I
ioannes_pius
Guest
D. Prümmer, O.P. had a good explanation of this question in his Handbook of Moral Theology.
- Status
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
It depends what teaching it is, who it’s coming from, and whether or not you are capable of understanding it.
S
stpurl
Guest
You admit I’m right and you’re wrong about your “German example” but I’m curious. You said there were ‘many such examples’ of the so-called differences in the moral compass. Why didn’t you use one of those examples instead of something you made up?
Could it be that perhaps those examples of differences in morality that you claim over the years don’t really show that much of a difference?
So yes, in the “South Sea Islands” men and women’s sexual habits differed from Victorian English aristocracy. So? At the root, did not men and women globally desire companionship, children, and domestic happiness? Were there flourishing societies where men and women did NOT want children, or who deliberately mistreated their spouses and children, and everybody applauded that behavior?
You have made the error of thinking that morality is like a garment and that because there are so many different styles of dress that the whole concept of morality is just as different for everybody.
It’s not. The differences in cultural practices are all based on the culture’s judgments of worth for the individual and for the culture.
As C. S. Lewis very succinctly notes, you won’t find a culture in which cowardice is enshrined as a virtue and where people ‘look up to’ deserters.
You won’t find a culture in which spouse-beating or child abuse is normal, protected, and applauded.
Or—in this crazy world—you won’t find such a culture that will last for long. The moral people in the culture will either rise up and destroy the wrongs, or they’ll be forced out. In any event, such a culture would not sustain itself because we are a people who are globally moral. We have the Natural Law written on our hearts.
Why do you think that people are so quick to try to excuse themselves for doing wrong, and so quick to yell ‘unfair’ at others even when they do wrong themselves?
And what is ‘fair’? Not just what ‘the culture demands’ but the kind of things that a child knows. You don’t just grab something that belongs to somebody else. You don’t just push your way to the front of a crowded line. And when you see behavior like that, it’s because the culture is under attack (often literally, so people have to fight to survive), not because people would choose to act this way in ‘normal life’.
Could it be that perhaps those examples of differences in morality that you claim over the years don’t really show that much of a difference?
So yes, in the “South Sea Islands” men and women’s sexual habits differed from Victorian English aristocracy. So? At the root, did not men and women globally desire companionship, children, and domestic happiness? Were there flourishing societies where men and women did NOT want children, or who deliberately mistreated their spouses and children, and everybody applauded that behavior?
You have made the error of thinking that morality is like a garment and that because there are so many different styles of dress that the whole concept of morality is just as different for everybody.
It’s not. The differences in cultural practices are all based on the culture’s judgments of worth for the individual and for the culture.
As C. S. Lewis very succinctly notes, you won’t find a culture in which cowardice is enshrined as a virtue and where people ‘look up to’ deserters.
You won’t find a culture in which spouse-beating or child abuse is normal, protected, and applauded.
Or—in this crazy world—you won’t find such a culture that will last for long. The moral people in the culture will either rise up and destroy the wrongs, or they’ll be forced out. In any event, such a culture would not sustain itself because we are a people who are globally moral. We have the Natural Law written on our hearts.
Why do you think that people are so quick to try to excuse themselves for doing wrong, and so quick to yell ‘unfair’ at others even when they do wrong themselves?
And what is ‘fair’? Not just what ‘the culture demands’ but the kind of things that a child knows. You don’t just grab something that belongs to somebody else. You don’t just push your way to the front of a crowded line. And when you see behavior like that, it’s because the culture is under attack (often literally, so people have to fight to survive), not because people would choose to act this way in ‘normal life’.
Z
Zerge
Guest
Just because the state was composed of mini-states, it was not made up. Those min-states had a rather uniform view of ethical behavior.
But, since you want other examples, what about the animal sacrifices and even human sacrifices in many cultures? Even the sacrificed virgins considered it an honor to be sacrificed for the glory of the gods, or God. “Moral” enough for you?
Many oriental cultures were “bloodthirsty”, especially those which believed in reincarnation. For those people death was not a big deal, since they believed in coming back in a different form. The important part was HOW to die - honorably! For the Japanese soldiers in WWII it was inconceivable to put down their weapon and give up fighting. That is why they treated the prisoners of war so horribly. In THEIR ethical system those soldiers gave up their “humanity”.
Are these examples sufficient for you?
Sexual habits are very important part of “morality” - in your eyes. Even that example proves that there is no absolute, uniform ethical code.
Every child is a selfish, little brute, who has to be trained (not just taught) about the proper - socially acceptable behavior. And that IS morality. The socially acceptable behavior. Obviously there are many overlaps among different cultures, and just as many discrepancies.
Total nonsense - as PROVEN by the examples I gave you. The proper definition of “morality” is this: “The written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior.”
S
stpurl
Guest
No, you’re completely off. Also you sure must not know many nice children.
How about my cowardice example? Hey, ‘self preservation’ is a big thing. Why are cowards not held up as good examples?
And show me the primary source documents for your statements about ‘a few centuries ago in Germany women were expected to be pregnant at marriage’ claim.
I call baloney.
How about my cowardice example? Hey, ‘self preservation’ is a big thing. Why are cowards not held up as good examples?
And show me the primary source documents for your statements about ‘a few centuries ago in Germany women were expected to be pregnant at marriage’ claim.
I call baloney.
Z
Zerge
Guest
Why should I care what you call it? I gave you several examples of “morality” being contingent upon society. You are unable to argue against them. That is the point.
Also consider that child labor was perfectly acceptable until recently. Of course you have no argument for your assertion about “universal” morality.
As for cowardice I wonder if you ever heard the principle: “discretion is the better part of valor” and “choose your fight wisely”.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
I answered you in my original responses to rebut your assumptions. You simply do not choose to accept my answers.
Claiming that I haven’t done something when I clearly have is, to take the charitable view, somewhat childish. I do not wish to take a less charitable view that people are deliberately dishonest. I’ll simply let people judge as they will.
With regard to any other exchanges, I have taken your, um, measure and do not see any possible benefit to any further with you. Have a pleasant day.
Claiming that I haven’t done something when I clearly have is, to take the charitable view, somewhat childish. I do not wish to take a less charitable view that people are deliberately dishonest. I’ll simply let people judge as they will.
With regard to any other exchanges, I have taken your, um, measure and do not see any possible benefit to any further with you. Have a pleasant day.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Then you have not fully formed your conscience.
L
lelinator
Guest
Has anyone ever possessed a fully formed conscience? How would you know?
S
stpurl
Guest
Yes, it is perfectly possible for any Catholic to have a fully formed conscience. And we don’t have to be St. Thomas Aquinas to do so.
People tend to think (incorrectly) that in order to ‘fully understand’ a teaching (and thus be ‘fully formed’) that the person needs to have encyclopedic knowledge, and as well to be able to enumerate every single ‘point’ possible for every situation.
Nope, not that hard.
Having a fully formed conscience means that one has a basic knowledge of the catechism (not hard, and there are many out there for us), abides by Catholic teaching and, in any case where a person runs into something where he does not know the teaching, the person informs himself (or herself) of the Catholic teaching and abides by same. And if there appear to be conflicting teachings where some say ‘yes’ and some ‘no’, going along with what has been the consistent teaching is the way to go because the Church itself is consistent. Like anything else at any given day there can be ‘dissenters’ popping up (even some very high ranks rank ones) to sow confusion, but keep with the firm and CONSISTENT teaching and you’ll be fine.
Morality doesn’t change. the ‘trappings’ might look different but the underlying bedrock the trappings cover is the same. We might argue over who our neighbor is (they certainly did so in Jesus’ time) but the principle of treating our neighbor as ourselves has never changed, even if at times we fell short of following the teaching.
People tend to think (incorrectly) that in order to ‘fully understand’ a teaching (and thus be ‘fully formed’) that the person needs to have encyclopedic knowledge, and as well to be able to enumerate every single ‘point’ possible for every situation.
Nope, not that hard.
Having a fully formed conscience means that one has a basic knowledge of the catechism (not hard, and there are many out there for us), abides by Catholic teaching and, in any case where a person runs into something where he does not know the teaching, the person informs himself (or herself) of the Catholic teaching and abides by same. And if there appear to be conflicting teachings where some say ‘yes’ and some ‘no’, going along with what has been the consistent teaching is the way to go because the Church itself is consistent. Like anything else at any given day there can be ‘dissenters’ popping up (even some very high ranks rank ones) to sow confusion, but keep with the firm and CONSISTENT teaching and you’ll be fine.
Morality doesn’t change. the ‘trappings’ might look different but the underlying bedrock the trappings cover is the same. We might argue over who our neighbor is (they certainly did so in Jesus’ time) but the principle of treating our neighbor as ourselves has never changed, even if at times we fell short of following the teaching.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
What @stpurl said!
L
lelinator
Guest
So it’s impossible for a non-Catholic to have a fully formed conscience?
O
otjm
Guest
To make a shortcut answer: One must always follow one’s conscience; but one must always seek to conform one’s conscience when it is in conflict with Church teaching.
A prime example is the Pill. Someone with minimal or no understanding of the Church’s teaching on birth control might be able, following their conscience, to engage in the use of the Pill. One however, has a duty to seek out the Church’s teaching on the matter; and if the initial information does not succeed in changing one’s decision on the matter, one must continue to seek out further information; it is not a free pass t the first contact with the Church’s teaching.
In other words, one needs to work with one’s confessor, and if one is still in conflict, seek more information.
A prime example is the Pill. Someone with minimal or no understanding of the Church’s teaching on birth control might be able, following their conscience, to engage in the use of the Pill. One however, has a duty to seek out the Church’s teaching on the matter; and if the initial information does not succeed in changing one’s decision on the matter, one must continue to seek out further information; it is not a free pass t the first contact with the Church’s teaching.
In other words, one needs to work with one’s confessor, and if one is still in conflict, seek more information.
O
otjm
Guest
Something that is perfectly possible is just that - possible. If something were imperfectly possible, then it might or might not be possible.
“Perfectly” simply means that everyone can have a fully formed conscience, not that everyone will have it.
Z
Zerge
Guest
You too. Let me make a short summary for your edification:
The good, moral stuff:
Slavery.
Sexual slavery.
Indentured servitude, where the offsprings of the “servants” could be sold.
Child labor.
Child abuse.
Animal sacrifices.
Human sacrifices.
All sorts of marriage concepts.
All sorts of sexual practices.
Duels to the death.
Wars.
Genocides.
Rape.
Torture.
Assassinations.
All these are “engraved” on the human “heart” as “moral” behaviors - in certain societies during certain times.
On the other hand, pure love without the desire to procreate is “intrinsically evil”.
Oh, well.
L
lelinator
Guest
This doesn’t address the question of whether a non-Catholic can have a fully formed conscience or not. The logical answer is, that as far as the Catholic church is concerned, they can’t.
Therefore conscience, as a reliable guide, is basically worthless, and the only truly reliable guide is the Catholic church itself.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
You do all realize that the Church has not, and will not ever be able to have, touched on every single situation a person will come across? The point of a conscience is not the circular “Follow your conscience so long as it’s in accordance with what we say” which is pretty stupid. What a well-formed conscience does is it allows people to judge situations without precedent or direct teaching.
Take, for example, our little corner of paradise at CAF. Sometimes, situations come up in threads that don’t have an easy answer. What posters do is they use their brains to find earlier teaching and action and synthesize that into a judgement. There isn’t a definitive answer from the Church, but the (maybe not so) well-formed collaborative conscience here makes a new judgement to preserve ourselves in our drive to holiness.
That’s why you need a well-formed conscience: to make decisions without the Church babying you your whole life.
Take, for example, our little corner of paradise at CAF. Sometimes, situations come up in threads that don’t have an easy answer. What posters do is they use their brains to find earlier teaching and action and synthesize that into a judgement. There isn’t a definitive answer from the Church, but the (maybe not so) well-formed collaborative conscience here makes a new judgement to preserve ourselves in our drive to holiness.
That’s why you need a well-formed conscience: to make decisions without the Church babying you your whole life.
O
otjm
Guest
I believe you overstate the issue: morality in Christianity starts with the Gospels. Conscience can be and is formed within the Protestant world by the Gospels and by their theologians meditating on and expounding issues of conscience. To say that conscience is a worthless guide exceeds reality, and in fact exceeds what the Church says that man, even without the Gospels, can understand and follow.
Several years ago a Protestant magazine featured a number (I can’t recall the exact number, but it was between 5 and 7) Protestant theologians who were all seriously questioning the overall Protestant response to the Pill; and not all were sourcing their belief that the Pill was immoral on Catholic Theology. If they can do that - and relying not on Catholic theologians or statements of the Magisterium to arrive at the same conclusion, it seriously questions your premise.
K
Kei
Guest
Though the ideas of ie Calhoun of slavery as a “positive good” would become the prevailing view due (it would seem to me) to a variety of strained goods that were meant to come from it, even in pre-Civil War Democrat South, slavery was seen as a “necessary evil”, as the prevailing view prior to ~1830, as I would understand it. But note that it would be very contested and met with much abolitionist sentiment. By the time this view came around, it was very convenient to protect a wealthy and powerful institution/way of life.
Similarly, I imagine those who were poor used child labor because they felt they kind of had to, before it was outlawed it was going down as the quality of life improved. On a basic level, there’s nothing wrong with children working if they can, it’s the abusive or exploitative practice of such that bothers people. So, a little kid as our waitress at a restaurant doesn’t have to ring alarm bells (though in certain contexts it may). I don’t know where child abuse could be considered “good” or “moral”, unless you are taking a broad use of the term to include disciplinary action, but once again excessive use is the issue (at least to most people, I’d think).
Human sacrifice was such a big deal precisely because of how valuable human life was, so this is kinda backwards in trying to show this is somehow against inherently understood values.
There’s a bunch else, but the general idea is that things were often considered acceptable in certain contexts despite general principles against it.
So, across the world, in different cultures, you’ll find that killing others/murder is generally wrong. Where the different cultures disagree is “What are the exceptions to this general rule?” So, for instance, in some cultures it may be acceptable to go beyond this to defend your honor or at the very end or beginning of life, etc. But the general rule is there pretty much panculturally.
Having relations for pleasure but not being open to the ends of the act does not appear to be “pure love”.
Last edited:
- Status