The blind leads the unsighted

[R_Daneel]

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

Only if that incomplete answer is at least “somewhat” right. But what if its all wrong? A “no answer” is better than a “wrong answer”.

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.

Well said, refreshingly so. But, of course, the posters all assert that they are the “True Catholics ™” and accept no criticism.

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.

We never can have “enough information” - short of full information. But I see your point. Your remark triggered an old joke, which runs like this: “In the zoo an old woman points to a rhino and asks the zookeper, if it is a male or female? The zookeper answers: Ma’am, that question would only be relevant to another rhino.” Maybe you mean that it is none of my business what happens to an unborn, and I should be more concerned with my “salvation”. But all this is just an intellectual pastime. I am not concerned about my fate.

 

[JohnDamian]

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.

A Marraige without God is not a marraige at all. People are brought together and united with themselves through and with the Sacramants. People who just “marry” civilly are not married. This is a problem of equivocation; the meaning of marraige in terms of the ten commandments applies only to a proper religious ceremony.

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”?

Yes. He is off the hook.

Do you think that the first 3 commandments are “special”?

I do; however it is clear that they are not the easiest starting point in trying to explain the faith; it is easier and more appropriate to work from ideas we generally agree with; such as theft or murder.

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.

The Via Positiva proofs are;

General A Posteriori proofs for the Existance of God; Summa fratris Alexandri & Tractatus de Primo Principio
General A Priori proofs for the Existance of God; Proslogion & Critique of Judgement
General A Priori proof of souls; De Spiritualitate Et Immortalitate Animae Humane

The Via Negitiva proofs are;

General via negativa methodologies;* Mystical Theology* (Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite),* The Cloud of Unknowing* (anon). Summa Theolgica..

As you rightly point out. The summa theologica offers no sound via positiva proof for the existance of God. However it does offer intriguing via negativa proofs.

Maybe you mean that it is none of my business what happens to an unborn, and I should be more concerned with my “salvation”. But all this is just an intellectual pastime.

Catholics generally believe that true faith nessecarily causes good works. For this we usually cite James 2.20 “Faith without works is dead”. This means that although we have faith in God; we also drive ourselves to make the world a better place.

 

[Dale_M]

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.

The Catholic Church has never taught that Limbo is an official teaching. When I converted back in 1979, we were told that as part of our education in what the Church believes. Limbo is a philosophical conjecture, and popularly believed, but not officially endorsed.

Another misconception is that Christ’s sacrifice automatically freed all humanity from Original Sin. That isn’t what Catholics (or most Christians) believe. Catholics (and most Christians) believe that Baptism (being born of the Spirit) is necessary. This is why the Catholic Church practices infant baptism. Some Protestant churches abstain from infant baptism, believing that an individual to be saved must first willingly accept Christ as a personal savior, and only then can baptism be done. But the weight of original sin is in effect up until that time.

As for what happens to such persons who have not had a chance to breath the air of Earth, and have committed no faults of their own, it hasn’t been revealed to us. However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the authoritative document on what Catholics believe) does give us some sense of what to expect. I will quote from the sections which discusses non-Catholics.

… Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him…

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

After death, we are outside time. How God offers the choice of salvation to those who have not had the opportunity to enter Christ’s Church is known only to Him. But it is offered.

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.

The Church gives infallible directions on how to get to Heaven. However, like a motorist who takes shortcuts or falls asleep at the wheel or is distracted by other interests, it is possible for that person to get lost or go off the road. Only God knows how that individual will wind up. But that doesn’t mean that the directions given to him or her were not 100% accurate.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Only if that incomplete answer is at least “somewhat” right. But what if its all wrong? A “no answer” is better than a “wrong answer”.

Agreed. This is my complaint with the Catholic Church as well–Not that they don’t have all the answers, but that some of their answers are wrong.

Well said, refreshingly so.

Thanks.

Maybe you mean that it is none of my business what happens to an unborn, and I should be more concerned with my “salvation”.

I have no problem with you asking the question as to what happens to the unborn. I just don’t think the Catholic Church not knowing the answer is grounds to reject what they say regarding things they do claim to have answers for. There is no Catholic dogma that claims the Pope has all the answers.

 

[R_Daneel]

A Marraige without God is not a marraige at all. People are brought together and united with themselves through and with the Sacramants. People who just “marry” civilly are not married. This is a problem of equivocation; the meaning of marraige in terms of the ten commandments applies only to a proper religious ceremony.

Well, this is strange, to say the least. But it has nothing to do with the question at hand. You said that the TC are the guiding line. In the TC there is not one word about sexual practices (inside marriage) which are for pleasure only and not procreation, yet, the CC deems these acts mortally sinful. Something does not wash here. Of course, maybe you just state your personal opinion, which would be fine, if you explicitly pointed it out.

Yes. He is off the hook.

Ah, so a megalomaniac serial killer, who believes he is above the law is fine and dandy in God’s eyes? I rather doubt that your interpretation of the Church’s opinion is accurate.

The Via Positiva proofs are;

General A Posteriori proofs for the Existance of God; Summa fratris Alexandri & Tractatus de Primo Principio
General A Priori proofs for the Existance of God; Proslogion & Critique of Judgement
General A Priori proof of souls; De Spiritualitate Et Immortalitate Animae Humane

The Via Negitiva proofs are;

General via negativa methodologies;* Mystical Theology* (Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite),* The Cloud of Unknowing* (anon). Summa Theolgica..

At least you should paste in URL-s instead of rattling off a few book titles. Preferably you should make a conscise summary of the arguments (choose whichever you like best or most convincing) and then we could continue. I am afraid however, that all your arguments depend on the fallacy of composition.

 

[R_Daneel]

Agreed. This is my complaint with the Catholic Church as well–Not that they don’t have all the answers, but that some of their answers are wrong.the Pope has all the answers.

Looks like we agree on quite a few things. Which is encouraging. (By the way, maybe your last sentence is the result of a typo. It seems to be.)

I have no problem with you asking the question as to what happens to the unborn. I just don’t think the Catholic Church not knowing the answer is grounds to reject what they say regarding things they do claim to have answers for. There is no Catholic dogma that claims the Pope has all the answers.

It goes a bit deeper than that. You see, the Church claims many things. I read the Cathecism (which is arguably the official teaching of the CC) and found the claims without any justification for them. For example it was asserted that the existence of God can be known through reason alone, without resorting to faith. I was looking for the proof, and guess what? I found nothing. Only an empty claim.

 

[R_Daneel]

Another misconception is that Christ’s sacrifice automatically freed all humanity from Original Sin. That isn’t what Catholics (or most Christians) believe. Catholics (and most Christians) believe that Baptism (being born of the Spirit) is necessary. This is why the Catholic Church practices infant baptism. Some Protestant churches abstain from infant baptism, believing that an individual to be saved must first willingly accept Christ as a personal savior, and only then can baptism be done. But the weight of original sin is in effect up until that time.

As for what happens to such persons who have not had a chance to breath the air of Earth, and have committed no faults of their own, it hasn’t been revealed to us. However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the authoritative document on what Catholics believe) does give us some sense of what to expect. I will quote from the sections which discusses non-Catholics.

… Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may

I appreciate your quote. It is crystal clear that the CC is quibbling about the subject. MAY achieve salvation? It reminds me of an old folklore weather forcast: “When the ducks keep swimming without any aim, the weather will change, or may stay the same”.

The Church gives infallible directions on how to get to Heaven. However, like a motorist who takes shortcuts or falls asleep at the wheel or is distracted by other interests, it is possible for that person to get lost or go off the road. Only God knows how that individual will wind up. But that doesn’t mean that the directions given to him or her were not 100% accurate.

List them, please, with the source. If convenient, of course.

 

[JohnDamian]

Well, this is strange, to say the least. But it has nothing to do with the question at hand. You said that the TC are the guiding line. In the TC there is not one word about sexual practices (inside marriage) which are for pleasure only and not procreation, yet, the CC deems these acts mortally sinful. Something does not wash here. Of course, maybe you just state your personal opinion, which would be fine, if you explicitly pointed it out.

The CC clearly defines lust as adultery. Perverting normal sexual functions is lust. See Catechism 2331–2400.

Ah, so a megalomaniac serial killer, who believes he is above the law is fine and dandy in God’s eyes? I rather doubt that your interpretation of the Church’s opinion is accurate.

For a sin to be Mortal;

1. Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.
2. It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (no one is considered ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are inborn as part of human knowledge, but these principles can be misunderstood in a particular context).
3. It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.

A serial killer who genuinely misunderstands the moral law; or who lacks consent due to mental illness would not be in mortal sin; even though their actions would still be grave.

At least you should paste in URL-s instead of rattling off a few book titles. Preferably you should make a conscise summary of the arguments (choose whichever you like best or most convincing) and then we could continue. I am afraid however, that all your arguments depend on the fallacy of composition.

I cannot concisely summarise the arguments. However I will provide a URL for an a posteriori argument. Please; feel free to inform me of any specific fallacies - which would be easy as each line is numbered.

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/GODASFIR.HTM

I am however assuming that you have a basic understanding of Aristotelian logic, which would be generally benefitial in understanding scholastic thought.

NB; this is not a fallacy of composition, it merely directs in quid predications that are part of essentially ordered sequences in toto to objects of genera superiorilly composed. Noting that the quiddiative predications cannot nessecarily apply to the genera presumes that the genera itself exists beyond the elements that constitute itself. Therein; essentially ordered entities nessecerily have quiddities and haecceities that nessecarily follow from their genera. In such that the object of the genra can be composed if such a species is by nessecity so predicated as to hold inclusivelly predicates of a particular form.

 

[Just_Lurking]

For example it was asserted that the existence of God can be known through reason alone, without resorting to faith. I was looking for the proof, and guess what? I found nothing. Only an empty claim.

This goes back to a statement of St. Paul in Romans. I’ve made some comments about this in another thread (see here).

 

[R_Daneel]

The CC clearly defines lust as adultery. Perverting normal sexual functions is lust. See Catechism 2331–2400.

Concentrating on the pleasure of the sexual partner is not “lust” at all. Actually it is a higher form of love. And the Church says that sex is not merely procreative, it is also unifying. (Side note: a large percentage of Catholics disregard the Church’s teachings on birth control and oral sex as well. Bully for them!)

But that is still not part of the TC, it is just an assertion of the Cathecism, which carries no weight for me. You also contradict yourself. Previously you said that adultery is the sexual act between non-married partners. I suggest not to change your definitions in midstream.

For a sin to be Mortal;

1. Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.
2. It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (no one is considered ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are inborn as part of human knowledge, but these principles can be misunderstood in a particular context).
3. It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.

A serial killer who genuinely misunderstands the moral law; or who lacks consent due to mental illness would not be in mortal sin; even though their actions would still be grave.

To be a megalomaniac is not necessarily a mental illness.

I cannot concisely summarise the arguments. However I will provide a URL for an a posteriori argument. Please; feel free to inform me of any specific fallacies - which would be easy as each line is numbered.

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/GODASFIR.HTM

I am however assuming that you have a basic understanding of Aristotelian logic, which would be generally benefitial in understanding scholastic thought.

I keep wondering why the old Aristotele is held in such a high esteem. There is no Aristotelian logic, there is only logic. I did look at your URL, but I am not going to read such a mess, since it would take several hours to decipher it. You can chalk it up as a “victory” if you so choose.

NB; this is not a fallacy of composition, it merely directs in quid predications that are part of essentially ordered sequences in toto to objects of genera superiorilly composed. Noting that the quiddiative predications cannot nessecarily apply to the genera presumes that the genera itself exists beyond the elements that constitute itself. Therein; essentially ordered entities nessecerily have quiddities and haecceities that nessecarily follow from their genera. In such that the object of the genra can be composed if such a species is by nessecity so predicated as to hold inclusivelly predicates of a particular form.

The fallacy of composition is simple. A set of “S” is composed of elements “A1”, “A2”, … “An”,… etc. Each element has the property of “P”. The fallacy is the assumption that the set “S” automatically also has the proporty of “P”. This needs to be proven, not just asserted, since there are cases when the generalization from the particular is correct, and there are cases when the generalization is incorrect. Furthermore it needs to be proven that the property of “P” even can be meaningfully defined for the set “S”. This is far from obvious. And these two are missing.

 

[R_Daneel]

This goes back to a statement of St. Paul in Romans. I’ve made some comments about this in another thread (see here).

I have not read that thread before, but since you pointed it out, I went and read it. I found your remarks well said and to the point. Clearly we have quite a few things in common. I hope that is acceptable from a self-declared “heathen” (who also happens to be a mathematician and computer programmer, albeit retired now. )

 

[JohnDamian]

But that is still not part of the TC, it is just an assertion of the Cathecism, which carries no weight for me. You also contradict yourself. Previously you said that adultery is the sexual act between non-married partners. I suggest not to change your definitions in midstream.

There is more than one species of adultery. In general however adultery is defined in the Catechism in the parts I cited above: 2331–2400. If I was being ambigious sorry; I was trying to be concise.

To be a megalomaniac is not necessarily a mental illness.

I was quite specific in specifying the required elements. I did not say all serial killers lack knowlege or consent; but I was stating that a serial killer who lacked knowlege or consent could not sin mortally::-

A serial killer **who **genuinely misunderstands the moral law; **or **who lacks consent due to mental illness would not be in mortal sin; even though their actions would still be grave.

I keep wondering why the old Aristotele is held in such a high esteem. There is no Aristotelian logic, there is only logic. I did look at your URL, but I am not going to read such a mess, since it would take several hours to decipher it.

There is more than one type of logic. To name but a few; a posteriori, a priori, critical, practical, speculative, synthetic, analytic… etc.

You can chalk it up as a “victory” if you so choose.

I don’t want to “win”. Discussions are not vehicles for petty games and point counting. Discussions are trying to find the truth.

The fallacy of composition is simple. A set of “S” is composed of elements “A1”, “A2”, … “An”,… etc. Each element has the property of “P”. The fallacy is the assumption that the set “S” automatically also has the proporty of “P”. This needs to be proven, not just asserted, since there are cases when the generalization from the particular is correct, and there are cases when the generalization is incorrect. Furthermore it needs to be proven that the property of “P” even can be meaningfully defined for the set “S”. This is far from obvious. And these two are missing.

Where do I, or for that matter the URL I gave you, compare the genus to the species or to the entity?

 

[Just_Lurking]

I have not read that thread before, but since you pointed it out, I went and read it. I found your remarks well said and to the point. Clearly we have quite a few things in common. I hope that is acceptable from a self-declared “heathen” (who also happens to be a mathematician and computer programmer, albeit retired now. )

Thanks! Very acceptable indeed. I’m always glad to find new friends, even atheist friends!

 

[R_Daneel]

There is more than one type of logic. To name but a few; a posteriori, a priori, critical, practical, speculative, synthetic, analytic… etc.

You forgot “military logic”!

 

[JohnDamian]

You forgot “military logic”!

I have never heard of military logic; what on earth is it?

 

[Dale_M]

I appreciate your quote. It is crystal clear that the CC is quibbling about the subject. MAY achieve salvation?

No, it is not quibbling at all. It is saying that the actions of the individuals will affect their salvation. Those actions can’t be known by the Catholic Church in advance.

But the larger issue is that it is not up to humans to take God’s decision about salvation away from Him. Its above our status. A nurse may have same lab results as a doctor, and the same physical observations, and an understanding of a given medical condition. The nurse may be confident that a patient has a given disease, but that doesn’t give the nurse the right to diagnose that patient. That is a role reserved to a medical doctor who has knowledge and expertise beyond the nurse’s. I think the situation is similar for humans regarding salvation - we can be confident, but we can’t definitively say.

List them, please, with the source. If convenient, of course.

Oy.

I think you know that entire books are written about this, as well as the basis for the ongoing careers of thousands of people.

Basically, accept Christ, receive the Sacraments, and follow Christ. This may sound trite, but really what you are asking for is more involved that can be detailed in a simple forum post (by me, at any rate! )

 

[R_Daneel]

I have never heard of military logic; what on earth is it?

It is just a playful expression designating the ultimate oxymoron. For example, according to military logic, if one person can dig out a hole in one day, then one million people can dig out the same hole in a fraction of a second.

 

[R_Daneel]

No, it is not quibbling at all. It is saying that the actions of the individuals will affect their salvation. Those actions can’t be known by the Catholic Church in advance.

But the larger issue is that it is not up to humans to take God’s decision about salvation away from Him. Its above our status. A nurse may have same lab results as a doctor, and the same physical observations, and an understanding of a given medical condition. The nurse may be confident that a patient has a given disease, but that doesn’t give the nurse the right to diagnose that patient. That is a role reserved to a medical doctor who has knowledge and expertise beyond the nurse’s. I think the situation is similar for humans regarding salvation - we can be confident, but we can’t definitively say.

This is not what I was asking for. I was asking for a counterfactual in the form of:

IF a person deos A, B, C… etc AND avoids D, E, F… etc THEN the person will be assured of salvation. Whether the person does those, cannot be known, of course. But the rule should be enumerated to avoid the adjective “quibbling”. I am not interested in something like:

IF a person deos A, B, C… etc AND avoids D, E, F… etc THEN the person MAY attain salvation.

And that is what the quoted section of the Cathecism did.

Oy.

I think you know that entire books are written about this, as well as the basis for the ongoing careers of thousands of people.

Basically, accept Christ, receive the Sacraments, and follow Christ. This may sound trite, but really what you are asking for is more involved that can be detailed in a simple forum post (by me, at any rate! )

An asnwer of “I cannot do it” is always acceptable. I was asking if there is a conscise, definitive list. I did appreciate your quoting the Cathecism, but it was just too vague.

 

[Dale_M]

[This is not what I was asking for. I was asking for a counterfactual in the form of:

IF a person deos A, B, C… etc AND avoids D, E, F… etc THEN the person will be **assured

of salvation. Whether the person does those, cannot be known, of course. But the rule should be enumerated to avoid the adjective “quibbling”. I am not interested in something like:

IF a person deos A, B, C… etc AND avoids D, E, F… etc THEN the person MAY attain salvation.
We can’t know, as humans, know whether an individual has merited salvation because in addition to A,B,C… s/he may have done X,Y,Z. It simply is not information we are privy to. Only God knows that.

 

[R_Daneel]

We can’t know, as humans, know whether an individual has merited salvation because in addition to A,B,C… s/he may have done X,Y,Z. It simply is not information we are privy to. Only God knows that.

Well, if this is the case (and I think it is), then the title of the thread is most appropriate. No one is privy to the necessary information, no one knows what are the exact “do’s” and “don’t’s” to receive salvation and/or avoid damnation. We are all blindly wondering in the forest, where there are a few signs, but no clear path. Shall we draw a conclusion from that? Shall we make an observation about God’s justice, who never “revealed” the requirements, but nevertheless holds us fully responsible?