What are matters of faith and morals?

[fakename]

Although I’ve asked this question many a time both outside and inside the forums I don’t recall ever getting a non-confusing (to me) answer.

Whoever answers it unequivocally should know that he will totally be responsible for ending months of near constant philosophizing and reading on the subject -finally I can sleep soundly at night!

Anyways, what is a matter of faith and morals because from what I understand of the terms (that which is the object of belief and that which ought to be done respectively), then logically, everything comes under the phrase. For instance, whether one eats blueberry ice cream over chocolate ice cream is a matter of morals since one or both choices could be bad for your health. But it is an ethical truth that one should do what is best for health. So your ice-cream decisions are matters of faith and morals and as such, matters for church decision.

Secondly I often hear that the church allows for prudential decision-making while only enunciating the general principle. But prudence is a virtue. virtues are matters of morality. So the church must have control over prudential decision-making too. Of course this contradicts what the church claims but it is possible to reconcile this claim with the church. Namely, the church can exercise its power over prudence to prudentially allow others to make prudential decisions -but in principle the church can make all of our decisions for us because everything is a matter of morality.

 

[Vince1022]

Although I’ve asked this question many a time both outside and inside the forums I don’t recall ever getting a non-confusing (to me) answer.

Whoever answers it unequivocally should know that he will totally be responsible for ending months of near constant philosophizing and reading on the subject -finally I can sleep soundly at night!

Anyways, what is a matter of faith and morals because from what I understand of the terms (that which is the object of belief and that which ought to be done respectively), then logically, everything comes under the phrase. For instance, whether one eats blueberry ice cream over chocolate ice cream is a matter of morals since one or both choices could be bad for your health. But it is an ethical truth that one should do what is best for health. So your ice-cream decisions are matters of faith and morals and as such, matters for church decision.

Secondly I often hear that the church allows for prudential decision-making while only enunciating the general principle. But prudence is a virtue. virtues are matters of morality. So the church must have control over prudential decision-making too. Of course this contradicts what the church claims but it is possible to reconcile this claim with the church. Namely, the church can exercise its power over prudence to prudentially allow others to make prudential decisions -but in principle the church can make all of our decisions for us because everything is a matter of morality.

Can’t promise this won’t be confusing.

On one hand, you’re right, logically considered “faith and morals” covers everything, i.e. belief (thought) and actions.

The Catechism uses “faith and morals” when describing the teaching authority of the magisterium in para 888-892. Specifically, this reference to faith and morals deals with the issue of teaching infallibly, which can also become quickly confusing. Most would agree that the intent of “faith and morals” here refers to essentials of the Catholic faith, and would also note that no clearly defined infallible teaching has been taught regarding the “morals” part of the phrase.

Yes, the Church teaches that people are always obliged to follow their conscience, but of course the Church also teaches that everyone has the responsibility to properly form their conscience (which, of course, from a Catholic perspective means agreeing with all the Church’s moral teachings).

 

[fakename]

I dunno, any other answers? I’m grateful for the ones I did get yet I am now in the dicey situation I was in before: logic tells me one thing, but others tell me another so that I really don’t know how to systematically apply church teaching if church teaching does not follow the definition of words…

Secondly, the words “essentials of catholic faith” must mean something very dignified and therefore certain. But the CST is probably comprehended under this term and that isn’t certain -there is possibility of error inessential to salvation. So from this, I conclude that even the words “essentials of the catholic faith” are also vague to me.

Again there must be some more unequivocal statement. At this point I’m not even looking for people to explain it to me, just firmly state something and I’ll believe it (such is the perplexity of the situation I must contemplate). Just so long as I can use the concept to understand the rest of church teaching.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Examples of areas other than faith and morals are those of science, mathematics, history, etc. For example, people in this forum will often claim that the Catholic Church cannot teach that evolution is true, because that would be a matter of science, not of faith or morals. Of course, many of those same people sometimes claim that the Catholic Church has taught that evolution is false, as a matter of faith.

I have never seen an official statement from the Catholic Church that matters of a prudential nature are outside the Church’s teaching authority. On the contrary, canon law states:

Can. 747 §2. It belongs to the Church always and everywhere to announce moral principles, even about the social order, and to render judgment concerning any human affairs insofar as the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it.

 

[Vince1022]

I dunno, any other answers? I’m grateful for the ones I did get yet I am now in the dicey situation I was in before: logic tells me one thing, but others tell me another so that I really don’t know how to systematically apply church teaching if church teaching does not follow the definition of words…

Secondly, the words “essentials of catholic faith” must mean something very dignified and therefore certain. But the CST is probably comprehended under this term and that isn’t certain -there is possibility of error inessential to salvation. So from this, I conclude that even the words “essentials of the catholic faith” are also vague to me.

Again there must be some more unequivocal statement. At this point I’m not even looking for people to explain it to me, just firmly state something and I’ll believe it (such is the perplexity of the situation I must contemplate). Just so long as I can use the concept to understand the rest of church teaching.

Essentials of the Catholic faith: the Creed.

 

[fakename]

I’ve got one more question here now, I promise

Matters of faith and morals, like I said before, could be about possibly anything since anything could have a moral dimension even incidentally.

So that means,that when one says that the church “when it enunciates principles, allows us to apply and understand these principles” one intends to say that “although everything is a matter of morals, nevertheless the church leaves some of these matters to us.” How can one prove, when reading an encyclical or some such thing, that the church is meaning to leave it to us? I’ve never read explicit statements to that effect?

Anyways I like to thank the respondents to the thread -your answers are helpful (just so you know they weren’t in vain).

 

[Vince1022]

I’ve got one more question here now, I promise

Matters of faith and morals, like I said before, could be about possibly anything since anything could have a moral dimension even incidentally.

So that means,that when one says that the church “when it enunciates principles, allows us to apply and understand these principles” one intends to say that “although everything is a matter of morals, nevertheless the church leaves some of these matters to us.” How can one prove, when reading an encyclical or some such thing, that the church is meaning to leave it to us? I’ve never read explicit statements to that effect?

Anyways I like to thank the respondents to the thread -your answers are helpful (just so you know they weren’t in vain).

This passage from the Catechism 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.