N
NEWCATHOLICJEFF
Guest
You twisted the facts…as I had said you could, nevertheless it is a white lie, which is ok, but still a lie… one I would be willing to make … and it sounds like you would too…
- Status
V
virbots
Guest
This is also often discussed on Catholic Answers and the answer they give is that simply abandoning the practice of Catholicism is not sufficient. Only if the person formally declares (by a means that I don’t remember, perhaps a letter to his bishop?) that he is no longer a Catholic, should he be considered a non-Catholic for purposes of the rules stated in my prior posting. So unless your brother did that, then his marriage is invalid and you should not have attended.
But since you weren’t aware of these rules, I’m more concerned for your brother than I am for you; and I hope and pray that he returns to the faith! I wouldn’t be surprised if part of your penance after your next confession will be to pray for your brother. But hey, maybe I should stop guessing since it got me in trouble before.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Perhaps you didn’t understand. As I’ve stated before, I don’t lie (except in the rare case where a life depends on it). I wasn’t lying when I said the girl is beautiful. I didn’t twist any facts.You twisted the facts…as I had said you could, nevertheless it is a white lie, which is ok, but still a lie… one I would be willing to make … and it sounds like you would too…
It is not a white lie. It is no kind of lie. Don’t give me a thumbsup for something I didn’t do.
I maintain that any child of God is beautiful and for you to not accept that I believe what I say is an insult to me. I am telling the truth. It might help if you really looked at this child who is dancing around, like all little girls do if they can, and really take a good, hard, long look. What is that in front of you? It’s a little girl - created by God who loves her. How could she possibly be ugly?
She is beautiful and there’s nothing you can say to me that would make me believe any differently.
Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe tonight.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Thanks.This is also often discussed on Catholic Answers and the answer they give is that simply abandoning the practice of Catholicism is not sufficient. Only if the person formally declares (by a means that I don’t remember, perhaps a letter to his bishop?) that he is no longer a Catholic, should he be considered a non-Catholic for purposes of the rules stated in my prior posting. So unless your brother did that, then his marriage is invalid and you should not have attended.
But since you weren’t aware of these rules, I’m more concerned for your brother than I am for you; and I hope and pray that he returns to the faith! I wouldn’t be surprised if part of your penance after your next confession will be to pray for your brother. But hey, maybe I should stop guessing since it got me in trouble before.
I’m sure he didn’t do anything like formally declare he was leaving the Church.I do pray for him. I am very worried about him. All I can do is pray because we are not on speaking terms, at least not now. Maybe in the future…
Uh oh, I just realized I was in the wedding party when my non-practicing Catholic sister got married, either.
Sheesh, it’s too late at night to even think about these things.
Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe tonight.
V
virbots
Guest
A very well made point and I will not accuse you of lying. However there are different aspects to beauty. There is physical beauty and there is inner beauty.
I once saw a picture of Mother Theresa that captured the difference perfectly. The photo was taken in her old age and you really couldn’t argue that she was physically beautiful. Yet her smile and her eyes radiated a pure and beautiful inner joy that could not be missed.
P
plan19
Guest
No. Beauty is beauty.
Think of it like a flower. A flower is a beautiful thing. It also happens to be a beautiful thing that is easily torn asunder so as to examine what makes up the whole. There is a pistol, a stamen, an anther, a sepule, a style… but none of these, by itself, is a flower.
Beauty is beauty, but as soon as you take a knife to it and start dissecting… you wind up with a pile of things that individually have nothing to do with beauty.
I believe, my friend, that you have confused beauty with physical attractiveness… and these things couldn’t be any further apart.
V
virbots
Guest
Once again in the same thread, I am challenged on definitions. And once again I will resort to the dictionary.
beauty: the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).
From this definition, it is evident that there are different reasons why something or someone can be considered beautiful. From this definition, it is clear that physical attractiveness can be one of those reasons. It is also clear from this definition that the inner beauty I mentioned in Mother Theresa is covered by “or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest.”
The flower dissection analogy doesn’t really apply. Merely discussing the various aspects of beauty doesn’t make beautiful things ugly, just as discussing the various parts of a flower is not equivalent to dissecting a flower and rendering it ugly. I in no way take away from the physical beauty of an attractive woman by distinguishing that from inner beauty, just as I don’t take away from the inner beauty of Mother Theresa by distinguishing it from physical beauty. They are both beautiful, but for different reasons. Discussing that fact doesn’t make them ugly.
P
plan19
Guest
How sad must it be, to not be able to grasp romantic beauty… to have to revert to classicism.
I suggest that you go read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance… stat.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
“strawman exercise”?
You describe “Jews in the basement” as far-fetched. So the Holocaust never happened? People were never in this situation? This is science fiction or fantasy?
No, I’m not proving your point at all. You’re making the slippery slope argument, and since there’s very definite principles that have been articulated that clearly distinguish the circumstances where it’s moral and ethical to lie, your argument is a logical fallacy. Whoever said “the ends justify the means”?
Being bullheaded and stating that the means must justify the ends no matter what happens as a result of your “piety” is why people reject the approach taken. Maybe people present these sorts of scenarios to see if people like yourself will let commonsense and compassion trump blind evocation of “principle”? Not unreasonable, surely?
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
Response to Verbots.
Hello.
You say: The Jews in the basement scenario is a far-fetched example deliberately constructed to make “ends never justify the means” seem absurd. It combines a minor fault (a lie) with a major consequence (people dying in gas chambers).
You are quite right but philosophers use these types of examples to test ideas. [It is like a physical scientist using a pure salt solution, which does not exist anywhere in nature, in an experiment in her lab]
Your ingenious solution is to say that if a person lies to save the Jews he is only commiting a small sin. But the problem remains - why is it a sin at all? Most people would think it a courageous and right act. Courageous because the liar may be endangering his own family were the Nazis to find out that he had lied. Right because to tell the truth and assist the Nazis evil intentions just seems plain wrong or at best a sad necessity. Nobody, who was not arguing a point in a philosophy discussion forum, would think that telling a lie would be wrong and deserving God’s condemnation - however minor that condemnation might be.
This example shows I think, that there are some cases - perhaps only extreme ones - where the end does justify the means.
Best wishes
Laurie Gibson
Hello.
You say: The Jews in the basement scenario is a far-fetched example deliberately constructed to make “ends never justify the means” seem absurd. It combines a minor fault (a lie) with a major consequence (people dying in gas chambers).
You are quite right but philosophers use these types of examples to test ideas. [It is like a physical scientist using a pure salt solution, which does not exist anywhere in nature, in an experiment in her lab]
Your ingenious solution is to say that if a person lies to save the Jews he is only commiting a small sin. But the problem remains - why is it a sin at all? Most people would think it a courageous and right act. Courageous because the liar may be endangering his own family were the Nazis to find out that he had lied. Right because to tell the truth and assist the Nazis evil intentions just seems plain wrong or at best a sad necessity. Nobody, who was not arguing a point in a philosophy discussion forum, would think that telling a lie would be wrong and deserving God’s condemnation - however minor that condemnation might be.
This example shows I think, that there are some cases - perhaps only extreme ones - where the end does justify the means.
Best wishes
Laurie Gibson
K
kage_ar
Guest
ETA - on #1, as long as both are free to marry (no living spouses with a “civil divorce”)
K
kage_ar
Guest
It is our duty not to participate in the sin of another person.
To celebrate an invalid wedding is cooperation with sin and may also be the sin of scandal.
When I became aware of God’s laws on marriage, I stopped attending weddings that appear to be invalid (prior marriages, marriage for Catholics outside the Chruch sans dispensation).
V
virbots
Guest
I keep reading in this thread that the slippery slope argument is fallacious. But where is your evidence of that? Do you not believe that habitualized venial sin often leads to mortal sin? Is that not what the Church teaches? Does not the Church teach that we should be careful to not commit even venial sin precisely because it leads to mortal sin? Is that not what you’ve witnessed in your own life and/or the lives of those you know? Haven’t studies shown that soft porn leads to harder and harder porn? That less harmful illegal drugs such as marijuana open the door to more harmful ones like cocaine and heroine?
N
NEWCATHOLICJEFF
Guest
I agree… beauty is measured in many ways, as is light, temperature even smell. I believe that beauty can be judged using many different scales and yet when we talk about beauty in our society we, generally speaking, are talking about physical beauty.
In this case the dignity of the child, the value and beauty of the soul can be measured and exceed many things, and yet the measure used to judge physical beauty would likely come up short. It is not fair, but it is life, and it may be the cross that she will carry during her life. We do not have to make that cross worse by ignoring her or her efforts to over come it.
I believe it is far more noble to cast aside the single measure, which our society likes to use, and measure the dignity of the soul it is far more beautiful for many then measuring just the physical beauty.
When walking through a burn ward and a person asks “But don’t I smell” would you tell the truth? I guess one could and be “proud” of the boldness and forthright honesty… I on the other hand would be ashamed if I told the truth, rotting flesh and antiseptic do not smell nice to me. I would have to be silent, and possibly hurtful in my silence, or honest and cruel, or I could LIE and make someone happy for even a second…
The emperor, regardless of his own desires, was in fact naked when he walked the carpet nude… it was just the way it was…
I apologize if I inadvertently called someone a liar, I assumed they had used a different scale to judge, ignoring that of physical beauty. Obviously if they were allowed to ONLY use the scale of physical beauty they would not lie and tell the child she was ugly.
I like the forums because we can pose with if’s. This is a conversation where we can fundamentally set limits…my point was that “IF” the only scale you could use was physical beauty most people would lie, so in fact most people choose to use another scale.
For what I assume to be a VERY few that could honestly look at a child, using only the PHYSICAL beauty scale, and tell that child that she is ugly… I have pity…
V
virbots
Guest
I guess I don’t understand how you arrived at your conclusion from what I’ve said and can only guess at it. Is it because I only listed two ways in which something/someone can be beautiful that you conclude I have no understanding or appreciation of the myriad of other possible aspects of beauty? (Actually, I’m not even sure if that’s the point you were trying to make so I have to guess at that too).
But assuming my guesses are accurate …
The point of my post was to demonstrate that beauty has more than one aspect. I need only mention two to demonstrate that point.
Just as if I were trying to show that there was more than one number, I would need only mention two distinct numbers, say 1 and 2. Could you therefore conclude from my argument that I had no idea that there were in fact an infinite number of them?
There are as many forms of beauty as there are creatures and everything else created by God or by man’s hands. The practice of a craft, be it motorcyle maintenance or software engineering can also be beautiful. The fact that I didn’t say that in my original post does not imply that I think otherwise.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I don’t know too much about fallacies but I did read where the “slippery slope” is indeed a fallacy. I found the following explanation:
Description of Slippery Slope (aka “The Camel’s Nose” (and I have no idea why)):
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.
This “argument” has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Examples of Slippery Slope:
“We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they’ll be charging $40,000 a semester!”
“The US shouldn’t get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die.”
“You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they’ll walk all over you.”
“We’ve got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!”
nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
[comment about “The Camel’s Nose” is mine]
I know slippery slope is used a lot and I use it, too. It’s helpful in some ways, but it is technically a fallacy, as far as I know. I was surprised when I read about it but it makes sense to me now. Taking your last example, it really isn’t true that use of marijuana opens the door to more harmful drugs like heroin and cocaine. Actually, marijuana is an excellent medication used for chronic pain, nausea, and a lot of other conditions. There is evidence to back up this claim. I was recently involved in a thread on medical marijuana.
Here’s the link to one of my posts. There are others which show evidence for positive (also negative and neutral) uses of marijuana as a medication:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6256673&postcount=145
Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.
V
virbots
Guest
If that’st the case, then I wasn’t really using a slippery slope argument in the earlier discussion of the ends not justifying the means. I wasn’t talking about inevitability, but rather an increased disposition to let their standards of morality decline once they accept the notion that the ends justify the means. And I maintain that this belief is an error that has led many (but not all) who believe it into serious sin. I have yet to hear evidence to the contrary.
I wasn’t talking about medical usage, but rather “recreational” usage. And once again I’m talking about increased probability not inevitability, as I’m sure many people who use marijuana never go beyond that. Yet I’ve read that most heroine and cocaine addicts started with marijuana, hence my claim.
N
NEWCATHOLICJEFF
Guest
Laurie,
I think a better example would be the Spy… You are a spy and you have a secret that if taken from you would kill millions, (or two… you pick) you also have an arsenic capsule. If you kill yourself what happens… I say… I have no idea, but it ican lead to a good philosophical and morale discussion. What would I do? Well I don’t know, but if I had the strength I would likely swallow the pill. I KNOW I could not resists the torture… I have seen the films of what can be done and I am not that strong… so then the question becomes (Another question which complicates matters) Did I take the pill to avoid the pain of the torture I knew I could not withstand, or did I take the pill to prevent the death of the innocents… If you look at it delima…it truly is perplexing and in the end the only thing I found I would be able to do is lay the decision at Gods feet and ask did I do right? Like a lie on behalf of another? Was it self motivated… Did I tell the truth that hurt someone…was that more selfish then telling the lie?
Tough thoughts…
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
:whacky: I’m getting dizzy…Laurie,
I think a better example would be the Spy… You are a spy and you have a secret that if taken from you would kill millions, (or two… you pick) you also have an arsenic capsule. If you kill yourself what happens… I say… I have no idea, but it ican lead to a good philosophical and morale discussion. What would I do? Well I don’t know, but if I had the strength I would likely swallow the pill. I KNOW I could not resists the torture… I have seen the films of what can be done and I am not that strong… so then the question becomes (Another question which complicates matters) Did I take the pill to avoid the pain of the torture I knew I could not withstand, or did I take the pill to prevent the death of the innocents… If you look at it delima…it truly is perplexing and in the end the only thing I found I would be able to do is lay the decision at Gods feet and ask did I do right? Like a lie on behalf of another? Was it self motivated… Did I tell the truth that hurt someone…was that more selfish then telling the lie?
Tough thoughts…
Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.
N
NEWCATHOLICJEFF
Guest
Sorry… should have hit the return key a little more often,…
- Status