Unbeliever

[Awake]

What are the moral obligations for somebody who doesn’t believe in the Catholic Church?

For instance, most people would probably say that an unbeliever is still obligated to follow the Church’s teaching on not committing murder. But an unbeliever can’t be obligated to follow all of the precepts of the church, because receiving the Eucharist when not believing is considered a mortal sin.

 

[Mintaka]

Unbelievers of all stripes are obliged to follow natural law, the law that can be deduced using normal reason and normal conscience.

 

[Awake]

Unbelievers of all stripes are obliged to follow natural law, the law that can be deduced using normal reason and normal conscience.

And how is that defined?

Most people would come to the conclusion using normal reasoning that stealing is wrong; but very few people come to the conclusion that using contraception is wrong. Does that then mean that unbelievers are not morally obligated to follow the teaching on contraception?

 

[maize]

What are the moral obligations for somebody who doesn’t believe in the Catholic Church?

For instance, most people would probably say that an unbeliever is still obligated to follow the Church’s teaching on not committing murder. But an unbeliever can’t be obligated to follow all of the precepts of the church, because receiving the Eucharist when not believing is considered a mortal sin.

i understand where you are coming from, unfortunately once catholic, always catholic, and we are stuck to disobeying the rules that they have set.

otherwise,we can follow the one of the many variations on the golden rule and that pretty much covers everything.

jimbergmd.com/Way%20of%20Barefoot%20Doctoring/WEB%20way%20of%20bfd/Variations%20on%20the%20Golden%20Rule.html

 

[GJx86]

And how is that defined?

If you observe human nature in all its aspects–physical, mental, emotional, social, what have you–then you notice that humans are naturally oriented toward certain ends. As a rule of ethics, the natural law forbids actions that are contrary to that nature or those ends. The law is “natural,” of course, because you can observe these things without the aid of divine positive law.

For example, humans, by nature, tend to form social relationships that are the foundation of societies. Stealing undermines these social relationships and causes societies to break down. It’s thus contrary to an end that human nature strives to reach, and therefore immoral.

Human sexuality, by its physical nature, is oriented toward male-female intercourse and toward procreation. (If human sexuality is oriented only toward pleasure, why is it fertile at all?) Contraception deliberately frustrates that orientation; it uses human sexuality for a purpose other than that for which it was intended, and is therefore immoral.

Most people would come to the conclusion using normal reasoning that stealing is wrong; but very few people come to the conclusion that using contraception is wrong. Does that then mean that unbelievers are not morally obligated to follow the teaching on contraception?

I think that most people end up deciding on a moral system that’s more or less based on “do no harm,” which forbids stealing much more clearly than it forbids, say, birth control or masturbation.

Contraception does not cease to be immoral simply by majority vote. On the other hand, the only way to be obligated by that particular moral law is to know that it exists. If someone doesn’t know that contraception is wrong, then that person can’t sin by contracepting, because sin requires knowledge of wrongdoing.

At the end of the day, though, sorting out who knows what and who is therefore culpable for which actions is a problem for God, not for us.

 

[VociMike]

In the first place, I want to second Mintaka’s answer.

And how is that defined?

Most people would come to the conclusion using normal reasoning that stealing is wrong; but very few people come to the conclusion that using contraception is wrong. Does that then mean that unbelievers are not morally obligated to follow the teaching on contraception?

Actually, if a person looked around at the explosion of abortions that naturally followed from the contraceptive “I don’t want any inconvenient consequences from sex” mentality, one could very easily come to the conclusion that contraception is wrong. “Sex without consequences” is the root of a great many wrongs, because it goes against our nature.

 

[MarcoPolo]

And how is that defined?

Most people would come to the conclusion using normal reasoning that stealing is wrong; but very few people come to the conclusion that using contraception is wrong. Does that then mean that unbelievers are not morally obligated to follow the teaching on contraception?

We believe the natural law of God is written on men’s hearts. However, if there was a person improperly taught in the formation of his conscience, causing impairment to recognizing that natural law, he could possibly be absolved of certain sins due to invincible ignorance.

 

[Mark77]

Everyone who is honest knows the Truth in their heart. Murdering innocent people is always wrong!

The reason “most” people, including most Catholics, disregard the Church’s teachings on contraception, is quite simple.

Most people are weak, selfish and do not want to face the hard Truth that ABC denies the perfect gift and infinite beauty of cooperating in the creation of new life and degrades women by making them a mere sex object for self-gratification.

ABC can also be an abortifacient, it can cause the abortion of a living baby, ie. a fertilized egg or zygote (fetus).

It’s so easy to blame the Church, or religion, but you must listen to your own heart, it will guide you to the Truth and to peace if you will disregard the lies and listen to the beautiful message of love!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark

 

[Awake]

It’s so easy to blame the Church, or religion, but you must listen to your own heart, it will guide you to the Truth and to peace if you will disregard the lies and listen to the beautiful message of love!

So it comes down to one’s own heart (or conscience)? Is an unbeliever then morally obligated to do something that his/her conscience tells them to do even when it’s against church teaching (i.e. stealing, birth control, not going to mass, etc.)?

 

[Awake]

If you observe human nature in all its aspects–physical, mental, emotional, social, what have you–then you notice that humans are naturally oriented toward certain ends. As a rule of ethics, the natural law forbids actions that are contrary to that nature or those ends. The law is “natural,” of course, because you can observe these things without the aid of divine positive law.

For example, humans, by nature, tend to form social relationships that are the foundation of societies. Stealing undermines these social relationships and causes societies to break down. It’s thus contrary to an end that human nature strives to reach, and therefore immoral.

Human sexuality, by its physical nature, is oriented toward male-female intercourse and toward procreation. (If human sexuality is oriented only toward pleasure, why is it fertile at all?) Contraception deliberately frustrates that orientation; it uses human sexuality for a purpose other than that for which it was intended, and is therefore immoral.

Well, the thing is, issues like birth control are such hot topics because very few people come to believe that it is immoral using their own intellect. Most people, including Catholics, are shocked to here that the church considers it a mortal sin and a damnable offense. BC is just one example; there are many other things that non-Catholics would not consider to be wrong.

It seems like this line of thinking is that it seems to say that everybody should follow what they perceive to be the natural law, but only if it follows what I think is the natural law. Most people think that stealing is wrong. But, there are a few people who think it can be perfectly acceptable. How are we, then, to say that their concept of the natural law is corrupted?

I think that most people end up deciding on a moral system that’s more or less based on “do no harm,” which forbids stealing much more clearly than it forbids, say, birth control or masturbation.

Agreed.

 

[anon5216]

…
Human sexuality, by its physical nature, is oriented toward male-female intercourse and toward procreation. (If human sexuality is oriented only toward pleasure, why is it fertile at all?) Contraception deliberately frustrates that orientation; it uses human sexuality for a purpose other than that for which it was intended, and is therefore immoral.
…

If you use that argument, then you have to look at the fact that women are only fertile a minority of the time.

Your logic should then conclude that sex is primarily for pleasure and only secondarily for procreation.
And following from that, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the option to decide when/if/how many children to have is entirely at the discretion of the couple.

 

[anon5216]

…
unfortunately once catholic, always catholic, and we are stuck to disobeying the rules that they have set.
…

Hardly.
This is only an authoritarian tactic to attempt to retain some semblance of control over people who simply don’t buy into that particular belief system.

If you accept the belief system, fine, you should accept the accompanying rules.
Those who don’t accept the belief system have no obligation to the belief system.

 

[VociMike]

If you use that argument, then you have to look at the fact that women are only fertile a minority of the time.

Your logic should then conclude that sex is primarily for pleasure and only secondarily for procreation.

Considering that the survival of the race depends on the latter, I think “secondarily” is an odd word to use.

And following from that, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the option to decide when/if/how many children to have is entirely at the discretion of the couple.

Always is, always has been. But when you try and separate that choice from some self-control, when you try and attain the goal of on-demand sex-without-consequences, you produce the mentality that has resulted in some 1 to 1.5 billion abortions around the world. Over 1 billion dead, innocent babies offered on the altar of on-demand sex-without-consequences. And that is not perfectly reasonable, it is perfectly evil.

 

[Scoobyshme]

We see a summation of the natural law in the 10 Commandments.

For a fantastic speech on the Natural Law, please visit the following link:

alabamacatholicresources.com/church_in_the_world.html

Look around the middle, there are three or four talks in .MP3 (audio) format on the Natural Law. I think the best one is by Dr. Charles E. Rice. Easily fits on your iPod, .MP3 player, or plays on your PC.

 

[dcb188]

My personal opinion is that there is no such thing as an unbeliever. Everyone believes in something. Every supposed unbeliever knows better when it comes to God, and deep down they know that there is a God. They just do not want “their” lives to be ruined by submitting to authority. As long as they can do as they please, that suits them. But not believing in the existence of God? I find atheists talk about God more than believers do, check out any website of theirs. I once asked the American Atheists why they talk about God so much, when for them He does not exist. It is rather like talking about a square triangle, no one ever talks about it because there is no such thing. So why do THEY talk about God constantly? No answer for that one. A lot of the time a supposed unbeliever comes on to forums to engage believers in pointless debates.

 

[GJx86]

If you use that argument, then you have to look at the fact that women are only fertile a minority of the time.

Your logic should then conclude that sex is primarily for pleasure and only secondarily for procreation.

Even if this were true, the issue of whether something is “primarily” for X and “secondarily” for Y does not affect the application of the natural law. The question is simply, “To what ends is something oriented?” not “How should we prioritize those ends?”

And following from that, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the option to decide when/if/how many children to have is entirely at the discretion of the couple.

No one said that it wasn’t. The question is what means can be used to achieve this particular end. It’s immoral to deliberately frustrate the procreative aspect of human sexuality; natural family planning, for example, can be morally licit, because having conjugal relations when the procreative aspect has decreased in potency is not the same as deliberately frustrating that aspect.

 

[PennitentMan]

dcb188:

My personal opinion is that there is no such thing as an unbeliever. Everyone believes in something. Every supposed unbeliever knows better when it comes to God, and deep down they know that there is a God.

That might be your opinion, but I can assure you that there are many people out there that unequivocally do not believe that there is a God.

They just do not want “their” lives to be ruined by submitting to authority. As long as they can do as they please, that suits them.

If that is the reason that a person becomes an atheist, then he/she cannot call themselves Atheists. The reason that the term exists is because they don’t believe in god.

But not believing in the existence of God? I find atheists talk about God more than believers do, check out any website of theirs. I once asked the American Atheists why they talk about God so much, when for them He does not exist. It is rather like talking about a square triangle, no one ever talks about it because there is no such thing. So why do THEY talk about God constantly? No answer for that one. A lot of the time a supposed unbeliever comes on to forums to engage believers in pointless debates

Oh there is a reason.
Just like Christians feel the need to evangelise, and study on apologetics, so some Atheists feel that they should try to show people the other side of that coin.
They see, from the outside, the damage that organized religion does to people.

Some Atheists feel strongly about that…so strongly that they want to engage Christians in talk and debate.
Others used to be Christian and they need to talk about their experiences of hurt through organized religion.
Others studies and came to realize that tere is not one shred of evidence to back up any claims that religion makes, outside of religious circles.

And I’ll tell you that the debates are not pointless. They are very factual and very enlightening, you just have to be able to hear what they are saying. Most Christians dismiss Atheistic arguments outright and label them pointless, but it’s because they either don’t want to know, or are afraid that if they do know it will cast doubt on their faith.

Some Atheist groups even took it a step further and started things like the Atheist Bus Campaign (Link here: atheistcampaign.org) or Richard Dawkins’ Scarlet “A” Campaign. (Link here: outcampaign.org)

I myself just placed a Scarlet “A” on my shoulder sling and I’m waiting for folks to ask me about it!

 

[anon5216]

My personal opinion is that there is no such thing as an unbeliever. Everyone believes in something. Every supposed unbeliever knows better when it comes to God, and deep down they know that there is a God. They just do not want “their” lives to be ruined by submitting to authority. As long as they can do as they please, that suits them. But not believing in the existence of God?
…

This is a very common talking point.

It is valid if the person in question actually believes a particular religious organization’s claims, but simply doesn’t want to abide by them.

It does not in any way apply when a person genuinely does not believe that a particular religious organization’s claims of representing God’s laws are valid.

 

[Awake]

We see a summation of the natural law in the 10 Commandments.

Right, but again, that’s a personal opinion on what the natural law is. If somebody else believes with a good conscience to the contrary, are they morally bound to do what they think is right and you think is wrong, or are they morally bound to do what you think is right and they think is wrong?

I’m not claiming to know the right or wrong answer, I’m just trying to understand people’s viewpoint. It seems that people are saying that every person should follow their conscience, provided that it aligns with a particular moral code of conduct. If you were instead to say that somebody should always follow their conscience, even when it tells them to steal, murder, or use BC, at least that would be a consistent viewpoint.

 

[GJx86]

I’m not claiming to know the right or wrong answer, I’m just trying to understand people’s viewpoint. It seems that people are saying that every person should follow their conscience, provided that it aligns with a particular moral code of conduct. If you were instead to say that somebody should always follow their conscience, even when it tells them to steal, murder, or use BC, at least that would be a consistent viewpoint.

CCC 1790 might help.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

So yes, we should always follow our consciences. But we are also responsible for making sure our consciences are well-formed. Because we can discover moral laws through reason alone, people aren’t necessarily less culpable for objectively evil acts simply because their consciences permitted them. Some more passages from the CCC, emphasis mine:

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

Paragraphs 1776 through 1802 of the CCC address this issue more fully.