S
smichhertz
Guest
It may coincide with what sharptiger999 has said, I haven’t followed all his posts. If so, then he has accepted an objective morality and I missed it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
louis91766
Guest
I would agree with that to some extent. Take for example, the question of the morality of capital punishment. Theologians of the Catholic Church were in favor of executing heretics, and people were burned at the stake, while the Church did not object. However, now they say that we are supposed to be against capital punishment in all cases, even in the case of a convicted murderer.I will argue that morality is subjective. .
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Church teaching on the morality of Capital punishment has not changed, and the Church most definitely does not teach that Catholics are supposed to be against capital punshiment in all cases.I would agree with that to some extent. Take for example, the question of the morality of capital punishment. Theologians of the Catholic Church were in favor of executing heretics, and people were burned at the stake, while the Church did not object. However, now they say that we are supposed to be against capital punishment in all cases, even in the case of a convicted murderer.
Pax.
J
joshrp
Guest
Morality is based on principles. God creates new principles all the time, but He does not destroy the old ones. He creates new physical states within the universe. This is done by human beings to. Because we can discover these principles, and use them to create new ones. So we are building up our morality. Morality is about the discovery of principles of the universe, and creating new ones that are truthful. If you intentionally try to create something that is untruthful, then you are acting in an immoral way.I will argue that morality is subjective. We humans must develop our cultural moralities such that we can progress and live lives with freedoms that we choose, such that it does not hinder someone else’s freedoms. We rationally debate and discuss what would be a good moral law within our societies. Generally, in America for instance, we have good baseline (federal) laws, yet states still have differences for what fits within that local area. Simply stealing or killing someone because you feel like it has been determined not to be a good sense of morality because we all agree this hinders our own personal freedoms of living happy the way we want to. Anyone who wants to commit acts such as these will also in turn “end” their life as they know it by sitting in prison of which collective society has determined necessary in order to maintain their freedoms. So in a sense, we do come up with “objective” standards that apply to everyone in our local community/state/country, but these were subjectively thought-out and “designed.” It is not objective in the sense that most religions would imagine.
If morality was objectively given by god, then morality could not evolve. The same moral laws would have to exist in every time period. Obviously, some of the basic one’s have existed for hundreds of years such as not killing or stealing because these acts were common. But then collective societies began to look closer at moral laws as infrequent, tough moral dilemmas occurred such as killing is perhaps moral if you must protect others who are also about to be killed (i.e. intruder with intent to kill).
Simply put, I argue that morality is and has always been subjectively based on thought and evidence, rather than an ultimate moral law which must always stay the same.
Ok, I’m kind of running off into space right now. Bring me back down to Earth, lol.
L
louis91766
Guest
In the local Catholic newspaper, sent out and published by the diocese, a priest wrote an article saying that Christians must reject capital punishment. Would this priest then be a heretic?Church teaching on the morality of Capital punishment has not changed, and the Church most definitely does not teach that Catholics are supposed to be against capital punshiment in all cases.
Pax.
L
louis91766
Guest
Is it still moral to burn heretics at the stake or has this teaching changed?Church teaching on the morality of Capital punishment has not changed, and the Church most definitely does not teach that Catholics are supposed to be against capital punshiment in all cases.
Pax.
T
tonyrey
Guest
It was never moral to burn heretics at the stake. You will not find that precept in the teaching of the Church…Is it still moral to burn heretics at the stake or has this teaching changed?
B
Big_Dummy
Guest
Ok, we are in Nazi Germany. I am a prision guard and you are a Jewish Person. I am holding a gun to your head, exactly why should I not shot you dead?I will argue that morality is subjective. We humans must develop our cultural moralities such that we can progress and live lives with freedoms that we choose, such that it does not hinder someone else’s freedoms. We rationally debate and discuss what would be a good moral law within our societies. Generally, in America for instance, we have good baseline (federal) laws, yet states still have differences for what fits within that local area. Simply stealing or killing someone because you feel like it has been determined not to be a good sense of morality because we all agree this hinders our own personal freedoms of living happy the way we want to. Anyone who wants to commit acts such as these will also in turn “end” their life as they know it by sitting in prison of which collective society has determined necessary in order to maintain their freedoms. So in a sense, we do come up with “objective” standards that apply to everyone in our local community/state/country, but these were subjectively thought-out and “designed.” It is not objective in the sense that most religions would imagine.
If morality was objectively given by god, then morality could not evolve. The same moral laws would have to exist in every time period. Obviously, some of the basic one’s have existed for hundreds of years such as not killing or stealing because these acts were common. But then collective societies began to look closer at moral laws as infrequent, tough moral dilemmas occurred such as killing is perhaps moral if you must protect others who are also about to be killed (i.e. intruder with intent to kill).
Simply put, I argue that morality is and has always been subjectively based on thought and evidence, rather than an ultimate moral law which must always stay the same.
L
louis91766
Guest
The Papal Bull, ‘Exsurge Domine,’ of Jun 15, 1520, condemned the errors of Martin Luther.It was never moral to burn heretics at the stake. You will not find that precept in the teaching of the Church…
Pope Leo X condemns the following teaching:
#33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
Giordano Bruno was burned alive in 1600 for holding the heretical belief of Copernicanism, and other heresies. In 1184, the Roman Catholic Synod of Verona legislated that burning was to be the official punishment for heresy.
The examples of burning at the stake show that morality is subjective and relative to the times and culture.
Of course, another example would be the example of slavery which was once permitted, but now is condemned.
L
louis91766
Guest
Here is what the USA Catholic bishops teach: They explicitly call for the abolition of capital punishment:… the Church most definitely does not teach that Catholics are supposed to be against capital punshiment in all cases.
“CHRISTIAN VALUES IN THE ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
We maintain that abolition of the death penalty would promote values that are important to us as citizens and as Christians. First, abolition sends a message that we can break the cycle of violence, that we need not take life for life, that we can envisage more humane and more hopeful and effective responses to the growth of violent crime. It is a manifestation of our freedom as moral persons striving for a just society. It is also a challenge to us as a people to find ways of dealing with criminals that manifest intelligence and compassion rather than power and vengeance. We should feel such confidence in our civic order that we use no more force against those who violate it than is actually required.
Second, abolition of capital punishment is also a manifestation of our belief in the unique worth and dignity of each person from the moment of conception, a creature made in the image and likeness of God. It is particularly important in the context of our times that this belief be affirmed with regard to those who have failed or whose lives have been distorted by suffering or hatred; even in the case of those who by their actions have failed to respect the dignity and rights of others. It is the recognition of the dignity of all human beings that has impelled the Church to minister the needs of the outcast and the rejected and that should make us unwilling to treat the lives of even those who have taken human life as expendable or as a means to some further end.
Third, abolition of the death penalty is further testimony to our conviction, a conviction which we share with the Judaic and Islamic traditions, that God is indeed the Lord of life. It is a testimony which removes a certain ambiguity which might otherwise affect the witness that we wish to give to the sanctity of human life in all its stages. We do not wish to equate the situation of criminals convicted of capital offenses with the condition of the innocent unborn or of the defenseless aged or infirm, but we do believe that the defense of life is strengthened by eliminating exercise of a judicial authorization to take human life.
Fourth, we believe that abolition of the death penalty is most consonant with the example of Jesus, who both taught and practiced the forgiveness of injustice and who came “to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45) In this regard we may point to the reluctance which those early Christians who accepted capital punishment as a legitimate practice in civil society felt about the participation of Christians in such an institution(3) and to the unwillingness of the Church to accept into the ranks of its ministers those who had been involved in the infliction of capital punishment.(4) There is and has been a certain sense that even in those cases where serious justifications can be offered for the necessity of taking life, those who are identified in a special way with Christ should refrain from taking life. We believe that this should be taken as an indication of the deeper desires of the Church as it responds to the story of God’s redemptive and forgiving love as manifest in the life of his Son.”
So at one time, the Church taught in favor of burning heretics at the stake, while at another time the Church teaches in favor of the abolition of capital punishment. Does this not indicate that morality is relative and subjective to the times and culture?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Please give a reference to support your claim…So at one time, the Church taught in favor of burning heretics at the stake…
T
tonyrey
Guest
The Code of Canon Law provides that “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such” (CIC 749 § 3).The Papal Bull, ‘Exsurge Domine,’ of Jun 15, 1520, condemned the errors of Martin Luther.
Pope Leo X condemns the following teaching:
#33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
Giordano Bruno was burned alive in 1600 for holding the heretical belief of Copernicanism, and other heresies. In 1184, the Roman Catholic Synod of Verona legislated that burning was to be the official punishment for heresy.
The examples of burning at the stake show that morality is subjective and relative to the times and culture.
Of course, another example would be the example of slavery which was once permitted, but now is condemned.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
What this indicates is that some American Bishops have a poor understanding of Church teaching on the issue. The church does not teach a Catholic must be opposed to the death penalty in all cases.Here is what the USA Catholic bishops teach: They explicitly call for the abolition of capital punishment:
“CHRISTIAN VALUES IN THE ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
We maintain that abolition of the death penalty would promote values that are important to us as citizens and as Christians. First, abolition sends a message that we can break the cycle of violence, that we need not take life for life, that we can envisage more humane and more hopeful and effective responses to the growth of violent crime. It is a manifestation of our freedom as moral persons striving for a just society. It is also a challenge to us as a people to find ways of dealing with criminals that manifest intelligence and compassion rather than power and vengeance. We should feel such confidence in our civic order that we use no more force against those who violate it than is actually required.
Second, abolition of capital punishment is also a manifestation of our belief in the unique worth and dignity of each person from the moment of conception, a creature made in the image and likeness of God. It is particularly important in the context of our times that this belief be affirmed with regard to those who have failed or whose lives have been distorted by suffering or hatred; even in the case of those who by their actions have failed to respect the dignity and rights of others. It is the recognition of the dignity of all human beings that has impelled the Church to minister the needs of the outcast and the rejected and that should make us unwilling to treat the lives of even those who have taken human life as expendable or as a means to some further end.
Third, abolition of the death penalty is further testimony to our conviction, a conviction which we share with the Judaic and Islamic traditions, that God is indeed the Lord of life. It is a testimony which removes a certain ambiguity which might otherwise affect the witness that we wish to give to the sanctity of human life in all its stages. We do not wish to equate the situation of criminals convicted of capital offenses with the condition of the innocent unborn or of the defenseless aged or infirm, but we do believe that the defense of life is strengthened by eliminating exercise of a judicial authorization to take human life.
Fourth, we believe that abolition of the death penalty is most consonant with the example of Jesus, who both taught and practiced the forgiveness of injustice and who came “to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45) In this regard we may point to the reluctance which those early Christians who accepted capital punishment as a legitimate practice in civil society felt about the participation of Christians in such an institution(3) and to the unwillingness of the Church to accept into the ranks of its ministers those who had been involved in the infliction of capital punishment.(4) There is and has been a certain sense that even in those cases where serious justifications can be offered for the necessity of taking life, those who are identified in a special way with Christ should refrain from taking life. We believe that this should be taken as an indication of the deeper desires of the Church as it responds to the story of God’s redemptive and forgiving love as manifest in the life of his Son.”
So at one time, the Church taught in favor of burning heretics at the stake, while at another time the Church teaches in favor of the abolition of capital punishment. Does this not indicate that morality is relative and subjective to the times and culture?
L
louis91766
Guest
But it still must be obeyed, such as for example, the Humanae Vitae encyclical outlawing the use of artificial contraceptives. There are theologians who say that this was not an infallible teaching, but still it is a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and must be obeyed under pain of mortal sin.*The Code of Canon Law ***provides that “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such” (CIC 749 § 3).
L
louis91766
Guest
Should a Catholic follow his bishop and a declaration of all of the bishops of his country, or should a Catholic follow an anonymous blogger on the internet to get his moral teachings?What this indicates is that some American Bishops have a poor understanding of Church teaching on the issue. The church does not teach a Catholic must be opposed to the death penalty in all cases.
L
louis91766
Guest
1184, the Roman Catholic Synod of Verona.Please give a reference to support your claim…
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
I’d certainly advise against basing religious beliefs on bloggers- anonymous or otherwise. I’d say a Catholic should base belief on Church teaching- as found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the Catechism of the Catholic Church for example. Neither of which instruct Catholics to oppose the death penatly in all cases.Should a Catholic follow his bishop and a declaration of all of the bishops of his country, or should a Catholic follow an anonymous blogger on the internet to get his moral teachings?
Pax and God Bless.
L
louis91766
Guest
The question here is whether or not morality is subjective and relative. I believe that in the case of the capital punishment, it most certainly is. In the past, capital punishment was advised for heresy and witchcraft. As you know, Joan of Arc was burned at the stake under these type of allegations. Today, we see that the Catholic bishops advise against the use of capital punishment. This simply goes to show that the morality of capital punishment is subjective.I’d certainly advise against basing religious beliefs on bloggers- anonymous or otherwise. I’d say a Catholic should base belief on Church teaching- as found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the Catechism of the Catholic Church for example. Neither of which instruct Catholics to oppose the death penatly in all cases.
Pax and God Bless.
Similarly with the question of slavery. In the past, Catholic priests held slaves in the Southern States. And before that, slaves were told by the religious authorities to submit to their masters. However, the present teaching is that slavery is immoral and that slaves should be freed and not under the control of their masters. So this too, points to the subjectivity of morality in the case of the enslavement of people.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
That people have and do engage in immoral acts, does not mean morality is relative. It simply means that people don’t always act morally.
Pax.
Pax.
L
louis91766
Guest
But what has been written in Scripture concerning slaves being subject to their Masters. This is no longer taught today.That people have and do engage in immoral acts, does not mean morality is relative. It simply means that people don’t always act morally.
Pax.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.