The blind leads the unsighted

[R_Daneel]

Of course I speak about the Catholic Church and the followers. It all became clear in the thread about the fate of the aborted fetuses. I would have thought that the CC comes forward and states explicitly that the zygotes which do not get implanted in the uterus wall, or which “suffer” a spontenous abortion would go directly to heaven (do not pass “GO”, do not collect 200 dollars ).

After all, the CC asserts that these are human beings, and their only “crime” is the result of the “original sin” - which was (supposedly) washed away by Jesus’s sacrifice - which means that they are totally and completely without any sin whatsoever. Since they could not have committed any sins, let alone any mortal sins, it seemed logical that they cannot be condemned to eternal suffering hell. Since the idea of limbo is now rejected by the CC, their fate should have been obvious. However, the responses were interesting. The posters asserted that the CC does not say anything explicit about the fate of these “humans”, rather it merely says that one can only hope (and pray) that God’s “mercy” will give them a “back-door” to heaven - which they do not deserve at all. (Mind you, this means that even God’s mercy is in question!)

Some even asserted that one can never be sure about the fate of any human, even the place of the Pope is not assured. The Catholic Church (at least according to these posters) cannot give any positive, assured method which would separate the sheep from the goats, the ones who go to heaven and the ones who will be thrown into the eternal fire.

Pretty amazing. So what does the CC know? It cannot say that Catholics will go to heaven, even if they follow all the rules of the church. It cannot say that even the most wicked atheist will go to hell. It cannot say anything about the fate of Muslims, of Hindus, of Wiccans, of Satan-worshipers… of anyone. So why follow such a leader, which cannot answer the most important question of all? Makes no sense, does it? Or is it possible that all those posters were just ignorant nincompoops, who have no idea what the Catholic Church really says?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Or is it possible that all those posters were just ignorant nincompoops, who have no idea what the Catholic Church really says?

I must admit that this rather cynical thought has occurred to me too, slightly uncharitable as it may well be…

 

[JohnDamian]

We tend to dislike broad and uncritical generalisations. To put it bluntly the Church can teach in general terms, but as it does not know the specifics of the rational souls of specific individuals, we cannot know if this or that person had consent, full knowlege and the like; therefore we do not judge them.

What can be said is that if someone specifically and consentually - and in full knowlege, removes themselves from grace then they recieve what they desire; seperation from God.

As a note; original sin is a disposition that leaves a mark on even those whom become baptised; even those baptised have concupiscence and suffering; which is incontestible.

What is also certain is that the disunity with God shared by the unborn is not willed; nor is it beyond the power of God to bring about. The main issue is not with making such statements; but with making general presumptions of univocity; rather than equivocity or disunity in universals that would lead us astray in determining rational predicates or specific predicates for God. Which we, as honest individuals admit we do not know.

That aside; the Church was founded by God to bring people into unity with God through baptism and the preaching of the Gospels; so that we may be closer and happier in this life and the next. The Church is capable of discerning and teaching on gravity; as this is a general matter; but the specifics of consent or knowlege that would allow a full judgement of as you say, a Muslim, a Hindu or suchlike is beyond our capacities.

 

[R_Daneel]

We tend to dislike broad and uncritical generalisations. To put it bluntly the Church can teach in general terms, but as it does not know the specifics of the rational souls of specific individuals, we cannot know if this or that person had consent, full knowlege and the like; therefore we do not judge them.

That is not the point. Does the CC tell us, in specific terms what is the fate of the unborn who undergo a spontenous abortion? Also does the CC tell us, exactly and precisely what steps are to be taken and what steps are to be avoided to assure our place in heaven?

What can be said is that if someone specifically and consentually - and in full knowlege, removes themselves from grace then they recieve what they desire; seperation from God.

Except there is no “full knowledge”. No one has “full knowledge”. So this claim is empty.

As a note; original sin is a disposition that leaves a mark on even those whom become baptised; even those baptised have concupiscence and suffering; which is incontestible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence - is not something one can attribute to an unborn, who does not even have a brain.

What is also certain is that the disunity with God shared by the unborn is not willed; nor is it beyond the power of God to bring about. The main issue is not with making such statements; but with making general presumptions of univocity; rather than equivocity or disunity in universals that would lead us astray in determining rational predicates or specific predicates for God. Which we, as honest individuals admit we do not know.

If the Catholic Church does not know, then what is the point of holding the CC in such a high regard? It looks like a snake-oil salesman’s pitch: “but of course you can trust me!”…

That aside; the Church was founded by God to bring people into unity with God through baptism and the preaching of the Gospels; so that we may be closer and happier in this life and the next. The Church is capable of discerning and teaching on gravity; as this is a general matter; but the specifics of consent or knowlege that would allow a full judgement of as you say, a Muslim, a Hindu or suchlike is beyond our capacities.

“Closer”, you say… which is not much much… And if the Church was founded by God itself, how come that God never gave the church the capacity to say what are the proper steps to achieve salvation? Why should anyone trust this organization?

 

[Just_Lurking]

This seems to me to be a reverse of the “God of the gaps” argument. If it’s okay for science not to have all the answers, then why is it not okay for religion not to have all the answers? (Pardon my double negative!)

 

[JohnDamian]

That is not the point. Does the CC tell us, in specific terms what is the fate of the unborn who undergo a spontenous abortion? Also does the CC tell us, exactly and precisely what steps are to be taken and what steps are to be avoided to assure our place in heaven?

Avoid Mortal Sin.
a) Gravity (Ten Commandments) - This is knowable in a general sense
b) Consent - this is knowable by only the individual & God
c) Full Knowlege - this is knowable by only the individual & God

Except there is no “full knowledge”. No one has “full knowledge”. So this claim is empty.

You are Equivocating. I would be charitable and say I was being ambiguous but I will give you more credit than that. Evidently the context in which “Full Knowlege” was being used was that of the Catechism; which teaches that one is aware of the absolute consequences of the GRAVITY of their acts; which means they have not only heard but internalised and understood the Ten Commandments.

is not something one can attribute to an unborn, who does not even have a brain.

We draw the distinction between the rational soul and the brain. I refer you here to the resource of “De Spiritualitate Et Immortalitate Animae Humanae” which offers a general a priori proof of the soul & the ressurection; as well as a more mediocre a posteriori proof.

If the Catholic Church does not know, then what is the point of holding the CC in such a high regard? It looks like a snake-oil salesman’s pitch: “but of course you can trust me!”…

When one goes to a Doctor; one does not presume he has the cure for cancer; the cure for aids and the way to solve world hunger. But; the Doctor can still cure you. In the same way; the Church, with God acting through the Sacrements can restore our unity with him; guide us away from Grave Sins; and protect and enrich our lives. What it cannot do however; is do it all for me.

“Closer”, you say… which is not much much… And if the Church was founded by God itself, how come that God never gave the church the capacity to say what are the proper steps to achieve salvation?

Good greif. The Catechism teaches us how to acheive salvation. What is does not do is give us some sort of soul-x-ray where we can determine if this or that man is going up or down. It can guide us through our lives; towards God.

Why should anyone trust this organization?

Why should we trust anyone? I know that the Church enriches my life; at the very least even if I am incorrect and no afterlife exists my life on earth is tenfold greater for the community that I help and that helps me; and the mutual love and respect that is born of my faith – nonetheless, I must concede that there is no a priori or a posteriori proof I am able to pull from my sleeve to make certain the truth of the Church; so I sadly have to withdraw to the somewhat unsatisfactory grounds of faith and experience.

Here; I ask; would it not be harder to trust an organisation who’s claims transcend human knowlege? Would it not be harder to trust an organisaton that claimed omniscience; that indeed claimed it was God himself? Or indeed; why if not to trust the Church; should I trust any other person or group?

 

[R_Daneel]

This seems to me to be a reverse of the “God of the gaps” argument. If it’s okay for science not to have all the answers, then why is it not okay for religion not to have all the answers? (Pardon my double negative!)

Because science does not claim that it is the arbiter of how to conduct one’s life. The Catholic Church does, and it is unable to answer the most fundamental question: “how to get to heaven, and how to avoid hell”?

 

[R_Daneel]

Avoid Mortal Sin.
a) Gravity (Ten Commandments) - This is knowable in a general sense
b) Consent - this is knowable by only the individual & God
c) Full Knowlege - this is knowable by only the individual & God

The problem immediately arises with the “gravity”. It is not “knowable” at all, if a specific act is “grave” or not. It is merely asserted by some people that act “X” is a grave sin. According to the first commandment: “not to love God by all your heart” is a grave and mortal sin.

You are Equivocating. I would be charitable and say I was being ambiguous but I will give you more credit than that. Evidently the context in which “Full Knowlege” was being used was that of the Catechism; which teaches that one is aware of the absolute consequences of the GRAVITY of their acts; which means they have not only heard but internalised and understood the Ten Commandments.

Well, I have read and understood the ten commandments (by the way, there are several variants of it). I don’t know what you mean by “internalized”. Do you mean “accepted” as correct?

We draw the distinction between the rational soul and the brain. I refer you here to the resource of “De Spiritualitate Et Immortalitate Animae Humanae” which offers a general a priori proof of the soul & the ressurection; as well as a more mediocre a posteriori proof.

Sorry, you may do that, but I certainly do not.

When one goes to a Doctor; one does not presume he has the cure for cancer; the cure for aids and the way to solve world hunger.

The doctor does not claim any of those. Does the Church “claim” that there is a “list” of do’s and don’t’s which will assure that someone gets to heaven? Even if the person is an atheist? Or a Muslim?

Why should we trust anyone? I know that the Church enriches my life; at the very least even if I am incorrect and no afterlife exists my life on earth is tenfold greater for the community that I help and that helps me; and the mutual love and respect that is born of my faith – nonetheless, I must concede that there is no a priori or a posteriori proof I am able to pull from my sleeve to make certain the truth of the Church; so I sadly have to withdraw to the somewhat unsatisfactory grounds of faith and experience.

I think that the positive steps you attribute to the church are not the exclusive domain of the church. Other people can achieve the same results.

Here; I ask; would it not be harder to trust an organisation who’s claims transcend human knowlege?

I would not trust an organization of this kind.

Or indeed; why if not to trust the Church; should I trust any other person or group?

Well, this is the crux of the problem. It depends on what the group (or individual) claims, and what kind of proof or eveidence can it show for the claim.

 

[bluemary]

Wow! I’ve been following this thread and all I can see is a big mass of confusion going on.

Daneel, I’m sorry to say that I haven’t read the original thread you were reading, so I don’t know what kind of answers you received.

I have to ask you, do you actually want to know the correct answer to your question? Or, was your intention to jump to a false conclusion no matter what? If your questions are sincere and you actually want to know what the Catholic Church truly believes (officially, and not just what someone “thinks” it believes) then sit back and try to understand. (ie I might think that I would never agree with the Muslim faith, but I can certainly be non-judgemental while I seek to understand it.) Try it, or remain ignorant of the truth of our faith. It’s up to you. But to stand in judgement of something that you are clearly ignorant (read: not educated) about will just make you look foolish, no matter what the topic.

So in brief: Yes, the Catholic Church does teach what a person must do to attain Heaven. No, we cannot judge whether or not a person has actually done those things or avoided doing other things because we cannot read the heart of man, only God can. (which I’m really thankful for!) Salvation is a freely given gift to man by God’s grace. This means we did nothing to merit His offering it to us. If He is truly the Creator of all and we are what He has created then what right do we have to tell Him, who gives us our next breath, what He must do? But, according to the Bible and the teachings of the early Christians, He did give us this gift and then gave us the means to receive it by our own free will. If I truly believe that God exists and that Jesus Christ was God come down as a man to live, teach, and die for us, then I would logically follow those teachings. The simple form is to believe in Jesus Christ and be Baptized. It is this that nobody else can judge. How would I know if you believed in Christ and wished to follow Him and be with Him for eternity at the moment of death? Therefore, the Catholic Church cannot say for sure who went to Heaven and who to Hell. (what if on someone’s deathbed they turned from a horrible hate-filled man, to a man who was truly sorry and wanted to follow God? Of course only God would know if it was an act or a sincere change of heart.) I hope that clears up the matter of “knowing” whether a person will go to Heaven or Hell.

As for the unborn. There is nothing that a 1 day old unborn child has that you don’t have. You may say that they don’t have a brain, but I say that science has taught that that 1 day old zygote has everything for it’s development that you have, and has from the moment of conception. I could say that a 8 yr. old boy was not a human being either. I could base it on the fact that he has not yet developed certain cells, adult hormones and growth, etc that he will have at 21. We have learned much about the unborn that we didn’t know 30 years ago, and we will learn a lot more in the future. It use to be that they could not survive outside the womb before 8 mos, now we have many that are only 6 mos along and surviving. We can operate on a 6 mo fetus, it will even reach out of the incision and grab the doctors hand, but afterward, once the incision is closed up, we can legally kill it. I don’t know too many people that, if told their best friend only needed to be on a respirator for 9 months and they’d be back to normal, would then claim that their friend wasn’t a human being while he was on it and so they should kill him. Yet we do this to the unborn, because while they are developing they require the incubator of the mother. Yes, the are human in every sense of the word and if they are then they should be protected under the U.S. Constitution and should have the right to life. That isn’t even a religious matter, that’s simply a matter of upholding our Constitution. As far as the zygote not having a brain: should that be the criteria? After all there is still a primitive brain that tells those cells what to do. More and more is learned everyday by doctors. I for one choose to err on the side of caution and agree with the CC on this matter.

Lastly, what happens to the unborn child that dies? Heaven or Hell? All we know is that the Lord taught that we must believe and be baptized in order to be saved. The unborn baby (unless given knowledge of God in some unknown way) wouldn’t have heard of Christ and couldn’t have been baptized if he died when in the womb. That’s it. Now, how can we mortals read the mind of God in this matter? We know that He is a merciful and loving God. We know what Christ taught that we must do to enter Heaven. God wouldn’t be very loving if he condemned an innocent person to Hell. So we are left with only one alternative. To trust in the love and mercy of God to care for this unborn child. Do they go to Heaven anyway? Maybe. Does God have another place for them to go where they can learn and decide they want to be with Him forever? Maybe, but Christ never taught about it. This is why we simply trust Him to be loving and merciful. Especially since we know that He is far more loving than we are.

Before you jumped to false conclusions about the Catholic Church’s beliefs read the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the writings of the early Church Fathers from the time of the apostles onward. Then you will be better prepared to know and understand just exactly what we believe and where that belief comes from.

You might also pray to God to show you if He is real or not, and do it sincerely. What do you have to loose? If He isn’t real you’ve lost nothing. If He is you’ve gained everything.

Love to you and I pray that you find the answers that you seek.

 

[JohnDamian]

The problem immediately arises with the “gravity”. It is not “knowable” at all, if a specific act is “grave” or not. It is merely asserted by some people that act “X” is a grave sin. According to the first commandment: “not to love God by all your heart” is a grave and mortal sin.

In terms of Church teaching; it is knowable that acts contrary to the ten commandments; as presented by Jesus, and as translated and handed down to us. At the least; these are the commandments that the Church teaches with regards to what constitutes gravity.

Well, I have read and understood the ten commandments (by the way, there are several variants of it). I don’t know what you mean by “internalized”. Do you mean “accepted” as correct?

To internalise something is to come to understand it as the truth; this can be constituted in many ways; for example I could internalise the Fifth commandment as a sound moral “law” without nessecarily accepting God. Therein; if you are unable to come to understand the truth of all of the ten commandments, or at least some of them (the first, second and third may be troublesome for the skeptic); it does not prohibit one from internalising some others, say for example the fifth. Therein; if you have full knowlege of the gravity of the fifth; and with full consent you violate against it - you sin Mortally. However; if one does not understand or know the gravity of the first, second and third commandment; through ignorance or blindness then that person is unable to give full consent.

Sorry, you may do that, but I certainly do not.

That is certainly your prerogative; although I must say it is particularily irrational to do so.

The doctor does not claim any of those. Does the Church “claim” that there is a “list” of do’s and don’t’s which will assure that someone gets to heaven? Even if the person is an atheist? Or a Muslim?

The Catechism of the Church explains clearly with regards to people of other faiths. For example, Muslims are included in Gods plan of salvation. Section 841.

The Church’s “to do list” is at it’s simplist, avoid sin, follow the ten commandments, demonstrate your faith with works, partake in the sacraments. Nonetheless, exeptions and explanations for disbelievers, pagans and suchlike with regards to salvation; most of which can be found in the Catechism.

think that the positive steps you attribute to the church are not the exclusive domain of the church. Other people can achieve the same results.

I suppose that the major aspect of the Church is the paricipation in the Sacraments. However, as your question was specifically about trust; I replied with regards to a secular per se description.

Well, this is the crux of the problem. It depends on what the group (or individual) claims, and what kind of proof or eveidence can it show for the claim.

Well in terms of Evidence it is known a posteriori that a nessecary creator exists. It is also known a priori that Souls exist. It is also known a posteriori that there will be a general ressurection of mankind. The translation from this evidential foundation of theism into specifically Christianity however is the crux of the problem.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Because science does not claim that it is the arbiter of how to conduct one’s life.

I’m not quite sure this is true. There are some scientists who are quite vocal about the need to vaccinate almost all of the population, and that we need to do something about global warming.

But in the end, making rules about how other people conduct their lives is the realm of politics, not science nor religion.

The Catholic Church does, and it is unable to answer the most fundamental question: “how to get to heaven, and how to avoid hell”?

It’s an important question, to be sure. I just don’t see why partial but incomplete knowledge about the answer to this question is any different than partial but incomplete information about any other question. For example, I may not know exactly where Antarctica is, but I know if you are going North you are going in the wrong direction.

Human beings are finite, limited creatures. Partial but incomplete knowledge about anything is the best that we can hope for.

 

[R_Daneel]

So in brief: Yes, the Catholic Church does teach what a person must do to attain Heaven. No, we cannot judge whether or not a person has actually done those things or avoided doing other things because we cannot read the heart of man, only God can. (which I’m really thankful for!) Salvation is a freely given gift to man by God’s grace. This means we did nothing to merit His offering it to us. If He is truly the Creator of all and we are what He has created then what right do we have to tell Him, who gives us our next breath, what He must do? But, according to the Bible and the teachings of the early Christians, He did give us this gift and then gave us the means to receive it by our own free will. If I truly believe that God exists and that Jesus Christ was God come down as a man to live, teach, and die for us, then I would logically follow those teachings. The simple form is to believe in Jesus Christ and be Baptized. It is this that nobody else can judge. How would I know if you believed in Christ and wished to follow Him and be with Him for eternity at the moment of death? Therefore, the Catholic Church cannot say for sure who went to Heaven and who to Hell. (what if on someone’s deathbed they turned from a horrible hate-filled man, to a man who was truly sorry and wanted to follow God? Of course only God would know if it was an act or a sincere change of heart.) I hope that clears up the matter of “knowing” whether a person will go to Heaven or Hell.

Sorry, this is much too vague. What does it mean that one “follows Christ”? Speaking for myself, I try to lead a very good life, I try to help those in need (to my best ability, without putting myself and my family into jeopardy). Of course I do not “serve” God, since I do not believe that there is a God. But apart from that my life is similar to that of a very good, devout Christian. Is that enough? I was told that one does not achieve salvation by “works alone”…

As for the unborn. There is nothing that a 1 day old unborn child has that you don’t have. You may say that they don’t have a brain, but I say that science has taught that that 1 day old zygote has everything for it’s development that you have, and has from the moment of conception.

Yes, there is. The zygote cannot act in any manner. It cannot act in a way that would please of displease God.

Lastly, what happens to the unborn child that dies? Heaven or Hell? All we know is that the Lord taught that we must believe and be baptized in order to be saved. The unborn baby (unless given knowledge of God in some unknown way) wouldn’t have heard of Christ and couldn’t have been baptized if he died when in the womb. That’s it. Now, how can we mortals read the mind of God in this matter? We know that He is a merciful and loving God. We know what Christ taught that we must do to enter Heaven. God wouldn’t be very loving if he condemned an innocent person to Hell. So we are left with only one alternative. To trust in the love and mercy of God to care for this unborn child. Do they go to Heaven anyway? Maybe. Does God have another place for them to go where they can learn and decide they want to be with Him forever? Maybe, but Christ never taught about it. This is why we simply trust Him to be loving and merciful. Especially since we know that He is far more loving than we are.

Your “maybe” is the point of contention. Why not “certainly”?

 

[R_Daneel]

In terms of Church teaching; it is knowable that acts contrary to the ten commandments; as presented by Jesus, and as translated and handed down to us. At the least; these are the commandments that the Church teaches with regards to what constitutes gravity.

Is that an inclusive list? The ten commandments says nothing about homosexuality, say nothing about sex without the intent to procreate, and lots of other things…

To internalise something is to come to understand it as the truth; this can be constituted in many ways; for example I could internalise the Fifth commandment as a sound moral “law” without nessecarily accepting God. Therein; if you are unable to come to understand the truth of all of the ten commandments, or at least some of them (the first, second and third may be troublesome for the skeptic); it does not prohibit one from internalising some others, say for example the fifth. Therein; if you have full knowlege of the gravity of the fifth; and with full consent you violate against it - you sin Mortally. However; if one does not understand or know the gravity of the first, second and third commandment; through ignorance or blindness then that person is unable to give full consent.

Accepted. Though I deny willfully the validity of the first 3 commandments. I find them nonsensical. Where does that leave me?

That is certainly your prerogative; although I must say it is particularily irrational to do so.

That is only your opinion. I find your stance irrational. Where does that leave us?

Well in terms of Evidence it is known a posteriori that a nessecary creator exists. It is also known a priori that Souls exist. It is also known a posteriori that there will be a general ressurection of mankind. The translation from this evidential foundation of theism into specifically Christianity however is the crux of the problem.

As far as I am concerned all this is nonsense. There is no “necessary” creator, there is no “soul”, there is no “resurrection”. There is no evidence for any of those. All those assumptions are illogical and not based on reality.

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m not quite sure this is true. There are some scientists who are quite vocal about the need to vaccinate almost all of the population, and that we need to do something about global warming.

You will find imbeciles wherever you look.

But in the end, making rules about how other people conduct their lives is the realm of politics, not science nor religion.

True, and some scientists and religious groups will attempt to influence politics… which is the problem.

It’s an important question, to be sure. I just don’t see why partial but incomplete knowledge about the answer to this question is any different than partial but incomplete information about any other question. For example, I may not know exactly where Antarctica is, but I know if you are going North you are going in the wrong direction.

If one takes religion seriously, it is the most important question of all.

Human beings are finite, limited creatures. Partial but incomplete knowledge about anything is the best that we can hope for.

I agree. But the Catholic Church “claims” infallible knowledge when it comes to morals and how to conduct one’s life. Yet it does not dare to claim the fate of the unborn. Funny… to say the least.

 

[JohnDamian]

Is that an inclusive list? The ten commandments says nothing about homosexuality, say nothing about sex without the intent to procreate, and lots of other things…

Adultery is sex with someone other than a lawful spouse.

Accepted. Though I deny willfully the validity of the first 3 commandments. I find them nonsensical. Where does that leave me?

If you do not understand, or do not internalise the first three commandments, then it would be impossible for you to mortally sin against these three.

That is only your opinion. I find your stance irrational. Where does that leave us?

I would drop this fringe issue for now, particularily as you seem disinterested in a priori or a posterirori logic on this matter; so I cannot be of more use logically here.

As far as I am concerned all this is nonsense. There is no “necessary” creator, there is no “soul”, there is no “resurrection”. There is no evidence for any of those. All those assumptions are illogical and not based on reality.

I am afraid you are unable to understand logic. If you do not accept either a priori or a posteriori argumentation then you are not operating within philosophical logic. There is evidence for both the soul (a priori) and for the nessecary creator (a posteriori).

 

[Moonstruck888]

There are some scientists who are quite vocal about the need to vaccinate almost all of the population, and that we need to do something about global warming.

We do need to do something about global warming, and just because the media and politicians are bought and sold by industry is not going to make global warming go away.

We’re strutting smugly into a disaster. Well, some of us are anyway. I’m telling you that climate change is going to be more of a threat than nuclear warheads to our future and in a few years we’ll see who’s right.

 

[JohnDamian]

We do need to do something about global warming, and just because the media and politicians are bought and sold by industry is not going to make global warming go away.

We’re strutting smugly into a disaster. Well, some of us are anyway. I’m telling you that climate change is going to be more of a threat than nuclear warheads to our future and in a few years we’ll see who’s right.

This is correct both from a Secular pespective (save ourselves!) and from a Catholic Perspective (stewardship of God’s creation).

We must be willing to listen at least to information regarding the way the world works, and try and prevent any serious damage to it - that said; myself not being an expert I cannot fully comment on the matter, but certainly we could all be doing more for the environment we are blessed enough to enhabit.

 

[Moonstruck888]

This is correct both from a Secular pespective (save ourselves!) and from a Catholic Perspective (stewardship of God’s creation).

We must be willing to listen at least to information regarding the way the world works, and try and prevent any serious damage to it - that said; myself not being an expert I cannot fully comment on the matter, but certainly we could all be doing more for the environment we are blessed enough to enhabit.

Thank you John.

 

[Just_Lurking]

True, and some scientists and religious groups will attempt to influence politics… which is the problem.

It’s a challenge for political theory to figure out how different groups with different opinions and agendas can get along peacefully. I don’t advocate any solution where any individuals or groups are somehow forced to change what they believe, or prevented from peacefully advocating for their positions.

I find that Vatican II has a very reasonable view of religious liberty, which I admit is hard to find in pre-Vatican II Catholic Church teachings.

If one takes religion seriously, it is the most important question of all.

Agreed. Which is why I value even more partial but incomplete answers to this question.

But the Catholic Church “claims” infallible knowledge when it comes to morals and how to conduct one’s life.

This may be more of a particular view of this very conservative website and not of the Catholic Church as a whole. Theologian Avery Cardinal Dulles has stated that the majority of Catholic Church teaching is not infallible. Dogmatic theologian Fr. Francis Sullivan has argued that infallibility can never apply to the concrete application of moral teachings to a particular real-world situation. Theologians Karl Rahner and Walter Cardinal Kasper have written on how the Church’s understanding of infallible dogmatic statements can nonetheless develop and deepen over time.

There is a whole other side to the understanding of Catholic dogmatic theology that you will find is not represented here at CAF.

Yet it does not dare to claim the fate of the unborn. Funny… to say the least.

If you were unborn, then you would have a right to complain (a.k.a. legal “standing”). However, if come judgment day, you have been given enough information as regards what you needed to do to affect your eternal fate, I don’t see the fact that you were not informed of what people who were in completely different situations needed to do as some kind of legalistic “out” to help you.

 

[R_Daneel]

Adultery is sex with someone other than a lawful spouse.

The concept of a lawful spouse is a legal concept. There is not one word in the TC about using birth control methods, or mutual stimulation without penetration (within a legal marriage), and yet the Church is adamantly against these, declaring them as mortal sins. So the TC are arbitrarily “extended” by the Church.

If you do not understand, or do not internalise the first three commandments, then it would be impossible for you to mortally sin against these three.

Right. And if someone reads the “thou shall not kill” and genuinely believes that it does not apply to him, then is he also “off the hook”? Do you think that the first 3 commandments are “special”?

I am afraid you are unable to understand logic. If you do not accept either a priori or a posteriori argumentation then you are not operating within philosophical logic. There is evidence for both the soul (a priori) and for the nessecary creator (a posteriori).

Your fear is unfounded. I am a mathematician with a thorough training in logic. I understand the concepts of starting from a set of premises and reaching a logical conclusion. The result may be logical, but if the premises are groundless, the result will not be sound. And that is the problem with all the purported “proofs” of God’s existence, starting the the famous five of Aquinas.

It is interesting that the Cathecism asserts that the existence of God can be known through rational thinking alone (without resorting to faith) but it stops right there. This alleged proof is not presented. I wonder why?