How would this hypothetical affect one's view of Catholic history?

[NovusFidem]

But you have seemed to be arguing something much stronger–the analogy would be if your spouse were to say, “hey, honey, I’ve met this other attractive dude, and I want to try polyamory–if you really love me you will trust me that I’m not being unfaithful, because if I’m doing it then it can’t really be adultery even if it’s adultery by your flawed definition.”

If you aren’t arguing the equivalent of that, then I’m not sure we actually disagree.

Edwin

I’d first ask her to define “polyamory”. Perhaps her understanding of the word is different from mine, and she actually meant a “friendly outing between us and the new friend guy”, and I just heard wrong. It happens, I’m just human.

Then I’d check the ABibleCDictionary and question smarter people; see if its not a slang for something else that I am not aware. After all that, if truly she meant what I first thought she meant? Yeah, sorry babe, but I’m going back to my mother’s house…

However, if the wife is like the supposedly infallible Church, then the higher probability is that my understanding of the world is wrong And I’ll find out that the Dictionary actually agrees with her weird definition of polyamory.

I wouldn’t be Catholic if I hadn’t lost so many arguments to the Catholic Church. She’s won all of them so far and, unlike you, I currently have no reason to doubt Her authority (which answers the topic’s original question: if those instances affected our views of the Church).

 

[Contarini]

I’d first ask her to define “polyamory”. Perhaps her understanding of the word is different from mine, and she actually meant a “friendly outing between us and the new friend guy”, and I just heard wrong. It happens, I’m just human.

Then I’d check the ABibleCDictionary and question smarter people; see if its not a slang for something else that I am not aware. After all that, if truly she meant what I first thought she meant? Yeah, sorry babe, but I’m going back to my mother’s house…

However, if the wife is like the supposedly infallible Church, then the higher probability is that my understanding of the world is wrong And I’ll find out that the Dictionary actually agrees with her weird definition of polyamory.

I wouldn’t be Catholic if I hadn’t lost so many arguments to the Catholic Church. She’s won all of them so far and, unlike you, I currently have no reason to doubt Her authority (which answers the topic’s original question: if those instances affected our views of the Church).

As I have said a number of times, I am by my own paradigm a 132 at least on everything that Church authorities at this point would expect faithful Catholics to believe. That is to say, my confidence that the Church is true is greater than my confidence either that any particular doctrine is false or that it is in fact the permanent teaching of the Church.

However, on some of the things mentioned on this thread, such as the burning of heretics, I’m a 312. That is to say, I am so confident it is wrong to burn heretics that if you proved to me that Leo’s condemnation of #33 in Exsurge Domine was binding, I would no longer be able to accept the authority of the Church.

What I find pernicious about your way of thinking is that your confidence in the Church is so blind that you’re willing to say, “well, if the Church did teach that heretics should be burned, it must be true.”

I don’t think that’s admirable at all.

Edwin

 

[DCNBILL]

I must be way out of the loop here, my bishop has yet to inform me that we should be burning heretics. I guess I will ask him about it when we go to the cathedral to celebrate the feast of St. Lawrence. Hey that would be a very appropriate time to bring that up come to think about it.

 

[Contarini]

I must be way out of the loop here, my bishop has yet to inform me that we should be burning heretics. I guess I will ask him about it when we go to the cathedral to celebrate the feast of St. Lawrence. Hey that would be a very appropriate time to bring that up come to think about it.

Just to be clear: I am not arguing that the Catholic Church currently endorses the burning of heretics.

Edwin

 

[NovusFidem]

However, on some of the things mentioned on this thread, such as the burning of heretics, I’m a 312. That is to say, I am so confident it is wrong to burn heretics that if you proved to me that Leo’s condemnation of #33 in Exsurge Domine was binding, I would no longer be able to accept the authority of the Church.

Ok, it seems we both have been going at this Papal Bull all wrong, so I did some more research. Apparently, this bull:

1) Is believed to be an infallible statement, as it formally takes the form of such a statement.

Said this, you can try to rationalize this internally, until you understand why it is both binding and moral.

To which I add:

2) The bull condemns an ABSOLUTIST STATEMENT.

Luther made an **ABSOLUTE **statement, saying that it is NEVER moral, while he had no authority to speak in absolute terms as Luther is not, surprise surprise, the Holy Spirit. The content of the STATEMENT, as someone once mentioned, could be Luther’s constipation, and the Bull would still be valid:

“I will always become constipated after eating bread” Luther declares to the faithful. Pope Leo, having heard of this and, scandalized, issued a papal bull:

Hear Hear!

"With the advice and consent of our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on this statement, and by the authority of the almighty, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely this statement as either heretical, scandalous,** false**, offensive to pious ears** or **seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By this, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected.

As it turns out, Luther MAY eat bread without getting constipated. It just haven’t happened yet. But only God (and His infallible Church) can say in absolute terms that Luther will **always **be constipated by eating bread. Maybe we’ll never get to see Luther not being constipated by bread, but that still doesn’t make his statement infallible - at most, it was a lucky guess on his part."

In other words, the Pope was against the use of “always” and “nevers”. Only God knows if there ever will be a time for heretics to be burned, and WE are not to claim otherwise if such a time ever comes, as Luther did.

So, heretic BBQ is off of my list of activities this weekend. Apparently, the Church does not CONDONE it. However, there could come a time where God would request this of us. I mean, killing our sons is not condoned either, but God did ask this of Abraham; thankfully, after confirming his faith, God stopped him… but, still, who knows.

(PS: so, if I was taking a violent position on this issue, it was only due to MY OWN IGNORANCE. Would you look at that? The Church was right, once again… will the wonders never cease in my life?)

 

[Contarini]

First of all, there is no evidence that I know of indicating that Pope Leo (or Eck, who actually is believed to have drafted much of the document) intended anything of the sort. It’s a loophole resorted to by those who believe (unnecessarily and mistakenly, in my opinion) that the document is infallible.

But in the second place, obviously absolutist statements are justified on a lot of things. And this is one of them.

So that argument just doesn’t fly.

The Pope was wrong on this one. Period. If he was right, then Vatican II and all modern Catholicism stand condemned.

Edwin

 

[NovusFidem]

But in the second place, obviously absolutist statements are justified on a lot of things. And this is one of them.

Under whose authority?

 

[DCNBILL]

Just to be clear: I am not arguing that the Catholic Church currently endorses the burning of heretics.

Edwin

Ok, good, it is hot enough down here in the first place without a bunch of people on fire in the parking lot.:tanning:

 

[Contarini]

Under whose authority?

The authority of God, who has written His law in our hearts.

Also, the Church’s understanding of the truth has clearly developed since the sixteenth century, and now confirms what I’m saying.

Which means that Luther and Erasmus and Castellio and other “heretics” of the sixteenth century were right, on this specific point at least, according to the current teaching of the Church.

Edwin

 

[Duane1966]

I am not a fan of executing people at all, but I can see how the methods you describe might appear at a given time and place to be the most humane available.

I do not see any of those as humane.

Burning someone at the stake is always gratuitously cruel.

As is any other form of execution.

However, there’s a huge difference–they were actually acting on their beliefs in ways that directly harmed the country.

And monarchs for over a thousand years felt that heresy directly harmed the unity of the country that they ruled. Taken from here:nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/candp/crime/g04/g04cs2.htm

Heresy means holding a religious belief which the Church disagrees with;
Treason means trying to overthrow the government.
During this period, religious unity was thought necessary to keep a country together. Religious tolerance was therefore out of the question. Furthermore, the religion of the country depended on the religious views of the monarch.** Disagreement with the monarch’s religion was inseparable from treason**, and many paid the price as England in the 16th century went through a series of religious about-turns.

Heresy was considered treason against governments. :books.google.com/books?id=LDbhV7u1_yIC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=does+heresy+equal+treason&source=bl&ots=_2m_eUKgi3&sig=P_yEj0_KlQvQ57Z1a28ShgPKl3c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAmoVChMI2o7lzoeJxwIVjBCSCh2NxgdV#v=onepage&q=does%20heresy%20equal%20treason&f=false

set a new course, merging the secular power of Rome with the divine power of the Church and introducing more severe punishments for heresy (which at that time became indistinguishable from treason).

And here:www-tc.pbs.org/inquisition/pdf/TheCatharHeresy.pdf

So the sovereign and sovereign power was closely identified with Roman Catholicism and the maintenance of Roman Catholicism. A heretical movement therefore in seeking to
undermine Roman Catholicism also could be seen as a direct threat to the State.

Heresy, given the political theory of the Middle Ages, could easily be equated with treason as we would understand it. In other words, a betrayal of government and society - simply because there was a total identification between religious belief
and loyalty to the sovereign.

In my view, which I know you do not accept, if Leo agrees that burning as a form of execution is against the will of the Spirit, he must state that all forms of execution go against the will, as NO form of execution is humane, any form could be argued as against the will of the Spirit. No government will accept that.

Did you ever think, that maybe, just maybe, Leo prayed a lot over this Bull before it was issued?

Why do you think that Luther would argue against burning heretics, but not witches?

 

[Duane1966]

Nothing obvious about that. It is well documented that the early modern Catholic Church put limitations on laypeople’s access to Scripture “Attitude of the Church toward the reading of Scripture in the vernacular,” point 3.

And yet from the very end of that article we find this:

In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children;** she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm**.

A couple questions for you. Is it better for me to read a translation in the vernacular that the Church has forbidden, one that I interpret as okay to divorce and remarry if adultery has taken place, or to not read it and trust the Church’s teaching on divorce and remarriage? Is my soul more in jeopardy under either scenario?

It wasn’t as if laypeople were being generally encouraged to read Scripture. The general policy was to discourage it, unless it could be ascertained that an individual would benefit from it. In other words, it was seen as something to be undertaken only by a very devout, solidly orthodox, well-formed layperson under close pastoral supervision.

Nothing wrong with that, I have seen too many people who do not understand what they read. For an example, the issues: Call no man father, praying to saints, repetitive prayer…and on and on.

Quesnel was saying that it was a general right and obligation. I certainly agree about the obligation part. But you’re twisting this into a situation where the poor laity are not wanting to read Scripture and Quesnel is trying to “force” them. And that’s just silly.

Then why does it say the laypeople dispensing themselves?

1. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the** laity to dispense themselves** from reading it.

I am not claiming that such a person would be in mortal sin and couldn’t be saved, but they would not have a very healthy spiritual life. This is one of the reasons why so many Catholics have a weak spirituality.

This is subjective, and does nothing to further the conversation. I can just as easily say I know many Protestants who know the bible backward and forward, but are weak spiritually (I do).

Also, it should be noted that far less Scripture was read at Mass in the 17th century than now. And I’m not at all sure that the readings were repeated in the vernacular as they were in the immediate pre-Vatican-II era. In short, I am not falling into the trap of saying that only literate people can have a healthy spiritual life. There are ways to ensure that illiterate people get robust doses of Scripture. But the 17th-century Catholic Church wasn’t doing that.

Not sure about these statements, so I have no reply. (Even though that is a reply)

And when a person can read and chooses not to study Scripture, they’re being as reckless with their spiritual health as a person who never exercises is with their physical health.

Believe it or not, I agree with this, and so does the Church.

Just a few quotes from popes over the years, there are tons more.

ope Benedict XIV****( 1740-1758* AD)Pope Benedict instructed the bishops of the Papal States that"In ecclesiastical chant care must be taken to insure that the words are perfectly and easily understood…"He quoted the* Synod of Cambrai from the year 1565:"What is sung in choir is destined to instruct the faithful…"and quoting the Council of Cologne from 1536 :“the most important part is made up precisely of the recital of the words of the prophets, the apostles, the Epistle, the Creed, the Preface or the act of thanksgiving, and the Our Father. On account of their importance these texts like all the others must be sung clearly and intelligibly.”*—*Pope Benedict XIV, “Annus qui” 19 February AD 1749)

Pope Pius 6th* (April 1st 1778 AD)“BELOVED SON : Health and apostolic benediction. At a time that a vast number of bad books, which most grossly attack the Catholic religion, are circulated even among the unlearned, to the great destruction of souls, you judge exceedingly well, that the faithful should be excited to the reading of the Holy Scriptures : for these are the most abundant sources which ought to be left open to every one, to draw from them purity of morals and of doctrine, to eradicate the errors which are widely disseminated in these corrupt times : this you have seasonably effected, as you declare, by publishing the sacred writings in the language of your country, suitable to every one’s capacity …Given at Rome, on the calends of April, 1778, the fourth year of our pontificate.”(Letter to the Most Rev. Anthony Martini, Archbishop Of Florence, on his Italian translation of the Bible which is printed in Haydock’s Bible, revised by the Very Reverend Dr. Husenbeth, 1884 AD. SeePhotograph)

Pope Pius VII* (1742 –1823)in a rescript, April 18, 1820, addressed to the English Bishops, he expressed his wish“to encourage their people to read the Holy Scriptures; for nothing can be more useful, more consoling, and more animating, inasmuch as they serve to confirm the faith, support the hope, and influence the charity of the true Christian.”Catholic Bishops in* AD* 1826“

to be continued…

 

[Duane1966]

Part 2.

Pope Pius VII* (1742 –1823)in a rescript, April 18, 1820, addressed to the English Bishops, he expressed his wish“to encourage their people to read the Holy Scriptures; for nothing can be more useful, more consoling, and more animating, inasmuch as they serve to confirm the faith, support the hope, and influence the charity of the true Christian.”Catholic Bishops in* AD* 1826“

Q. Do not Catholic Bishops and Popes discourage the reading of the Scriptures?***
A. No; the Catholic clergy are bound to read the Scripture for nearly an hour every day; the Catholic Bishops of Great Britain publicly declared, in 1826, that the circulation of authentic copies of Scripture was never discouraged by the Church”(A Doctrinal Catechism published in AD 1846)*

Third Council of Baltimore** (7 December AD 1884)*“It can hardly be necessary for us to remind you, beloved brethren, that the most highly valued treasure of every family library, and the most frequently and lovingly made use of, should be the Holy Scriptures… We hope that no family can be found amongst us without a correct version of the Holy Scriptures.”**The Holy Bible, Holy Trinity Edition (Chicago: Catholic Press,1951) p.xxi.

See Pictures of1884 Catholic Biblein America with endorsements from all the Bishops in USA in the opening pages encouraged the laity to read it.

Pope Leo XIII*(1878-1903 AD)Providentissimus Deus: Encyclical Of Pope Leo XIII On The Study Of Holy Scripture“ …* advancing the glory of God and contributing to the salvation of souls, have for a long time cherished the desire to give an impulse to the noble science of Holy Scripture, and to impart to Scripture study a direction suitable to the needs of the present day. The solicitude of the apostolic office naturally urges and even compels us, not only to desire that this grand source of Catholic revelation should be made safely and abundantly accessible to the flock of Jesus Christ, but also not to suffer any attempt to defile or corrupt it”“… For sacred Scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Ghost, it contains things of the deepest importance, which in many instances are most difficult and obscure. To understand and explain such things there is always required the ‘coming’ of the same Holy Ghost; that is to say, His light and His grace…It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred… and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration is not only essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.”“(By reading the Scriptures) the intelligence which is once admitted to these sacred studies, and thereby illuminated and strengthened … and … at the same time the heart will grow warm, and will strive with ardent longing to advance in virtue and in divine love. ‘Blessed are they who examine His testimonies; they shall seek Him with their whole heart.’ ” (Psalm 119:2)[Providentissimus Deusat the Vatican Website. ( Nov. 18, 1893)]Note:“Holy Ghost”* is an older English translation from the Latin for “Holy Spirit”* which is* “Spiritūs Sancti.”*

Pope Leo XIII*(1898 AD)“An indulgence of 300 days for reading the Holy Gospels is granted to all the Faithful who read these Holy Scriptures for at least a quarter of an hour, with reverence due to the Divine Word and as spiritual reading…. A Plenary indulgence under the usual conditions is granted once a month for the daily reading.”*Pope Leo XIII. December, 1898,Preces et Pia Opera, 045.(Enchiridion Indulgentiarium,694).

Pope St. Pius X*(1903-1914 AD)“Nothing would please us more than to see our beloved children form the habit of reading the Gospels - not merely from time to time, but every day.”

Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X:**

28 Q: Is the reading of the Bible necessary to all Christians?**** A: The reading of the Bible is not necessary to all Christians since they are instructed by the Church; however its reading is very useful and recommended to all.**

29Q: May any translation of the Bible, in the vernacular, be read?****
A: We can read those translations of the Bible in the vernacular which have been acknowledged as faithful by the Catholic Church and which have explanations also approved by the Church.*

30 Q: Why may we only read translations of the Bible approved by the Church?****
A: We may only read translations of the Bible approved by the Church because she alone is the lawful guardian of the Bible.

3Q: Through which means can we know the true meaning of the Holy Scripture?***
A: We can only know the true meaning of Holy Scripture through the Church’s interpretation, because she alone is secure against error in that interpretation.—Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X: AD 1908,* On the Virtues and Vices:*

On Holy ScripturePope Benedict XV** (1914-1922 AD)“Our one desire for all the Church’s children is that, being saturated with the Bible, they may arrive at the all surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ.”**15 September AD 1920
He repeated St. Jerome’s statement:“Ignorance of Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”
*
Pope Pius XII** 1943 AD“Our predecessors, when the opportunity occurred, recommended the study or preaching or in fine the pious reading and meditation of the sacred Scriptures.“… This author of salvation, Christ, will men more fully know, more ardently love and more faithfully imitate in proportion as they are more assiduously urged to know and meditate the Sacred Letters, especially the New Testament …”[Divino Afflante Spiritu]He also granted indulgences (a blessing of God’s grace) to those who read Scripture. (1 Cor. 4:1.)*** *

 

[Peter_J]

I’m genuinely interested to know how you would use the position in 3b to understand the Israelite conquest of Canaan and the use of the ban (herem) as described in the Books of Joshua and Judges and Samuel. In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, God explicitly commands that children be slaughtered:

If Scripture is not wrong, is it only the interpretation of such passages by some people that is wrong?

It was certainly part of ancient Hebrew belief that their ancestors had waged such war at God’s command.

I would respond, however
a) on a literal -historical level (i.e., asking about the intentions of the “original author” of the text as we have it) was the author intending to affirm the validity of herem warfare or rather seeking to make some other point using traditions about herem warfare to do so? For instance, in 1 Sam. 15, Saul isn’t condemned for showing mercy. (He happily kills all the women and children, but saves animals for loot and sacrifices and the king as a trophy.) He’s condemned for perverting a holy war into a war for greed and ambition. In other words, this could actually be read as a condemnation of “real-life” warfare by comparing it to an ancient ideal of war that was motivated solely by zeal for God. In itself, this won’t get us to the proposition “herem warfare was bad/not commanded by God,” but it indicates that the intention of the human author may not have been to encourage herem warfare per se.

b) on a theological/canonical level, reading Scripture as a canonical whole centered on Christ, through the lens of Sacred Tradition, the stories are about a zeal for God that is exemplified primarily through Christ’s death on the Cross–forgiving rather than destroying his enemies. Jesus’ redemptive death was the ultimate example of holy warfare–utterly defeating God’s enemies and giving oneself up to God rather than using God’s cause as an excuse for one’s own gain and glory (as Saul and Achan did). That is why early Christians such as Origen could allegorize the conquest of Canaan–ultimately it is about Christ’s victory over evil through death and resurrection and our participation in that.

In the end, Augustine’s principle must be applied: any meaning of Scripture that does not build up faith, hope, and charity is not the meaning God inspired.

Edwin

A question for either of you, if you happen to know … is there any firm evidence that “Thus says the Lord of hosts” applies to *both *of the sentences which follow? That’s what the translator implies by his/her choice of punctuation, but as far as I know he/she could have punctuated it this way instead:

Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.

 

[Peter_J]

I must be way out of the loop here, my bishop has yet to inform me that we should be burning heretics.

I’m guessing your bishop is pretty old fashioned. By any chance, did he grow up in the 1450s?

 

[Contarini]

And monarchs for over a thousand years felt that heresy directly harmed the unity of the country that they ruled.

Agreed. The basic deal was that the Church identified which ideas were orthodox and which heretical, and the civil rulers (William Cavanaugh has made me nervous about using the word “state,” although sometimes it’s hard to avoid) would promote orthodoxy and ban heresy.

However, I was speaking of why I make a distinction between punishing heresy and punishing other crimes.

Taken from here:nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/candp/crime/g04/g04cs2.htm

Not a very good source. British governmental education websites are not to be trusted in their coverage of religious matters.

Heresy was considered treason against governments. :books.google.com/books?id=LDbhV7u1_yIC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=does+heresy+equal+treason&source=bl&ots=_2m_eUKgi3&sig=P_yEj0_KlQvQ57Z1a28ShgPKl3c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAmoVChMI2o7lzoeJxwIVjBCSCh2NxgdV#v=onepage&q=does%20heresy%20equal%20treason&f=false

And here:www-tc.pbs.org/inquisition/pdf/TheCatharHeresy.pdf

Nope. These authors are speaking very loosely–they seem to think that anything seen as a threat to society is treason. But all crime is a threat to society. By this logic all crime is treason.

This may sound simplistic, but they were separate crimes, which is why they were called separate things.

I note that none of your sources actually cite any primary sources saying that heresy is treason. The only such source I’ve ever seen cited is a quote from Innocent III saying that heresy is treason against Christ, but that’s not the same thing.

Also, the first of the two sources above appears to be a polemical screed against Catholicism. I wonder why you consider it a reliable or authoritative source? The author has an anti-Catholic agenda and is slanting the definitions to favor his case. Somewhat the same seems to be true with the other source. I don’t think you are using your sources very critically.

To be clear: I’m not denying that governments saw heresy as a threat. I’m saying that in a formal legal sense heresy and treason were quite separate crimes.

In my view, which I know you do not accept, if Leo agrees that burning as a form of execution is against the will of the Spirit, he must state that all forms of execution go against the will, as NO form of execution is humane, any form could be argued as against the will of the Spirit. No government will accept that.

I don’t follow your logic here.
If all execution is inhumane, does it not follow that all execution is against the will of the Spirit?
And since this obviously implies that burning heretics at the stake is against the will of the Spirit, doesn’t it follow that Leo was clearly wrong?
You seem to be suggesting that he condemned a proposition he knew to be true, because he was afraid of the political fallout.
Or else you are suggesting that the Holy Spirit wants inhumane things to happen if governments are unwilling to accept Church opposition to them.

Perhaps I’m caricaturing you, but I’m trying to make sense of what you’re saying, and I’m really struggling.

Did you ever think, that maybe, just maybe, Leo prayed a lot over this Bull before it was issued?

I’m sure it’s possible. But there is no particular historical reason to consider it likely, of this particular Pope.

And I am much more certain that Luther prayed a lot about the 95 Theses and other controversial writings before he issued them. That doesn’t make Luther right

Why do you think that Luther would argue against burning heretics, but not witches?

I am not sure that Luther supported burning witches, but he did support executing them for sure.

And the reason would be that he believed that they were deliberately making a deal with Satan to harm people.

Heretics, on the other hand, are often very sincere and pious people who simply interpret Scripture wrongly and whose consciences won’t let them submit to the Church.

They should be reasoned with, not killed.

Again, this is not controversial in most of modern Catholicism. I’m sure neither of the two living Popes would have any problem with it.

But Leo did.

Leo was clearly wrong. Your own view that all execution is inhumane logically implies that he was wrong, because inhumane acts are never the will of the Spirit. (I am not arguing that any form of execution is humane. I simply refuse to be drawn into that debate one way or the other because I don’t think it’s germane here.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

A question for either of you, if you happen to know … is there any firm evidence that “Thus says the Lord of hosts” applies to *both *of the sentences which follow? That’s what the translator implies by his/her choice of punctuation, but as far as I know he/she could have punctuated it this way instead:

Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.

I don’t think there’s any way to be sure, actually. I think this is a really good point.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Isn’t it? You are considering an attachment to someone (who you love dearly, I am sure) instead of doing what MIGHT be what God wants you to do: to Sacrifice.

No. Because sacrificing other innocent people is never what God wants. Period.

Aquinas may be overly influenced by Aristotle (as he was on other issues, such as slavery, women, and ensoulment) in his discussion of our obligation to love. But if he is wrong–if we are in fact called on to love everyone equally–then we are called to love all our neighbors as much as we love our family, not to love our family so little that we are willing to kill them off for some numerical greater good.

The point I’m making is that each human life, properly considered, has infinite value. When you imagine the one person on the other line being someone you love, you see that. When we love someone, we can’t imagine deliberately harming them for the sake of some greater good. And when we love everyone, we refuse to harm anyone for such a supposed greater good.

To say “five lives are more valuable than one life” is to say that the value of human life can be quantified.

When faced with such a choice, the only moral choice might be not to choose at all, even if that meant the destruction of every living thing in the universe.

You know, to “pick your Cross” and all that jazz?

That doesn’t mean “put the Cross on somebody else.”

To say that causing the death of someone else is taking up one’s own cross is a monstrous parody of what Jesus meant.

God loved Jesus dearly, but Sacrificed Him so that we had a chance to be saved. And isn’t God, and Jesus, the example we must follow?

Again, this is implying polytheism and is not orthodox.

I wouldn’t be able to sacrifice anyone I know, I’ll admit to that. But this is because of my emotional attachment to them, my dependence not in God, but in my mortal life. I am, despite all knowledge of Catholic doctrine, a terrible Catholic still. (working my way up to Saint!)

I think you are going about it entirely the wrong way. I think you are trying to turn yourself into a robot, not a saint.

All the great Doctors of the Church have said that the heart of sanctity is love. The problem with our natural loves is not that we love people too much, but that we love them too little. The more we love God, the more we love others.

Utilitarian ethics of the kind you seem to be espousing are utterly incompatible with Christian sanctity. They are a kind of undead parody–Christian charity killed and brought back as a zombie.

You don’t sacrifice other people. Period. That is, to steal a phrase from Thomas Merton, “the moral theology of the devil.”

Jesus did say that we should leave behind mother and father, and wife, and son, and follow Him.

Leave them, if necessary. Not harm them.

He WANTS sacrifice. Sacrifice your pleasures, your belongings, your own flesh and blood for His cause - to save as many as you can.

Again with the quantification.

That’s always the wrong road.

What Christ wants is love. He called first-century people to “hate” their families because family identity defined people in that culture, and he was calling them to redefine their identity. He was not calling them to harm their families or to stop loving them.

(I’m not saying that Christ doesn’t sometimes call people to leave their families or do things that upset them today as well. I’m just trying to flesh out what that language originally meant so that we can see what it might mean today.)

God does not want sacrifice in the abstract. God wants love. Sacrifice is a free offering of oneself and everything one has and is to God, in love.

It never, ever involves the tradeoff of harming some people so as to benefit more people.

Or try to imagine: to God, is your mother worth more than any of those on the Trolley? To God, who loves every mother as special for giving birth and raising kids, for baking muffins and kissing good nights - to HIM, is your mother any more special than mine?

But no less, either. That is why God doesn’t sacrifice some people for others. Nor should we.

Would it be “moral” for me to pull the lever (since it’s your mother on the tracks), but not for you? Isn’t this moral relativism?

No, it isn’t at all. It’s not “moral relativism” to say that we have greater duties to some people than to others, and that some people have greater duties toward us than others do. It’s just plain natural law. Granted, as you point out, Jesus calls us to go beyond natural law and love everyone, even setting aside the claims of family if necessary.

But I suspect that it wouldn’t be moral for anyone to pull the lever. And as I’ve said a number of times, I think the whole “trolley problem” is a bad starting point for moral philosophy, because it deliberately creates an extremely improbable–maybe even impossible–situation. In real life, what you would do in anything resembling this is seek desperately for a way to save everyone.

 

[Contarini]

(PLUS: God told us to love even our enemies; why should your friends be more important than anyone else? Isn’t this belief - that those closer to your heart are more important - a decision made on feelings rather than reason? If personal attachments such as these are subjected to the individual, wouldn’t morality become subjective, such as the above mentioned “mom” case?)

Nope. Again, it’s clearly a dictate of reason that we should love our families in such a way that we would not deliberately put them in harm for some greater good.

It is, I believe, a command of the Gospel, going beyond but not contradicting the dictates of natural law, that we should love everyone in this way. Which seems to imply that we should never pull the lever at all.

Do you think His choice would be to save 5 moms, or just yours?

God would not make such a trade-off.

As Julian of Norwich says, Christ would have died for each of us if we were the only ones who needed it.

Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Hold yer horses!

Please try to adopt a more courteous form of discussion. You did ask me to tell you if you annoyed me suddenly, and I am complying with your request

The Father and Son share one nature, but they are two persons. The Son sacrificed himself at the cross, not the Father. So saying GodFather sacrificed himself is innaccurate, as it was GodJesus who sacrificed himself. Jesus, as the Son, sacrificed himself for mankind. The Father did not sacrifice himself. (just like when Jesus directed His prayers to the Father - two different persons)

Actually, the orthodox position is that the Blessed Trinity shares one will, and that the acts of the Trinity are indivisible. When God acts in the world, the whole Trinity acts. God sacrificed Himself in only one Person, but it was the act of the whole Trinity. This is the teaching of St. Augustine and of the entire Catholic tradition as far as I’m aware. I don’t think there’s any room for disagreement on this point.

Jesus, on the other hand, has two wills, as St. Maximus the Confessor taught in the seventh century and as was confirmed by the Third Council of Constantinople.

Thus, what happened when Jesus prayed in Gethsemane was not that one Person of the Trinity submitted to another but that the human Jesus conformed His will to the will of God.

And that free act by Jesus as a human being was absolutely vital to our salvation. As was the free act of the Blessed Virgin in saying “yes” to the message of the angel.

That is because God does not sacrifice people in the sense you are implying. God does not say “sorry, little human pawn, but I need you dead so my bishop can take the enemy queen.” God invites us to offer ourselves to him, freely, in love, to be part of his purposes of mercy for all creation. That never, ever involves a calculated choice to harm some for the good of others.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

sacrificing other innocent people is never what God wants.

Interesting. I think you may just force me to rethink my practice of believing everything I read on the internet.

(Kidding.)

I think you are trying to turn yourself into a robot, not a saint.

This actually reminds me of something I said the other day about “Patch Adams” … it’s pretty off-topic, but this the PM I’m sending you.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t think there’s any way to be sure, actually. I think this is a really good point.

Edwin