Not to be prickly, but how many of you are even qualified to talk about moral theology?

[PRmerger]

As a black man I have little to no formal education.

This is curious. It sounds as if you’re equating being black with having “little to no formal education.”

Did you perhaps mean that you are black and you happen to have little to no formal education?

 

[copperblade]

I have no formal education in Theology or certificates. Please feel free to disregard my posts based on that However if you read something I write and your conscience agrees, it’s out of my hands!

 

[Elizabeth502]

So do you have such a degree?

Yes, but I will tell you that my educational foundation before then was outstanding, in the Catholic schools I attended, and it was there that I obtained a solid understanding of moral theology, which would have been sufficient unto itself. That Catholic education included a course in Logic, which I consider essential also not just for debate in general, but specifically to follow Catholic debate. (Catholic theology is logical.)

Do you recommend books besides the Catechism that a lay person such as myself can read on Catholic moral theology?

See the post above.

I respect the members of this forum, but some of the topics on moral issues like bad language, legal issues, etc. leave me unsatisfied.

So it sounds as if in addition, you’d like some moral theology guidance which addresses contemporary issues in particular? (By legal issues do you mean current legal conflicts with Church moral stands, such as the realm of conscience clauses and such? Or do you mean behaviors which the civil law allows but Catholic theology opposes?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I will get them, but I really am suspicious when people punt to Aquinas all the time - he is not the end all be all, and a lot of the moral concerns he addresses are informed by a historically contingent point of view.

For me, Aquinas is hardly a “punt.” As I said in an earlier post, the philosophy of Catholic moral theology is what is so foundational, and it is in reading Aquinas, and or an abridgement or a summary by others, that one best understands the philosophical concepts which are essential to the theology. It doesn’t end there, if that’s what you meant by a “punt.” It’s an excellent foundation. (You asked; I’m just beginning to offer some ideas.) Once you understand how it “works,” you don’t always need a list of particular moral prohibitions to thumb through, because it’s the principles that guide.

What interests me, in particular, are the smaller issues. There is a lot of coverage on bigger moral issues, but not so much sophistication on the day-to-day stuff such as, say, bad language.

We cross-posted with my previous post. It sounds as if you’re looking perhaps for good examination-of-conscience/behavior guides based on the catechism – applied from the catechism? (If so, it still is important to understand, eventually, the principles, since modern life always presents us with new moral dilemmas, and we will not always have handy published material to guide us. Aquinas is classic & timeless; it’s the application that is universal, but he is not the only source. He’s just quite thorough and logical, as well as with an excellent spirituality.)

 

[Edward_H]

a lot of the moral concerns he addresses are informed by a historically contingent point of view.

Do tell. Sounds already like you’re a relativist.

 

[GloriousOrder]

I will get them, but I really am suspicious when people punt to Aquinas all the time - he is not the end all be all, and a lot of the moral concerns he addresses are informed by a historically contingent point of view.

DO NOT BLASPHEME HIS HOLY NAME!

He actually tackled masturbation and wet dreams, for goodness’ sake. Nothing was outside St. Thomas’ holy purview.

What interests me, in particular, are the smaller issues. There is a lot of coverage on bigger moral issues, but not so much sophistication on the day-to-day stuff such as, say, bad language.

If you’re looking for the “smaller issues”, you really need not go any further than the S.T., actually. The Second Part of Part II is entirely dedicated to the form, meaning and expression (i.e. day-to-day application) of the Seven Virtues! He especially does a very good job taking apart the virtue of Justice (knowing which of many choices is the right one), and uses hundreds of little examples. Look at II:II, QQ. 106-119, for example, and you’ll see him address when someone should have gratitude, how to express truth, avoiding flattery, sarcasm, backbiting… and well, it goes on and on.

Thomas is all.

 

[Edward_H]

As a black man who has not been accepted on the site so far I thank you for your supportive comment. I must ask, what is the catechism? I feel like it should be the name for a dance move (a really cool word), but I’m sure I’m wrong. I think I’m about to learn a lot.

Not sure what you mean by accepted…we all go through a trial period.

Starting more than one sentence in a forum with “As a black man”…seems to be getting off on the wrong foot.

We are children of God, first. Black, white, tall, skinny, male female, shy, etc. second.

Welcome to the forums.

 

[Windfish]

Do tell. Sounds already like you’re a relativist.

Relative concerns are a part of moral considerations; the problem with relativism is making them the only part. It is quite obvious when you take a look at, to take a famous example, Aquinas’ views on heretics that his thoughts are historically contingent - not necessarily wrong, but they really do not apply today.

 

[Edward_H]

Relative concerns are a part of moral considerations; the problem with relativism is making them the only part. It is quite obvious when you take a look at, to take a famous example, Aquinas’ views on heretics that his thoughts are historically contingent - not necessarily wrong, but they really do not apply today.

No…I am asking for some examples…you said " a lot of the moral concerns he addresses…"

So let’s start listing. No generalities/hasty abstractions.

 

[Windfish]

So it sounds as if in addition, you’d like some moral theology guidance which addresses contemporary issues in particular? (By legal issues do you mean current legal conflicts with Church moral stands, such as the realm of conscience clauses and such? Or do you mean behaviors which the civil law allows but Catholic theology opposes?

I mean all of that and more. What I had particularly in mind are our moral understanding of very arbitrary civil laws that I find cumbersome and would rather not have to observe without incurring any sin on myself.

Right now, though, I have been thinking about bad language. I have Googled all of the threads I could find on the subject on CAF, and they have all left me unsatisfied. I would like authoritative stuff on it, but it seems like its the stuff mostly of forum posts and blogs. Anyway, that’s just an example.

 

[Windfish]

No…I am asking for some examples…you said " a lot of the moral concerns he addresses…"

So let’s start listing. No generalities/hasty abstractions.

I already gave you an example with the treatment of heretics. Going beyond that is not really necessary - it is kind of off-topic, bro.

 

[PRmerger]

Do tell. Sounds already like you’re a relativist.

Well, in a sense, *all *Catholics can be relativists without being heterodox.

All moral relativism states is that we don’t know the truth. Certainly there are many, many questions which remain unanswered–and thus we are permitted to be "moral relativists’ in these areas.

Catholics can be moral relativists on torture, capital punishment, spanking, evolution, how many children to have, whether to abstain from fish on non-Lenten Fridays, Marian apparitions, whether praying the rosary is beneficial, receiving Communion in the hand or on the tongue, Latin Mass vs vernacular, vigil vs Sunday, etc etc etc…

 

[Edward_H]

Well, in a sense, *all *Catholics can be relativists without being heterodox.

All moral relativism states is that we don’t know the truth. Certainly there are many, many questions which remain unanswered–and thus we are permitted to be "moral relativists’ in these areas.

Catholics can be moral relativists on torture, capital punishment, spanking, evolution, how many children to have, whether to abstain from fish on non-Lenten Fridays, Marian apparitions, whether praying the rosary is beneficial, receiving Communion in the hand or on the tongue, Latin Mass vs vernacular, vigil vs Sunday, etc etc etc…

I don’t think this is right. Relativists believe truth is relative, NOT that we can’t know truth. Relativists believe their is no absolute truth. The Catholic Church doesn’t believe this. The Catholic Church believes we can know truth.

You’ve over-lumped a lot into your list . The Catholic Church doesn’t believe all these things to be equal or open to relative interpretation. Some Catholics might think so, but that doesn’t mean it’s right to do so.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think this is right. Relativists believe truth is relative. There is no absolute truth.

You’ve over-lumped a lot into your list . The Catholic Church doesn’t believe all these things to be equal or open to relative interpretation. Some Catholics might think so, but that doesn’t mean it’s right to do so.

Well, perhaps we’re just arguing semantics here…

and what you say is correct. Relativists believe that there is no universal truth. One cannot be a Catholic and be a Relativist.

However, in another sense, there are lots of areas in which Catholics are permitted to be relativist. To wit: see my list above.

 

[john_aurelius]

I think for the purposes of a discussion then the only qualification one needs is to be a moral being.

If you want to pontificate on a particular point you will probably need to support any case you wish to be convincing. Even with degrees people cant just say something is so and expect people to modify their thoughts or behaviour.

This website should be seen more in the discussion mode and statements are only as good as they are in context.

If you want more the face to face communication with your local priest is probably better.

 

[Flimmy]

What were St Paul’s qualifications?

Where did he get the competence and strength to write some of his exhortations in his Letters?

From humility, persistence, ardent desire, and from the Holy Spirit, I think.

I think you’re missing an important point.

Uhhhhhh, he was an apostle of Jesus Christ?

-]How many of us are qualified to discuss moral theology. We need a riddle to weed people out. How many here are adults?/-]

 

[Edward_H]

Well, perhaps we’re just arguing semantics here…

and what you say is correct. Relativists believe that there is no universal truth. One cannot be a Catholic and be a Relativist.

However, in another sense, there are lots of areas in which Catholics are permitted to be relativist. To wit: see my list above.

Well I think you’re right. I don’t however think that if we really got into the tools of moral theology we’d agree.

Take “lying”…some would say that it’s ok to lie if you’re trying to protect someone. In fact, it’s always wrong to lie. But if one is hiding Jews in your basement in Nazi Germany, and you’re asked if you’re hiding Jews…the act of not giving an answer to an illegitimate question, properly, is not a lie. The moral object (the act itself) is not a lie.

Same could be said with torture, capital punishment. Capital punishment is still theoretically permissible by the Catholic Church. It’s just not realistically necessary in these days.

Evolution is not relative either. There is an absolute truth with respect to how God shaped the world. The answer is not contingent on my views, and your views, etc. We may be getting closer to the truth…but there aren’t multiple truths.

 

[Edward_H]

I think you’re missing an important point.

Uhhhhhh, he was an apostle of Jesus Christ?

And so are we. Paul wasn’t one of the 12, of course.

And we receive the VERY same Holy Spirit.

And sarcasm and condescension are rarely needed.

 

[po18guy]

Catholics can be moral relativists on torture, capital punishment, spanking, evolution, how many children to have, whether to abstain from fish on non-Lenten Fridays, Marian apparitions, whether praying the rosary is beneficial, receiving Communion in the hand or on the tongue, Latin Mass vs vernacular, vigil vs Sunday, etc etc etc…

Is your list maybe more in the realm of prudential judgment, than it is in relativism?

 

[Edward_H]

Is your list maybe more in the realm of prudential judgment, than it is in relativism?

Good point.