Catholic Philosophy

[dskysmine]

Hello all,

During a discussion about atheism I got to understand a little better some of their points that were not clear to me and I have to admit it was hard to reply to them authoritavely.
While Catholics say that God’s Will reigns supreme he asked me then how is it possible to judge people on what they do if what they do is God’s Will.
I explained him that God’s Will doesn’t mean that God intentionally wants moral evil to happen, but that He allows it in order to preserve our freedom to Love Him, which is the greatest gift. The reply came after that then it would make no sense to judge people here on earth by human justice and arrest people since that removes their freedom. I said that making someone a prisoner does not remove him the freedom to Love God, one can Love God being a prisioner in a jail, and also as a paraplegic. He then asked about the people who do not have the freedom to believe like babies that die due to natural disasters or sickness, to which I replied that Natural evil does not prevent people from loving God, it is an even greater chance to love him because we can see that those things motivate us to grow closer as bretheren and love each other and experience suffering that allows to better understand the part of suffering to offer God as Love. To which he replied that if that is so why should we use science to prevent such natural evils to happen, like Medicine or Geology. At this point I said that those studies were also an opportunity to love others in concrete ways, especially to those who suffer, to which he asked me: “Then who is most pleasing to God? The millions who offer their incurable disease suffering to Him or the single man who discovers the cure for that disease?”
I was a little puzzled because for me I could say that both cases are pleasing to God but I was lacking a lot of authoritative quotations to cite on this issue so I said that God could be pleased by both, but that doesn’t mean that suffering is bad per se. He asked me why would someone prevent God’s willed diseases or earthquakes or any other “evils”?
I replied that even if God wills for someone to have a disease we are not twarthing Him with curing that person for God knows that disease is curable. To which he replied but one chooses to be healed or to offer that suffering to God. Why would one choose to stay longer on earth for any kind of disease?
To this I replied that God challenges us every day and we can reply to that challenge or not, it might be to undergo a treatment, or to reasearch a cure, or it can be accepting that there is no cure yet for something and that it is still ok, both things are God’s Will.
I don’t think I was very convincing…
How can we explain that Catholic Philosophy is uplifting about suffering and at the same time wishes to diminish it?

God bless,
D.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You have made several errors. First, no one, including the Catholic Church, can explain suffering and evil so that the answer is " uplifting. " Catholic Theologians can go no further than traditional answers to these problems. And these will never be acceptible to those outside the Faith. So don’t attempt to do more than that.

Secondly, the temptation to engage with atheists should be left to professional and well educated apologists. Your time would be better spent doing just what St. Francis and the Saints did, live the Faith. Debates are really nothing but platforms to exercise the ego of both parties. St. Paul advised " …preach Christ and him cruxcified…" Of course if someone asks you, give the best answer you can but resist the temptation to be drawn into endless debates. Did Christ engage in debates? Never. And neither should we.

 

[dskysmine]

You have made several errors. First, no one, including the Catholic Church, can explain suffering and evil so that the answer is " uplifting. " Catholic Theologians can go no further than traditional answers to these problems. And these will never be acceptible to those outside the Faith. So don’t attempt to do more than that.

Secondly, the temptation to engage with atheists should be left to professional and well educated apologists. Your time would be better spent doing just what St. Francis and the Saints did, live the Faith. Debates are really nothing but platforms to exercise the ego of both parties. St. Paul advised " …preach Christ and him cruxcified…" Of course if someone asks you, give the best answer you can but resist the temptation to be drawn into endless debates. Did Christ engage in debates? Never. And neither should we.

Regarding your last case, it is not so, as Christ did debate a lot of the Jews that approached him, but He had the best response, that is the case with the taxes question, the adulterous woman, etc… and it is true that a lot of saints, including St. Paul (with greek philosophers) did debate, but that is beside the point as I did not debate anyone, I was having a civilized discussion. There were no winners and no losers.
And regarding your comment about what the Catholic Church can and cannot do I think grossly missunderstood me. Uplifting means to give value to suffering, not to say simply “it is uplifting”. And there are tons of texts from Doctors of the Church, as well as saints in general that say that to offer our sufferings for the Glory of God is good.
If you deny it you are denying the very principle of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which the most “uplifting” Suffering that ever was because it connected us to God.
Now, will you answer the question or continue with Ad hominems?

God bless,
D.

 

[prodigalson2011]

You have made several errors. First, no one, including the Catholic Church, can explain suffering and evil so that the answer is " uplifting. " Catholic Theologians can go no further than traditional answers to these problems. And these will never be acceptible to those outside the Faith. So don’t attempt to do more than that.

Secondly, the temptation to engage with atheists should be left to professional and well educated apologists. Your time would be better spent doing just what St. Francis and the Saints did, live the Faith. Debates are really nothing but platforms to exercise the ego of both parties. St. Paul advised " …preach Christ and him cruxcified…" Of course if someone asks you, give the best answer you can but resist the temptation to be drawn into endless debates. Did Christ engage in debates? Never. And neither should we.

I think you’re very wrong here. This ignores the Biblical exhortations to “be prepared to give a defense for the hope that is in you,” from St. Peter and St. Paul’s call to “Come, let us reason together.” We are called, to the best of our ability, to know and defend the faith, lest brothers and sisters be led astray!

 

[vames]

To this I replied that God challenges us every day and we can reply to that challenge or not, it might be to undergo a treatment, or to reasearch a cure, or it can be accepting that there is no cure yet for something and that it is still ok, both things are God’s Will.
I don’t think I was very convincing…
How can we explain that Catholic Philosophy is uplifting about suffering and at the same time wishes to diminish it?

God bless,
D.

This is correct. It would be wrong to reject what God already gave us - science, medicine, healthcare, our ability to discover and benefit from cures for various diseases. Do we refuse blood transfusions, like Jehovah’s Witnesses? Nope. As long as one suffers from an incurable illness, there’s no choice between healing and not healing that illness. So, keeping this in mind, that person could decide to offer up his/her suffering to God, along with or instead of his/her work, good deeds, prayers, joys etc. And instead of becoming bitter and desperate, the ill person rethinks his/her existence, develops better relationships with the others, learns how to endure suffering with dignity etc. In that, suffering is indeed uplifting. But if one suffers from a curable illness, it would be a violation of the 5th Commandment to voluntarily neglect or further harm his/her health. God doesn’t ask us to be massochistic, but to make the best use of our talents, bodily powers, intellectual skills. So if one goes to the doctor and seeks to be healed from a curable illness, that person does the right thing - obeying a God’s law.

And Christian charity has at its core not only the duty to alleviate others’ illnesses and sufferings, but moreover, to ensure that healthcare is available to everybody, like Pope Benedict says: “Hospitals and structures for assistance must rethink their role to prevent health, first and foremost a universal good to be guaranteed and defended from becoming a mere “product” subjected to the laws of the market, hence accessible to few.”

 

[JerryZ]

Hello all,

During a discussion about atheism I got to understand a little better some of their points that were not clear to me and I have to admit it was hard to reply to them authoritavely.
While Catholics say that God’s Will reigns supreme he asked me then how is it possible to judge people on what they do if what they do is God’s Will.
I explained him that God’s Will doesn’t mean that God intentionally wants moral evil to happen, but that He allows it in order to preserve our freedom to Love Him, which is the greatest gift. The reply came after that then it would make no sense to judge people here on earth by human justice and arrest people since that removes their freedom. I said that making someone a prisoner does not remove him the freedom to Love God, one can Love God being a prisioner in a jail, and also as a paraplegic. He then asked about the people who do not have the freedom to believe like babies that die due to natural disasters or sickness, to which I replied that Natural evil does not prevent people from loving God, it is an even greater chance to love him because we can see that those things motivate us to grow closer as bretheren and love each other and experience suffering that allows to better understand the part of suffering to offer God as Love. To which he replied that if that is so why should we use science to prevent such natural evils to happen, like Medicine or Geology. At this point I said that those studies were also an opportunity to love others in concrete ways, especially to those who suffer, to which he asked me: “Then who is most pleasing to God? The millions who offer their incurable disease suffering to Him or the single man who discovers the cure for that disease?”
I was a little puzzled because for me I could say that both cases are pleasing to God but I was lacking a lot of authoritative quotations to cite on this issue so I said that God could be pleased by both, but that doesn’t mean that suffering is bad per se. He asked me why would someone prevent God’s willed diseases or earthquakes or any other “evils”?
I replied that even if God wills for someone to have a disease we are not twarthing Him with curing that person for God knows that disease is curable. To which he replied but one chooses to be healed or to offer that suffering to God. Why would one choose to stay longer on earth for any kind of disease?
To this I replied that God challenges us every day and we can reply to that challenge or not, it might be to undergo a treatment, or to reasearch a cure, or it can be accepting that there is no cure yet for something and that it is still ok, both things are God’s Will.
I don’t think I was very convincing…
How can we explain that Catholic Philosophy is uplifting about suffering and at the same time wishes to diminish it?

God bless,
D.

Well…Did not Jesus cure the sick and even resucitate the dead when He was here on earth?

This shows that yes we can try and cure or find cures for the medical afflictions of humanity. At the same time we can accept the challenges that God allow to happen to us to grow in patience, charity and endurance.
God made the universe intelligible that means that we can understand it with our reason. We might not be ready to understand all of it so our knowledge of it increases gradually.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Regarding your last case, it is not so, as Christ did debate a lot of the Jews that approached him, but He had the best response, that is the case with the taxes question, the adulterous woman, etc… and it is true that a lot of saints, including St. Paul (with greek philosophers) did debate, but that is beside the point as I did not debate anyone, I was having a civilized discussion. There were no winners and no losers.
And regarding your comment about what the Catholic Church can and cannot do I think grossly missunderstood me. Uplifting means to give value to suffering, not to say simply “it is uplifting”. And there are tons of texts from Doctors of the Church, as well as saints in general that say that to offer our sufferings for the Glory of God is good.
If you deny it you are denying the very principle of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which the most “uplifting” Suffering that ever was because it connected us to God.
Now, will you answer the question or continue with Ad hominems?

God bless,
D.

Sorry I missunderstood you. It is extremely important to use precise language when making such important comments. No, I don’t think Jesus debated with his adversaries. He gave a precise answer and explanation and let it go at that, giving them credit for having a brain which he intended them to use. I don’t call that debating - certainly not in the sense that it takes place in these forums.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Linus

Secondly, the temptation to engage with atheists should be left to professional and well educated apologists. Your time would be better spent doing just what St. Francis and the Saints did, live the Faith. Debates are really nothing but platforms to exercise the ego of both parties.

I agree with this. The professionals are the ones who can adequately defend the faith against atheists. The best thing to do is not debate atheists directly, but rather point them to a book or essay on atheism by a reputable Catholic philosopher, and let it go at that.

This article by Peter Kreeft is a good place to begin.

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/pillars_sartre.htm

 

[aragonjohn1]

For some strange reason many athiests and agnostics I have encountered are befuddled by simplicity in any area of study

Hope this helps

Shalom
God bless