Relativism - What is it?

[vern_humphrey]

I think you’re being a moral relativist here. Either intentionally killing someone with a gun is always wrong, and absolutism holds, or it’s not, which would be a “relativist” viewpoint of morality.

No need to toss accusations like this around. Here’s what the Catechism says:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Clearly the use of force in self-defense, including the use of deadly force, is permissible – so long as one meets the test of necessity. And one can have a duty to use arms in the defense of others.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Citation?

How many times do I have to post this?

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

No, look at “Article 5 THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT”.

The section I posted above comes straight from that part of the Catechism.

But also check Catholic bibles approved from private study.

Give me a cite from a “Catholic bible approved from private study” that says we do not have a right to self-defense. And show how that cite has authority over the Catechism.

 

[SoCalRC]

The Hebrew language uses different words for intentional and unintentional killing.

Which is why Catholics look to the Magisterium for proper context and translation.

The King James Version translates it to…

But we don’t accept all translations as licit, or appropriate for individual study. The NAB, the RSV-CE, and Douay-Rheims all translate the specific verse as “kill”.

Murder is probably not an appropriate translation because it is narrow. For Catholics, the right to live is inalienable and unabridgable:

"In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of therights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor…" - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI #38, which goes on to quote the Second Vatican Council

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html

This is why the Church holds that licit use of the death penalty is constrained to a specific societal protection motive (CCC 2267) and why authority’s ability to determine just war (CCC 2309) is constrained (CCC 2311-2313)

And, of course, we can look at the first paragraph in the Catechism after the introduction of the Fifth Commandment:

“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.” - CCC 2258 (quoting DONUM VITAE)

It is important to understand that “murder” would not cover some of the forms of killing we prohibit, since Catholic faith does not require belief in simultaneous animation (see DECLARATION ON PROCURRED ABORTION, footnote 19).

 

[mschrank]

KITTENS:

The verb is MURDER, not KILL. Relativism would be if murdering was sometimes okay, sometimes not okay.

SoCal… one word. Crusades. Ever hear of Lepanto? My gosh, what on earth are people in so cal smoking these days?

 

[ilovekittens]

No need to toss accusations like this around. Here’s what the Catechism says:

Clearly the use of force in self-defense, including the use of deadly force, is permissible – so long as one meets the test of necessity. And one can have a duty to use arms in the defense of others.

That’s fine, Vern, but not compatible with an absolutist view of morality. If intentionally killing people is sometimes right, then abolutism does not hold.

 

[SoCalRC]

How many times do I have to post this?

You just need to read it:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

You have not right to violence or murder, but killing done in self defense might be licit via double effect.

Substituting “murder” for “kill” in approved scripture is a truncation of Catholic teaching, since we prohibit the killing of human life regardless of rather or not a soul is infused (see previous post).

 

[vern_humphrey]

Which is why Catholics look to the Magisterium for proper context and translation.

And here it is:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You have not right to violence or murder, but killing done in self defense might be licit via double effect.

Oh, more spin!

No one said you have a “right to violence or murder.” The Church says you have a right to self-defense, and sometimes a duty.

Substituting “murder” for “kill” in approved scripture is a truncation of Catholic teaching, since we prohibit the killing of human life regardless of rather or not a soul is infused (see previous post).

Cite?

 

[mschrank]

That’s fine, Vern, but not compatible with an absolutist view of morality. If intentionally killing people is sometimes right, then abolutism does not hold.

Great flying spaghetti monster, could you please point out where Catholicism claims that “killing is always wrong”?!

 

[SoCalRC]

That’s fine, Vern, but not compatible with an absolutist view of morality. If intentionally killing people is sometimes right, then abolutism does not hold.

Actually, we are absolute. Intentionally killing is always immoral, even for seemingly moral ends (ex. abortion to save the life of the mother). What the Catechism basically says is that unwanted and/or unintentinal killing can sometimes be licit.

The conditions are actually very restrictive if fully applied. And some are held to currently be almost theoretical only. For example, this is the Church’s official stance on the death penalty and it is our current Pope’s stance on ‘just war’.

Loosening and broadening these conditions would be an example of what Pope Benedict refers to as “moral relativism”.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s fine, Vern, but not compatible with an absolutist view of morality. If intentionally killing people is sometimes right, then abolutism does not hold.

No, you are mistaken in your view of the Church’s position.

Murder – unlawful or unjust killing of a human being is always wrong. But self-defense (individual or collective) is not, and depending on the circumstances, one may be compelled to use deadly force in the defense of one’s own life, or that of others.

Jesus told us if someone slaps us on one cheek, turn the other. He did not say, “If someone rapes and kills your wife, stand by and watch while he does the same to your daughter.”

 

[mschrank]

Actually, we are absolute. Intentionally killing is always immoral, even for seemingly moral ends (ex. abortion to save the life of the mother). What the Catechism basically says is that unwanted and/or unintentinal killing can sometimes be licit.

The conditions are actually very restrictive if fully applied. And some are held to currently be almost theoretical only. For example, this is the Church’s official stance on the death penalty and it is our current Pope’s stance on ‘just war’.

Loosening and broadening these conditions would be an example of what Pope Benedict refers to as “moral relativism”.

Thank God that the majority of Catholics throughout history did not hold to your bizarre point of view, or we’d be bowing to Allah by now.

 

[SoCalRC]

Great flying spaghetti monster, could you please point out where Catholicism claims that “killing is always wrong”?!

I’ve just cited the Catechism, Dogmatic Constitution, and Papal Decree. No person or state has the right to suspend the fundemental right to life. Killing can only be an unwanted and undesired side effect.

 

[mschrank]

I’ve just cited the Catechism, Dogmatic Constitution, and Papal Decree. No person or state has the right to suspend the fundemental right to life. Killing can only be an unwanted and undesired side effect.

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . **Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's**.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Uh huh… what are you referring to? Are we just arguing cross purposes here?

 

[SoCalRC]

Thank God that the majority of Catholics throughout history did not hold to your bizarre point of view, or we’d be bowing to Allah by now.

Actually, Catholics held very closely to it for the first 300 years after Christ - and thanks to God overcame seemingly insurmountable odds against the Roman empire. In fact, having become the empire, we then created the concept of Just War.

I cannot help that my “bizarre” point of view is spelled out in the Catechism and Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, or that it has been promulgated by multiple popes. Nor can I help that it is the foundation of our beliefs about abortion and euthanasia. Trying to hold those beliefs, while abandoning our beliefs about the inalienable rights of the human person is the “moral relativism” decried by the Church.

Further, your thinking appears to be very Islamic. We are instructed to follow God’s path, not trust in the coordinated violence of fellow men. So perhaps, in a way, you are “bowing to Allah” when you accept the myth of redemptive violence.

 

[SoCalRC]

Uh huh… what are you referring to? Are we just arguing cross purposes here?

No, you are emphasising specific sentences, without reading the foundational concepts or the conditions. The killing is only licit as double effect, not as a rightous act in of itself (as would sometimes be the case under Islamic law).

 

[mschrank]

Actually, Catholics held very closely to it for the first 300 years after Christ - and thanks to God overcame seemingly insurmountable odds against the Roman empire. In fact, having become the empire, we then created the concept of Just War.

I cannot help that my “bizarre” point of view is spelled out in the Catechism and Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, or that it has been promulgated by multiple popes. Nor can I help that it is the foundation of our beliefs about abortion and euthanasia. Trying to hold those beliefs, while abandoning our beliefs about the inalienable rights of the human person is the “moral relativism” decried by the Church.

Further, your thinking appears to be very Islamic. We are instructed to follow God’s path, not trust in the coordinated violence of fellow men. So perhaps, in a way, you are “bowing to Allah” when you accept the myth of redemptive violence.

The strategy of Church before Constantine was possible because it was not political. There was no territory to defend.

Honestly, are you telling me that say, Charles the Hammer should of surrendered at Tours in 786 to the Islamic Horde because fighting back and using violence is wrong?

Secondly, please answer how your supposed interpretation of non-violence fits into the piece of the Catechism I just posted. You’re purposefully ignoring it because you know it does not match your beliefs. Nobody is claiming violence is good in itself. We are only saying that it is sometimes justified.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread has gone off topic. Please take side issues to new or existing threads, people.

 

[buffalo]

I think you’re being a moral relativist here. Either intentionally killing someone with a gun is always wrong, and absolutism holds, or it’s not, which would be a “relativist” viewpoint of morality.

In addition the Catholic Catechism uses both words. I am quoting the Church. Look at the footnotes in the Catechism.

If it comes from God who is absolute truth, then it must be absolute and not relativism.

 

[SoCalRC]

Secondly, please answer how your supposed interpretation of non-violence fits into the piece of the Catechism I just posted. You’re purposefully ignoring it because you know it does not match your beliefs. Nobody is claiming violence is good in itself. We are only saying that it is sometimes justified.

You are not reading my posts carefully. I am saying - look at the proceeding sentence to the one you placed in bold, or the first paragraphi cited. Killing is only licit when it is an undersired and unwanted side effect.

Our Catholic belief is clear (see my citation from Pope John Paul II which, in turn, cites the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church). Also, note the reference to DONUM VITAE in the Catechism with regards to the Fifth Commandment.

We use “kill” because “murder” is too narrow a definition for Catholics. In Catholic teaching, killing a fertilized zygote is always a “grave moral disorder”, but it is not always necessarily murder in the Catholic sense.

Narrowing our understanding of human life and its inviolate nature is a form of relativism. Much like elevating abortion to special stature over other attacks on human life. If you do not value life in “every stage” and in “every form”, you are not really embracing Catholic “pro life” teaching, but simply picking and choosing from Catholicism without cohesive moral structure.

Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have both written extensively on this subject, so there is really nothing more I can add. As usual, I would encourage Catholics to review the Church’s words for themselves.