PRMerger,
I believe oldcelt is saying that, while a universal morality does exist, and can be found via reason, our individual and collective understanding of that morality changes over time as we have access to new information and use our reason (as opposed to superstition).
Burning witches has always been wrong, according to the universal ideal of morality (natural law, if you like). However, it was “moral” for superstitious people to burn witches in the past…
according to them. There are objective and subjective aspects to morality. Our morality “evolves” in the sense that it becomes more or less aligned with the reasonable, universal, objective morality.
If oldcelt is not saying that, maybe he is saying that morality emerges via human agreement of some kind (ie “social contract theory”)?
There has been much written about this theory of morality and law. Read up on Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, etc. In that case, there is no universal morality, and it was OK for people to burn witches because “the powers that were” decided that it was a moral duty. They based this belief on their superstitious reading of the old testament. We consider this wrong today because “the powers that be” no longer have this particular superstitious view of the old testament. People still burn witches in poor countries in Africa and Southeast Asia. It is a very sad situation and terribly foolish and evil. Then again, I believe in an absolute morality founded upon God’s seven laws given to Noah. But, let’s explore this idea of changing morality within the RC tradition:
The RCC used to teach that “usury” was a grievous sin. Look it up. Now, it is never mentioned. Have you ever heard a homily about the grave evil of usury? During the early Church period (up until the middle ages) it was public enemy #1. Now, it seems to have disappeared all together? The history behind this is fascinating, it is worth a Google.
Long story short, the definition of “usury” has been picked apart and all but obliterated. When the RCC changes her teachings on matters of faith and morals, in order to save face, her strategy is to destroy the very meaning of the words used in the prior teachings so as to construe her self-contradictions as “harmonious.” I can think of two examples off the top of my head, as well as a potential future example to be coming soon:
- “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” actually means that anyone whatsoever can be “in the RCC” even if they don’t know it or even if they are a fertilized egg that immediately dies within a week of conception. Hmm…sounds a lot like the protestant “invisible church.” To me, this is an obvious change in doctrine from the middle ages and the early church period. The shrill and strained apologetic surrounding this issue should be proof enough of the change.
- Religious Freedom. The RCC taught very clearly that everyone in the world should be a RC, and that the world’s governments should all submit to the authority of the Roman Pontiff. Dignitatis Humane teaches the opposite: that no one should be coerced in matters of religion. This is an explicit contradiction of RC tradition. Read this explanation for more information
cmri.org/95prog2.htm
- In the future I believe that the RCC will come to allow divorced and remarried persons to receive communion. I’m not sure how they will do this, but the groundwork has already been constructed. I predict that they will torture the meaning of the word “adultery” and come up with an elaborate justification for why they are not contradicting their prior teachings.
At any rate…no one has given a good reason to suppose that it is morally right to expose one’s children to the possibility of eternal damnation. Tonyrey has given what I believe is a defense of the decision to have children given RC soteriology, though that defense requires the affirmation of certain axioms that seem counter intuitive to me. Thank you all for participating.
