outcome which I predict. The example which I gave was lying to save my Jewish guest from the SS at the door. An equally moral position is that the good SS men are acting for the greater good of society, and that any harm that comes to my guest is unintentional… merely a side effect of my morally upright action. Can you clarify how this is not “moral relativism”. My sense is that the Church has been on of the great “moral relativists” of all time, and that there is a fad or a radical change in the Church going on right now.

Before directly answering that , I was formulating a response to a different post of yours, so I would like to first just post that:

So, you are stating that by its very nature homosexuality is confused or out of proper arrangement with a natural law, which results in some sort of emotional and cognitive dissonance which leads to depression. Am I correct in paraphrasing your opinion?

How do you explain the apparent emergence of the current generation of gay people who are self actualized and happy with their sexuality, who are demanding the right to marry? Any psychologist with the data may jump in here, but my understanding is that gay folks are as happy as anyone else, on average, when they live in a place which does not persecute them.

When the Church talks about “natural law”, it only speaks from a theological and moral position. If you were to read Benedict’s statements on current topics in biology, it is apparent to anyone with an even modest education in the topics he tries to address that he is unable to speak with any authority on topics of biology. He confuses terms and concepts, and does not even know what he is saying with the terms that he uses. In that sense, he is clearly not talking about any “natural law” from the scientific or “natural sciences” perspective. He is a theologian and a moralist, but he is no scientist.

The Church began using phrases like “natural law” at a time when there was little distinction between philosophy, religion and science. Those days are over. It is important to realize that theologians are not scientists, and also the converse it true. The Church should not be taken as an authority in areas of science.

It appears to me that you are confusing the differing ways in which the term “natural law” is used.

VATICAN CITY (VIS) - Benedict XVI focused Wednesday morning’s general audience on the figure of John of Salisbury, a philosopher and theologian born in England towards the beginning of the twelfth century.

Educated in Paris and Chartres, John of Salisbury acted as counselor to various archbishops of Canterbury at whose service he placed his vast knowledge and diplomatic skills. One of these was Thomas Becket whom John followed into exile in France when that archbishop fell into dispute with King Henry II who wished to affirmed his authority over the Church and thus limit her freedom. As an elderly man, John was appointed bishop of Chartres, where he remained until his death in 1180.

The Pope mentioned John of Salisbury’s two principal works: the “Metaloghicon” (In defense of logic) and the “Policraticus” (The man of government). In the first of these John expresses the view that “believers and theologians who study the treasure of the faith deeply also open themselves to the practical knowledge which guides everyday actions; in other words, to moral laws and the exercise of virtue”.

The central thesis of the “Policraticus” is that there exists “an objective and immutable truth, the origin of which is in God, a truth accessible to human reason and which concerns practical and social activities. This is a natural law from which human legislation, and political and religious authorities, must draw inspiration in order to
promote the common good”. This natural law is characterized by a property “which John calls ‘equity’, by which he means giving each person his rights. From here arise precepts which are legitimate to all peoples and which cannot under any circumstances be abrogated”.

“The question of the relationship between natural law and positive law, as mediated by equity, is still of great importance”, said Benedict XVI. "Indeed, in our own time, and especially in certain countries, we are witnessing a disquieting fracture between reason, which has the task of discovering the ethical values associated with human dignity, and freedom, which has the responsibility of accepting and promoting those values.

“Perhaps”, he added, "John of Salisbury would remind us today that the only ‘equitable’ laws are those that defend the sacredness of human life and reject the legitimacy of abortion, euthanasia and unrestrained genetic experimentation; the laws that respect the dignity of marriage between a man and a woman, that are inspired by a correct understanding of the secularism of the State - a secularism that must always include the safeguarding of religious freedom - and that seek subsidiarity and solidarity at the national and international level.

“Otherwise”, the Holy Father concluded: “we would end up with what John of Salisbury defined as the ‘tyranny of the prince’ or, as we would say, ‘the dictatorship of relativism’, a relativism which, as I said some years ago, ‘recognizes nothing as definite and has as its ultimate measure only the self and its own desires’”.

www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=35048

 

[Peepers]

I agree with this …
While a heterosexual relationship for me follows natural law … For my brother who is gay - his nature is to have a relationship with another man.
His nature is not to live a life of celibacy. Doing that is fighting his nature… He would have to fight against himself to do that-
that is not natural at all.
He is not depressed -suicidal - on drugs- unhappy- ect…
He he has a wonderful relationship w an amazing man- he graduate top of his class in high school and college… He has lived abroad - has a beautiful house is in great shape plays rugby ect …

To bring this thread back to the topic
-No homosexuality doesn’t have anything to do w radical feminism. There is no connection.
Homosexual people would exist regardless and the only reason there is a gender issue is because there is gender bias in our society.
There have always been homosexuals. We live in a world (in a country) where it is acceptable to stand up for civil rights.
There is a connection between woman’s rights and African American civil rights and gay rights …
But radical feminism is an ideology -

I would add that I see a general, and disturbing failure, by scientists to embrace moral standards as may be set forth by the Church, and also by the Church to be more responsible in its rhetoric and teachings when it decides to address issues of science.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I agree with this …
While a heterosexual relationship for me follows natural law … For my brother who is gay - his nature is to have a relationship with another man

That is NOT what Natural Law means.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I am not sure what you want as a link- do you want a link to NARTH using those studies?
Or the studies the Dutch PH minstry funded to counteract the study that ended up being used for organizations like NARTH?

That study was suppose to produce data showing the difference between suicide rates in gay men and lesbians -
Instead it made claims that can’t be backed about the Netherlands being tolerant and was given to NARTH…
Every single lecture by Dr. Nicolosi uses that study …
Why don’t you PM me and let me know exactly what it is you want to see.

No. You will not lead a wild goose chase. You brought up NARTH and Dr. Nicolosi in relation to the Dutch study. I did not. If you want to sort the confusion on your part, start with this post of yours and follow the exhange between us.

I am not going to re-create it for you.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

The example which I gave was lying to save my Jewish guest from the SS at the door. An equally moral position is that the good SS men are acting for the greater good of society,

Really? You define the greater good of society as mass murder? Sorry, but that is what most human beings, of any society, would define as intrinsically evil. Concidentally, so does the Roman Catholic Church.

So, not only are the SS men subverting the common good and promoting objective evil, because that is their intent, they also (because of that) have no right to the knowledge, and will use that illegitimate knowledge to commit evil. The person in question has no obligation to provide such persons of malice with the truth.

Relativism (in this particular case) is where someone believing in a political system (Nazism) which by definition promotes mass murder, would declare that Nazism must be just as morally valid as any other political system – that any “judgment” of it as evil should be invalidated on the basis that there are supposedly no moral absolutes, and that all evaluation is subjective, individual, personal, unstable, and current. Relativism rejects all philosophical, social, moral absolutes. It places the Self at the center of what is Real and absolute, because supposedly only the Self can define that or evaluate that.

 

[cathoichelp]

That is NOT what Natural Law means.

you are right its not what natural law is according to the Catholic Church …

What i stated was … natural law (Catholic definition)
Goes against what is natural to certain people …
Which is why I don’t subscribe to moral order according to the Catholic Church.

Some of us see the world in black and white and everything must fit a certain mold…
And some of us exist in shades of gray and realize that morality is not so easily defined.

 

[cathoichelp]

No. You will not lead a wild goose chase. You brought up NARTH and Dr. Nicolosi in relation to the Dutch study. I did not. If you want to sort the confusion on your part, start with this post of yours and follow the exhange between us.

I am not going to re-create it for you.
,

what on earth are you talking about? I am not leading a wild goose chase … I asked what it is you wanted
I asked you to PM what exactly YOU want to see … following the rules of the forum…

 

[Peepers]

Really? You define the greater good of society as mass murder? Sorry, but that is what most human beings, of any society, would define as intrinsically evil. Concidentally, so does the Roman Catholic Church.

So, not only are the SS men subverting the common good and promoting objective evil, because that is their intent, they also (because of that) have no right to the knowledge, and will use that illegitimate knowledge to commit evil. The person in question has no obligation to provide such persons of malice with the truth.

Relativism (in this particular case) is where someone believing in a political system (Nazism) which by definition promotes mass murder, would declare that Nazism must be just as morally valid as any other political system – that any “judgment” of it as evil should be invalidated on the basis that there are supposedly no moral absolutes, and that all evaluation is subjective, individual, personal, unstable, and current. Relativism rejects all philosophical, social, moral absolutes. It places the Self at the center of what is Real and absolute, because supposedly only the Self can define that or evaluate that.

Whoa there… I knew the Nazi analogy might be dangerous. Sure, it is easy for us with the benefit of historic perspective to know what those SS men were up to. I would submit that some of them did not even understand the ramifications of their own actions in the early parts of the Nazi slaughter.

If you will bear with me (rather than switch to another analogy). It is perfectly plausible (to me anyway) that someone could answer that door, and say “Yes, Mr and Mrs X are here. We just finished dinner”, knowing that the SS men would likely be there to arrest the guests, but believing that this was for the good of the state, perhaps some years later to understand the significance of the act. On the other hand, someone more politically aware or sensitive at the time, may recognize the danger to the guests, and the immorality of the Nazi state, and choose to lie.

I hope we won’t lose the point in my poorly chosen example. The question that I have is: (1) I know that lying is sin. This is an absolute standard, as it is a commandment. (2) Depending on my state of mind, and my perceived outcome, then it is either a venial sin or a mortal sin. Is this not moral relativism, and is this not the teaching of the Church?

 

[Peepers]

That is NOT what Natural Law means.

What does Natural Law mean? There is clearly a difference between what the Church teaches and what science teaches. Do you think that the two are irreconcilable?