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

[Elizabeth502]

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.

Well you don’t have to be concerned with heretics, or with deciding what to do with them. Thankfully, unless we’re members of the hierarchy, that’s not our burden, so if that’s hanging you up about Aquinas, that’s not a valid reason for avoiding him.

Perhaps, when it comes to law or laws, more specific examples would be helpful.

I hate to tell you, but Catholic moral theology does follow the essential Aquinas framework that just law must be in accord with the natural law and the common good. However, we Catholics are also obligated to obey authority, including civil authorities, as long as the laws we are obeying are not doing violence to that natural law. IOW, we can’t brush off a law on a frivolous excuse that it seems unreasonable or silly, subjectively. (We think the speed limit in a particular location is unjustified; therefore we can break that law.)

As to bad language, what offends or causes scandal can be lightly or seriously sinful depending on the circumstances, content, and audience. And what is obviously vain, disrespectful or blasphemous language with regard to God is, as you must know, sinful. Sexual language could have another effect on self or others if it arouses to sexual sin; violent language if it incites self or others to violence. (And violent language, Jesus said, is in itself a form of violence.) So you see, the phrase “bad language” is ambiguous. That’s why Aquinas is helpful: he deals with principles that can be applied.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Not a degree, but you should be adequately competent with the subject matter. Perhaps “qualification” was the wrong word to use.

I think people can do more harm than good if they offer opinions that are not backed up by some scholarship, and I get the impression that some of the well-meaning opinions here on CAF are like that.

1. Define “scholarship.”
2. Is this some subtle attempt to shut down debate on certain moral issues in this forum?

“Well, you’re not well read on the subject—didn’t really study it in school or anything, so really, it’s not worth having a discussion about something you are not really qualified to talk about.”

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Tell you what, Windfish--------

To answer your question:

No---------but I DID stay at a Holiday Express Inn last night. And I also saved a bunch of money by switching to Geico.

 

[brianwalden]

A spambot, if it posts a paragraph from the catechism with an ad attached to it, speaks the truth even though it has no idea what it’s saying.

You shouldn’t be asking about qualifications but whether or not what people post is true.

 

[Windfish]

I hate to tell you, but Catholic moral theology does follow the essential Aquinas framework that just law must be in accord with the natural law and the common good. However, we Catholics are also obligated to obey authority, including civil authorities, as long as the laws we are obeying are not doing violence to that natural law. IOW, we can’t brush off a law on a frivolous excuse that it seems unreasonable or silly, subjectively. (We think the speed limit in a particular location is unjustified; therefore we can break that law.)

I do not know about this. I do not know what is pious opinion and binding. I have plenty of faithful Catholic friends who are anti-Statists who would be able to defend their anti-authoritarian views with great tenacity and sound Catholic basis.

As to bad language, what offends or causes scandal can be lightly or seriously sinful depending on the circumstances, content, and audience. And what is obviously vain, disrespectful or blasphemous language with regard to God is, as you must know, sinful. Sexual language could have another effect on self or others if it arouses to sexual sin; violent language if it incites self or others to violence. (And violent language, Jesus said, is in itself a form of violence.) So you see, the phrase “bad language” is ambiguous. That’s why Aquinas is helpful: he deals with principles that can be applied.

I guess I’ll just look harder for more resources.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I do not know about this. I do not know what is pious opinion and binding. I have plenty of faithful Catholic friends who are anti-Statists who would be able to defend their anti-authoritarian views with great tenacity and sound Catholic basis.

An example of an “anti-authoritarian” view would help. As to an 'anti-Statists," that could be a libertarian, or it could be an anarchist who believes in no laws. Context matters.

I guess I’ll just look harder for more resources.

Again, I might be able to help direct you toward those resources if you could give me examples in the “bad language” classification. (Your comment followed my paragraph on language.)

That is, with regard both to the issue of personal behavior (such as bad language) and the issue of civil or political compliance, some books and resources would be more pertinent than others. Some Catholic moral guides are broad, with scant examples, some more specific. In fact, depending on the situations you’re considering, what you may only need is recourse to constitutional law (protection of individual liberties).

We are always called, as good citizens, to be respectful of the State unless an immoral action is being demanded or asked of us. But even our constitution does not require us to “go along” with behaviors that happen to be conventionally accepted (and perhaps currently the “default behavior”) but to which we object or find distasteful. Nothing requires us to drive a car or even know how to drive, even though most people in our country are drivers or seek to drive. But if we choose to drive we obviously need to abide by insurance and registration regulations. (etc.) A lot of what some people object to about government or public life may simply be a matter of civil liberties. It would be irresponsible to burden the justice department or other civil authorities, though, to object to something that did not rise to a level of moral gravity, not to mention if our goal could be accomplished by passive resistance.

 

[john_aurelius]

unfortunately you don’t have to be educated to ignore or reject moral concerns.

I wish more people were well educated, but its just not feasable to expect everyone to be there.

In my attempt to understand its had me doing formal studies on theology for about 16 years. Even sections not explicitly on Moral theology still relates to it. Church History and Biblical Studies feed into our understanding of Moral Theology as source material.

What were you expecting Windfish? How qualified are you?

Do we need qualifications to ask questions?

 

[Pug]

Do you recommend books besides the Catechism that a lay person such as myself can read on Catholic moral theology? I respect the members of this forum, but some of the topics on moral issues like bad language, legal issues, etc. leave me unsatisfied.

You didn’t post this to me, but I can recommend a set of books to read. They weren’t online when I first read them, but they are now. They were written as seminary texts or reference books. The series is The Way of the Lord Jesus, by Germain Grisez. It is here. The series is incomplete. Only the first 3 volumes are written.

The second volume is the most likely to address any specific questions about legal issues, but I think the most useful volume for learning how to think clearly, using moral principles, is the first volume. It is a huge time commitment to read, though. He agrees with Aquinas on many things, but not all.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You didn’t post this to me, but I can recommend a set of books to read. They weren’t online when I first read them, but they are now. They were written as seminary texts or reference books. The series is The Way of the Lord Jesus, by Germain Grisez. It is here. The series is incomplete. Only the first 3 volumes are written.

The second volume is the most likely to address any specific questions about legal issues, but I think the most useful volume for learning how to think clearly, using moral principles, is the first volume. It is a huge time commitment to read, though. He agrees with Aquinas on many things, but not all.

Yeah, Grisez is good. I mostly did not recommend him because there’s a site called Queering the Church that claims to co-opt him for their “theology.” Secondarily, I have a slight difference of opinion with him on how he interprets Aquinas.

I think what you and I are saying, though, is that anyone who delves into moral theology is going to encounter some heady (philosophical) stuff. (Grisez is not a fast-food version of moral theology.) Again, as I said initially, this is what characterizes Catholic moral thought. One needn’t study seminary texts (although I have), but it depends on how comprehensive one wants to get with the system of it all, and it is a system. Most lay Catholics tend to want guidance for practical moral concerns, rather than the theory behind that, but the paradox is that sometimes it’s hard to understand the practical without understanding the theoretical!

I think it’s terrific that there are some people on this thread and elsewhere on CAF who are becoming self-educated as to the theory.

 

[thistle]

Not a degree, but you should be adequately competent with the subject matter. Perhaps “qualification” was the wrong word to use.

I think people can do more harm than good if they offer opinions that are not backed up by some scholarship, and I get the impression that some of the well-meaning opinions here on CAF are like that.

That is simply stupid. We know the Church teachings and what underpins them and can discuss them. We don’t need a qualification for that.

 

[Prophesy]

Really, I do not mean to be prickly at all, I am just interested in seeing how many of you have taken a class, studied from books, etc.?

I completed my B.Sc. with a minor in Catholic Studies. This included Catholic Moral Thought and Catholic Social Teaching. That’s about all I’ve got.

-Prophesy

 

[PRmerger]

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

This is certainly not the hill I want to die on, and I can see Edward’s and your POV…

I will just say that I did hear none other than the estimable Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin offer the same argument I did. Catholics can be “relativists” (quote, unquote–not truly Moral Relativists) about a number of issues, in that it has not been divinely revealed or reasoned definitively what is the Truth regarding a particular issue.

Thus, take evolution: we just don’t know whether it occurred or it didn’t. (Hence, we can be “relative” about whether it occurred or didn’t). God hasn’t revealed it; science and reason have not come to a definitive conclusion.

 

[nespero]

Took a course in morality as part of my philosophy minor in a Catholic college. That didn’t completely mess me up, however. In spite of that I still feel qualified to discuss moral issues of our faith with fellow Catholics

 

[Dawnia]

No theological training at all here. Politics & Sociology are more up my alley.

I think even bad information can be helpful when discussing moral issues. Everyone gains better understanding when things are challenged. It helps to give us a jumping off point to do more research and learn why something is correct or not correct.

 

[Pug]

I think what you and I are saying, though, is that anyone who delves into moral theology is going to encounter some heady (philosophical) stuff. (Grisez is not a fast-food version of moral theology.) Again, as I said initially, this is what characterizes Catholic moral thought. One needn’t study seminary texts (although I have), but it depends on how comprehensive one wants to get with the system of it all, and it is a system. Most lay Catholics tend to want guidance for practical moral concerns, rather than the theory behind that, but the paradox is that sometimes it’s hard to understand the practical without understanding the theoretical!

That paradox is indeed how I managed to end up studying all three volumes. I was eminently grateful for having discovered his first volume on a bookstore shelf. Finally, someone willing to try to answer what I wanted to know in detail. I don’t always buy his answers, but they are great to have.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Reminder to self:

We all need to continue studying our faith, regardless of any previous level of education or preparation.

Have enjoyed responses of many of you so far.

 

[JimG]

I was taught moral theology by my mother. All good moms are great at moral theology. How do you think kids grow up knowing right from wrong?

 

[michelleds]

Personally, I have an IGMT* degree.
*Inter Galactic Moral Theology degree

I guess I could answer this seriously as everyone did.

I don’t know if I’m qualified. If pressed tho, I would say that I have a law degree, studied ethics in both undergrad and law school, studied philosophy for 1 semester in grad school, and am trying to read as much as possible.

 

[John21652]

I guess I could answer this seriously as everyone did.

I don’t know if I’m qualified. If pressed tho, I would say that I have a law degree, studied ethics in both undergrad and law school, studied philosophy for 1 semester in grad school, and am trying to read as much as possible.

The thing is, every single person on earth is a moral agent. Therefore, every single person is qualified to express an opinion. Some opinions will obviously be more and better informed than others. Some opinions will be differently informed, as the politically correct would say! The main consideration is that people should be honest about what they do or don’t know and either do the homework, or ask for advice.

Now here’s a question - who’s the most qualified to talk about morality, someone who has broken lots of moral rules and has learnt the value of moral rules the hard way, or someone who hasn’t broken many moral rules but is highly qualified on ethical theories?

 

[EricFilmer]

Really, I do not mean to be prickly at all, I am just interested in seeing how many of you have taken a class, studied from books, etc.?

Since you asked, I have a Master’s of Divinity as well as a Master of Arts in Systematic Theology (i.e., the new term for “Dogmatic Theology”). This means that I have studied moral theology in a formal graduate setting. Nonetheless, when discussing morality in CAF, I tend to demonstrate my views with the Bible, catechism, or other sources that are generally acknowledged as being credible among Catholics. As a matter-of-fact, one of my moral theology professors pointed out in class that just because we were getting graduate degrees, this did not automatically validate our personal opinions concerning morality. In other words, he didn’t want us to let the title “master” go to our heads.

In light of what I said, one can objectively say that I am “qualified” to discuss Catholic moral theology. But as people can see in my various posts, in practice I engage in such discussions the same way most of the Catholics without theology degrees do (i.e., quoting the Bible, catechism, credible theologians, etc.). Much of my studies in moral theology was just to simply learn what the Catholic Church officially teaches or recommends concerning the subject, and the textbooks I used are, of course, available to everyone.

For example, one of my professors was a big fan of William May, and the following were used as textbooks for his classes. I am mentioning this because some of the readers of this thread may actually already have one or both of these in their homes:

An Introduction to Moral Theology

Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life (This is a more recent version of the one I actually used)

I don’t know if I’m qualified. If pressed tho, I would say that I have a law degree, studied ethics in both undergrad and law school, studied philosophy for 1 semester in grad school, and am trying to read as much as possible.

I think your background is certainly worth mentioning in the context of this discussion. In preparation of my classes in Catholic moral theology I took an undergraduate philosophy course in ethics. I can’t remember if it was actually required for me to do so, but it was considered a good preparation for moral theology nonetheless. I imagine that it was the same sort of class you took when studying law. There are a number of shared points between classical philosophical ethics and Catholic morality (even if there are some diverging points as well).