Bisexuality / Homosexuality and Radical Feminism - Connection ?

[Elizabeth502]

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?

Nope. That is not moral relativism. The standards for defining sin, and categorizing its seriousness, are consistent, based as they are on consistent definitions and categories, and a consistent philosophy as well. The person innocently believing that Nazism is for the good of society is an example of the one condition of sin being absent: full knowledge. If such a person had no clue (many didn’t) that Nazism was promoting “The Final Solution,” and were innocently cooperating, or even fearfully cooperating (thus experiencing coercion – or absence of full consent), the conditions of mortal sin are not present.

 

[Peepers]

You were answering my question, as I was asking it.

“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”.

The weakness of this definition is that human perception and reason is always relative. What would pass for logic and reason in 1180 would not be considered to be such in 2011. (I would refer you to Godel and Kant). So the suggestion that there is an immutable truth which is accessible to reason, is within itself a self contradictory statement, unless you accept that human reason is immutable over time. My view is that reason and logic have changed, and I can provide evidence of this in mathematics. Nonetheless, the concepts expressed are aesthetically pleasing - the idea of finding a balance in a natural order which affirms human dignity and rights. This places a burden on the Church which has historically persecuted homosexuals to explain how this furthers human dignity. If you doubt the truth of that statement, I can give you some examples of how homosexuals were treated by the Church around 1180.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You were answering my question, as I was asking it.
“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”.

The weakness of this definition is that human perception and reason is always relative.

No. It is sometimes in error, depending on the intellect and training of who is doing the perceiving and the reasoning, but that is different than declaring it ‘relative.’

lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard135.html

 

[Peepers]

Nope. That is not moral relativism. The standards for defining sin, and categorizing its seriousness, are consistent, based as they are on consistent definitions and categories, and a consistent philosophy as well. The person innocently believing that Nazism is for the good of society is an example of the one condition of sin being absent: full knowledge. If such a person had no clue (many didn’t) that Nazism was promoting “The Final Solution,” and were innocently cooperating, or even fearfully cooperating (thus experiencing coercion – or absence of full consent), the conditions of mortal sin are not present.

But this is precisely the definition of moral relativism, a moral standard which depends on the state of mind of the individual. You have just told me that the severity of a sin depends on my state of mind. You have stated precisely that the Church embraces the standard of moral relativism for determining the severity of sin.

 

[Peepers]

No. It is sometimes in error, depending on the intellect and training of who is doing the perceiving and the reasoning, but that is different than declaring it ‘relative.’

lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard135.html

We can get bound up in semantics, but if reason is the application of logic, then you must have a starting point of providing some postulates to reason from. The limits of any logical system are proscribed by its postulates. As time goes on, the “postulates” of our life experience do indeed change, so yes, reason in this sense is relative to the passage of time. We are not stuck in 1180.

 

[Elizabeth502]

But this is precisely the definition of moral relativism, a moral standard which depends on the state of mind of the individual. You have just told me that the severity of a sin depends on my state of mind. You have stated precisely that the Church embraces the standard of moral relativism for determining the severity of sin.

No. We do not have the time or space here, Peepers, to go into an extended explanation of Catholic philosophy, but it is not entirely possible to understand Catholic moral theology without understanding the underpinnings of philosophy as well. The thread has already been derailed off of several different sections of track.

The matter of sin is consistent, and stable. There is zero relativism about the definitions and categories of sin. But just as a child cannot be responsible for burning a house down if matches are left lying around and there is no supervision, so an adult who is unaware of the danger of telling a particular lie to a malicious, murderous political party is also not responsible for consequences which he cannot foresee. In the case of the child, the person who committed the grievous, mortal, confessible sin is the parent/guardian who left the child unsupervised and within temptation.

The missing link that I did not provide for you earlier is that adult Catholics (for example) are required to inform their consciences. To say, ‘Gee I didn’t know that leaving my child unattended was a serious breach of the Fourth Commandment [a reciprocal commandment, by the way, relating to mutual duties of roles in a family], therefore I needn’t confess it, as no sin was committed,’ does not get off that easily. Here’s the grievous sin such a Catholic committed: not informing his conscience. Unknowing Catholics are committing mortal and spiritually fatal sins to blow them off by claiming ignorance. (There are lots of examples of this on CAF and IRL. ) There’s innocent ignorance, such as a newly catechized member of the Church, or a child incompletely catechized (or below the age of reason); and there’s willful or neglectful ignorance, which is the majority of ignorance. Children are dependent, but adults are not.

As to the third ingredient of mortal sin (full consent), that is also not relativism whatsoever. It accords with Catholic philosophy and the general moral theological base, which is based on the will being crucial to responsibility. The same applies in civil and criminal law. Notice that that is the very principle at play in signing a legal contract: active consent. If that signature is missing, or a person is signing it under duress (threat or other coercion), the will is not cooperating with the activity.

Relativism is not based on the necessary dynamic of moral decision. Relativism posits that there are no stable moral categories. (“Truth is whatever I want it to be; sin is whatever I decide it is.”)

 

[Peepers]

No. It is sometimes in error, depending on the intellect and training of who is doing the perceiving and the reasoning, but that is different than declaring it ‘relative.’

lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard135.html

Are you saying that only the mind with “proper” training is capable of the “correct” reasoning abilities? I hate to say it, but this is sounding very frightening. This would clearly imply either that their is no universal truth, or that it is not accessible except to those who are properly “trained”. That introduces the completely arbitrary standard of what proper training and intellect are, which sounds like relativism to me.

 

[Peepers]

No. We do not have the time or space here, Peepers, to go into an extended explanation of Catholic philosophy, but it is not entirely possible to understand Catholic moral theology without understanding the underpinnings of philosophy as well. The thread has already been derailed off of several different sections of track.

The matter of sin is consistent, and stable. There is zero relativism about the definitions and categories of sin. But just as a child cannot be responsible for burning a house down if matches are left lying around and there is no supervision, so an adult who is unaware of the danger of telling a particular lie to a malicious, murderous political party is also not responsible for consequences which he cannot foresee. In the case of the child, the person who committed the grievous, mortal, confessible sin is the parent/guardian who left the child unsupervised and within temptation.

The missing link that I did not provide for you earlier is that adult Catholics (for example) are required to inform their consciences. To say, ‘Gee I didn’t know that leaving my child unattended was a serious breach of the Fourth Commandment [a reciprocal commandment, by the way, relating to mutual duties of roles in a family], therefore I needn’t confess it, as no sin was committed,’ does not get off that easily. Here’s the grievous sin such a Catholic committed: not informing his conscience. Unknowing Catholics are committing mortal and spiritually fatal sins to blow them off by claiming ignorance. (There are lots of examples of this on CAF and IRL. ) There’s innocent ignorance, such as a newly catechized member of the Church, or a child incompletely catechized (or below the age of reason); and there’s willful or neglectful ignorance, which is the majority of ignorance. Children are dependent, but adults are not.

As to the third ingredient of mortal sin (full consent), that is also not relativism whatsoever. It accords with Catholic philosophy and the general moral theological base, which is based on the will being crucial to responsibility. The same applies in civil and criminal law. Notice that that is the very principle at play in signing a legal contract: active consent. If that signature is missing, or a person is signing it under duress (threat or other coercion), the will is not cooperating with the activity.

Relativism is not based on the necessary dynamic of moral decision. Relativism posits that there are no stable moral categories. (“Truth is whatever I want it to be; sin is whatever I decide it is.”)

This all sounds very suspicious to me intellectually. But I will reserve judgment for a while until I have explored these topics further. Thanks for your opinions. They give me some stuff to dig into.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Are you saying that only the mind with “proper” training is capable of the “correct” reasoning abilities? I hate to say it, but this is sounding very frightening. This would clearly imply either that their is no universal truth, or that it is not accessible except to those who are properly “trained”. That introduces the completely arbitrary standard of what proper training and intellect are, which sounds like relativism to me.

No. I’m referring to your post 500, which implies that logic is impossible – or not accessible to any common degree.

 

[Peepers]

No. We do not have the time or space here, Peepers, to go into an extended explanation of Catholic philosophy, but it is not entirely possible to understand Catholic moral theology without understanding the underpinnings of philosophy as well. The thread has already been derailed off of several different sections of track.

The matter of sin is consistent, and stable. There is zero relativism about the definitions and categories of sin. But just as a child cannot be responsible for burning a house down if matches are left lying around and there is no supervision, so an adult who is unaware of the danger of telling a particular lie to a malicious, murderous political party is also not responsible for consequences which he cannot foresee. In the case of the child, the person who committed the grievous, mortal, confessible sin is the parent/guardian who left the child unsupervised and within temptation.

The missing link that I did not provide for you earlier is that adult Catholics (for example) are required to inform their consciences. To say, ‘Gee I didn’t know that leaving my child unattended was a serious breach of the Fourth Commandment [a reciprocal commandment, by the way, relating to mutual duties of roles in a family], therefore I needn’t confess it, as no sin was committed,’ does not get off that easily. Here’s the grievous sin such a Catholic committed: not informing his conscience. Unknowing Catholics are committing mortal and spiritually fatal sins to blow them off by claiming ignorance. (There are lots of examples of this on CAF and IRL. ) There’s innocent ignorance, such as a newly catechized member of the Church, or a child incompletely catechized (or below the age of reason); and there’s willful or neglectful ignorance, which is the majority of ignorance. Children are dependent, but adults are not.

As to the third ingredient of mortal sin (full consent), that is also not relativism whatsoever. It accords with Catholic philosophy and the general moral theological base, which is based on the will being crucial to responsibility. The same applies in civil and criminal law. Notice that that is the very principle at play in signing a legal contract: active consent. If that signature is missing, or a person is signing it under duress (threat or other coercion), the will is not cooperating with the activity.

Relativism is not based on the necessary dynamic of moral decision. Relativism posits that there are no stable moral categories. (“Truth is whatever I want it to be; sin is whatever I decide it is.”)

Relativism is the idea that morality is dependent on cultural (including religious) and personal bias. It is not at all the notion that sin is whatever I decide it to be. Simply choosing the Church as your guide to morality, or deciding that there is an absolute moral standard is moral relativism as the concept is defined by moralists and philosophers. I think part of the misunderstanding around here is the differences in understanding of the meanings of some of the terms which are used.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Yes - acting is when you pretend. You cannot pretend to have sex if you’re actually having it - homosexual or otherwise.
Your argument is weak and is a textbook case of moral relativism.

Girls kissing and/or fondling one another in public for the attention/approval of males is** not **homosexual sex.

You’re obviously having trouble with some of the terms being used so here is another definition to help you.

Acting

–adjective
1.serving temporarily, especially as a substitute during another’s absence; not permanent; temporary: the acting mayor.
2.designed, adapted, or suitable for stage performance.
3.provided with detailed stage directions for the performer: an acting version of a play.

–noun
4.the art, profession, or activity of those who perform in stage plays, motion pictures, etc.

Source: dictionary.reference.com/browse/Acting

Moreover, how is what I said a case of moral relativism?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Relativism is the idea that morality is dependent on cultural (including religious) and personal bias. It is not at all the notion that sin is whatever I decide it to be.

Well actually, to a lot of people, it is whatever they decide it is. (A strictly private morality, which is also relative.) But no matter, the result of depending on cultural paramaters to shape one’s private or group morality is that – if one is in agreement with contemporary culture – “morality” and one’s own will – are interchangeable.

Simply choosing the Church as your guide to morality, or deciding that there is an absolute moral standard is moral relativism as the concept is defined by moralists and philosophers. I think part of the misunderstanding around here is the differences in understanding of the meanings of some of the terms which are used.

Well yes, one does need to understand the terms, but having one’s religion guide one’s morality is not something I would necessarily categorize as “simple” – in effort or in result.

I can tell that you didn’t read much of the linked document. That’s fine, no requirement, but it does contextualize the principle of natural law within the larger principle of philosophy. Speaking to the matter of definitions, philosophical terms with a common base were once more standard in academic curriculum. But the fact that they are no longer so standard in education and so understood, does not mean that society needs to abandon the reference to philosophy, and the morals and ethics that proceed from that, in order to meet society at a reduced level of knowledge.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

As a new convert, my I suggest that you be careful about falling prey to moral relativism. This argument is preposterous. You sound like former President Clinton who tried to blur the lines of sexual conduct when he got caught. Having homosexual sex with somebody* ISN’T* homosexual activitiy if you’re not attracted to the person?? What sort of nonsense is that?

What about the group of guys who go out and try to bed the ugliest women in the bar - all in the name of a bet? Are you saying that this ISN’T sex because the women were perceived to be ugly and unattractive in the first place?

While we’re at it - let me ask you another question: Why did you convert to the Catholic Church if you KNEW that the Church condemns homosexual behavior?

You are responding to things no one has said.

I did not bring up the ethics of homosexual sex.

But 2 girls kissing does not automatically equal homosexual sex.

It doesn’t automatically make the 2 girls in question gay either

 

[AngryAtheist8]

And you are in a state of moral relativism. I can choose to slit somebody’s throat just to impress a girlfriend or boyfriend but that doesn’t make me a killer? This is a preposterous position you are taking and one that is in complete and total opposition to the Church.

I simply ASKED you WHY you converted – not that you shouldn’t have converted at all. If you converted because you want the fullness of truth that is found only in the Church - make sure you remain faithful to that truth.

As for the color and boldness – I’m not angry at all. It’s just my style of posting. On the other hand -* your* use of exclamation points . . .

Kissing or even fondling is not the same as actually having sex.

To use your violent analogy, saying that two girls acting gay in public to get the attention of males is the same as being a lesbian is like saying that punching someone in the face is the same as slitting someone’s throat.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The homosexual act is gravely sinful - ANY TIME.

Whereas venial sin damages our relationship with God - Mortal sin severs it and cuts us off from his grace. Homosexual sext is gravely sinful, as is heterosexual fornication and, yes, murder. Any one of these sins can cut us off from God’s grace, so they ALL have en equal effect on the state of our souls.

**Moral relativism seeks to diminish **the severity of sin by injecting one’s own rationalizations into it.

I have always thought this line of reasoning was idiotic myself.

A moral system that doesn’t see a difference between violent murder and consensual (extramarital) sex is of little worth in my opinion.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

As I stated earlier - your point of view is that of a moral relativist.

The very fact that you are trying to diminish one grave sin over another is because you apparently haven’t been well-catechized in the Catholic faith. Mortal sin is mortal sin and it cuts us off from God’s grace. An unrepentant fornicator or one engaging in homosexual sex can go to hell as easily as a murderer.

**Finally - killing for one’s country is *not ***murder, your moral relativism notwithstanding.

Really?

So the Nazi soldiers who killed the enemies of the Reich were acting morally because they thought they were doing it for their country?

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thanks to all who participated, This thread is now closed.