Why Catholics Fail to Convince Modern People

[inocente]

That’s not how I understand that entire reading, which spoke to the people of that time and continues to be meaningful as a reminder of sin’s consequences. The law remains, and it is clarified with the revelation of Jesus Christ. Morality is based on love. In a loving society, struggling to exist, there are sacrifices we must make to live in harmony and support one another. Being seduced by our passions to the detriment, extreme in those days and in these, of our families and friends, is to bring great evil into our world. We must destroy sin within us.

Not for Modern People. For instance, Modern People say segregated churches were never a sacrifice which blacks had to make to live in harmony. Modern People believe segregated churches actively prevented a loving society from ever existing. We’d all agree with Modern People on that.

But Modern People also see the past treatment of gays in the same light. You may disagree but in Spain, Ireland and America a majority of Catholics approved equal marriage, along with other Modern People. To them it’s living in harmony and supporting one another, it’s a more loving society, it’s more moral.

 

[goout]

Not for Modern People. For instance, Modern People say segregated churches were never a sacrifice which blacks had to make to live in harmony. Modern People believe segregated churches actively prevented a loving society from ever existing. We’d all agree with Modern People on that.

But Modern People also see the past treatment of gays in the same light. You may disagree but in Spain, Ireland and America a majority of Catholics approved equal marriage, along with other Modern People. To them it’s living in harmony and supporting one another, it’s a more loving society, it’s more moral.

Do you see your inconsistency?
On the one hand you justly decry the injustice of segregation, and on the other hand you tolerate other injustices.

How can that be consistent? Morality must refer to an objective standard. It can’t be your individual preference.

 

[PRmerger]

Everyone is oriented to find it, evidence being that you and I are here bothering to discuss it.

Egg-zactly.

So…there is no “truth” to whether turnips are better mashed or fried. That’s why no one goes pages and pages on a forum presenting arguments for their preference for mashed turnips.

It’s a preference ONLY.

But when someone comes to a forum, argues that her view is correct, then…well, it limns quite nicely that she is an absolutist.

 

[inocente]

That is true, but is only a part of the story. Gifts are also unique to persons and vocations. I do not have a call to be a bishop.
The loss of the sense of uniqueness is probably the greatest deception of our current age. In our well-intentioned rush to be egalitarian, we have forgotten the uniqueness of every person and vocation.
“Unity through diversity”.

Anyone with a genuine charismatic gift needs to demonstrate that it is of Christ, and not just an illusion. And when it comes to moral reasoning, that demonstration is the quality of the reasoning.

Modern People are taught to think for ourselves, and leadership courses I’ve been on teach that respect must be earned.

*An action is good pre-conscience, and a conscience is well formed to the degree it perceives the good. *

I didn’t know what a preconscience is and so googled. It says “Think of it as a membrane through which a piece of repressed memory passes”.

You are exalting conscience to the level of God.

Nope, just paraphrasing Romans 14: “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.”

Obedience to authority is not blindness.
If someone has the gift of a share in Christ’s authority I want to open that gift. I open it by submission and obedience.
Did you know that the etymology of obedience is “to listen”? “ab-audiere”.
Obedience does not lead to slavery, it is an open ear and heart to the voice of the shepherd.
Everyone submits to someone or something. The question is, are we listening to the authentic voice?
If we exalt our own conscience as sole arbiter of the good, we are deaf. A spiritually deaf person cannot conform his conscience to the good.

If it’s the authentic voice of God then it will make good sense. If someone said God told them to bomb a church full of people, it wouldn’t matter how many charismatic gifts they claimed, or how much authority they had, or how much you had submitted to them in the past, your conscience would know from reason alone that they’ve turned cuckoo. *CCC 1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience
*

 

[o_mlly]

" Go, therefore, … teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." The Lord did not order his disciples to convince the world; only teach them. Convincing is the work of the Holy Spirit through the gift of faith. All who are taught still may reject faith and remain unconvinced.

It seems the thread has focused on Catholic moral teaching as a great divide. Those unconvinced of the truth in Catholic moral theology, I think, confuse the morality of with the culpability for an act.

The morality of an act is objective, that is the goodness or evilness of the act is independent of the many ways anyone may think about it.

However, the culpability of an act is always subjective, that is the blame or merit for an act is always dependent on the actor’s state of mind. Culpability is measured in the moral agent’s relationship of conscience and will.

Ignorance, a poor defense in the courtroom of man, is an absolute defense before God. Ignorance separates men from angels and temporarily saves evil men from eternal damnation. But once man leaves the temporal, he enters eternity and, like the angels, is fixed in his will. His disposition is no longer changeable but eternal as a friend or an enemy of God.

In this life, unintended ignorance of God’s will protects the immoral actor from blame before God.

• If one acts against their conscience, that is knows the good but wills otherwise, then one sins.
• If one’s certain conscience mistakes evil for good and acts accordingly then one is not culpable. However, the act remains immoral and the act’s evil effects exist.
• If one’s uncertain conscience mistakes evil for good and acts accordingly (in willful ignorance) then one is culpable.

It appears the unconvinced may be moving toward the Catholic definitions of good and evil as states of being. Evil is the privation of being and good is the flourishing of being (“well-being”). There is hope in the faith.

 

[inocente]

Well, that’s why there’s the Catholic way of looking at things which is to have a relative absolute morality.

Go on then, link anything anywhere which talks of a “relative absolute morality”.

Ask at your church if they know of a Catholic Morality 101 or Natural Law Ethics 101 class you could take .

What about adultery?

Leviticus says put them to death. Also any child who curses her parents.

 

[inocente]

Do you see your inconsistency?
On the one hand you justly decry the injustice of segregation, and on the other hand you tolerate other injustices.

How can that be consistent? Morality must refer to an objective standard. It can’t be your individual preference.

Tolerate what other injustices?

 

[goout]

Tolerate what other injustices?

You said:

But Modern People also see the past treatment of gays in the same light. You may disagree but in Spain, Ireland and America a majority of Catholics approved equal marriage, along with other Modern People. To them it’s living in harmony and supporting one another, it’s a more loving society, it’s more moral.

You propose that marriage of gay people is “equal” when it is not the same thing as the marriage of a man and a woman.
It is unjust to propose a deceit as truth. Deceit detracts from a just society. Who is harmed?

In addition to the general harm that deceit does everyone in detracting from truth, this deceit particularly is unjust to children in all the obvious ways, by degrading the value of marriage which is the only context a family comes to be and flourishes.

Point being, you cannot propose a truth in regard to race if at the same time you propose an acceptable deceit on such a basic thing as marriage. A just society needs a consistent pursuit of truth about humanity, which derives from objective moral goods, not subjective and arbitrary whims.

It’s no different than if I proposed slavery as “equal” to other forms of work, while at the same time supporting gay marriage. It’s inconsistent.

 

[inocente]

You propose that marriage of gay people is “equal” when it is not the same thing as the marriage of a man and a woman.
It is unjust to propose a deceit as truth. Deceit detracts from a just society. Who is harmed?

In addition to the general harm that deceit does everyone in detracting from truth, this deceit particularly is unjust to children in all the obvious ways, by degrading the value of marriage.

Point being, you cannot propose a truth in regard to race if at the same time you propose an acceptable deceit on such a basic thing as marriage. A just society needs a consistent pursuit of truth about humanity, which derives from objective moral goods, not subjective and arbitrary whims.

It’s no different than if I proposed slavery as “equal” to other forms of work, while at the same time supporting gay marriage. It’s inconsistent.

Nope. Just substitute “slavery” in what I wrote and you get: “Modern People say -]segregated churches were/-] slavery was never a sacrifice which blacks had to make to live in harmony. Modern People believe -]segregated churches/-] slavery actively prevented a loving society from ever existing. We’d all agree with Modern People on that.”

But we’re just going over old ground. It is just that each religion can define marriage as it wants for its rites and sacraments (within the civil code), but it is also morally just that in society all law abiding citizens ought to have the same rights and responsibilities. Your argument and all the others against that logic Failed to Convince Modern People.

 

[goout]

Nope. Just substitute “slavery” in what I wrote and you get: “Modern People say -]segregated churches were/-] slavery was never a sacrifice which blacks had to make to live in harmony. Modern People believe -]segregated churches/-] slavery actively prevented a loving society from ever existing. We’d all agree with Modern People on that.”

But we’re just going over old ground. It is just that each religion can define marriage as it wants for its rites and sacraments (within the civil code), but it is also morally just that in society all law abiding citizens ought to have the same rights and responsibilities. Your argument and all the others against that logic Failed to Convince Modern People.

Yes, each religion can define anything any way it wants.
You say “within the civil code”, and of course that changes. Slavery was once in the civil code. Abortion is in the code now, and it is the direct taking of innocent life. You can’t offend justice any more than that.

So while some things are “in the civil code” they should be resisted because they are unjust. Abortion is one of those, gay marriage is another, walking by a starving person is another, polluting the environment with a not-yet-banned chemical is another.

Justice is not simply what is legal. Legality is nothing but “might makes right”, for better or worse depending on how just the right is.
True justice is reference to some objective standard. If you don’t have that objective standard in sight, you don’t have consistency, and no one is safe.

 

[Bradski]

My refutation is this: I don’t subscribe to what you have said is the moral absolute I need to submit to.

What Matthew said is not an moral absolute. It is a guide. It is also known as the Golden Rule, or, in more psychological terms, reciprocal altruism.

And I’m not interested in whether you subscribe to it or not (you actually do). A refutation does not consist of you saying: ‘I don’t agree with it’. A refutation is: ‘You are wrong because…’.

Again, feel free to refute it whenever you are ready.

 

[PRmerger]

What Matthew said is not an moral absolute. It is a guide.

Fair enough.

And my guide is this: that which helps society is that which is moral.

And it helps society to remove itself of homosexuals.

You as an atheist think it’s wrong to execute homosexuals because you wouldn’t want it done to you.

That’s fine.

But that’s not the guide I use.

So now how can you tell me that what I’m endorsing is immoral?

 

[Bradski]

Fair enough.

And my guide is this: that which helps society is that which is moral.

And it helps society to remove itself of homosexuals.

You as an atheist think it’s wrong to execute homosexuals because you wouldn’t want it done to you.

That’s fine.

But that’s not the guide I use.

So now how can you tell me that what I’m endorsing is immoral?

Yet again, you have not refuted my position. If you don’t want to, then please say so and I won’t have to keep repeating myself.

 

[PRmerger]

Fair enough.

And my guide is this: that which helps society is that which is moral.

And it helps society to remove itself of homosexuals.

You as an atheist think it’s wrong to execute homosexuals because you wouldn’t want it done to you.

That’s fine.

But that’s not the guide I use.

So now how can you tell me that what I’m endorsing is immoral?

Oh, and just for clarification:

The above, as well as the next series of posts which I anticipate I will be presenting DO NOT REPRESENT MY PERSONAL VIEWS.

They are for rhetoric only, and to aid in discussion of morality without a theistic framework.

 

[PRmerger]

Yet again, you have not refuted my position. If you don’t want to, then please say so and I won’t have to keep repeating myself.

Look, luv, we’ve been doing this, back and forth, since forever.

Just keep it going.

Pretend that I am the atheist who doesn’t subscribe to your ethical framework.

You said that you could defend your position without appealing to a Moral Authority.

Let’s do it.

Keep going, now.

What do you say in response to my view that it’s moral if it helps society and that I don’t think Do Unto Others is very smart for society.

 

[Bradski]

Look, luv, we’ve been doing this, back and forth, since forever.

Just keep it going.

Pretend that I am the atheist who doesn’t subscribe to your ethical framework.

You said that you could defend your position without appealing to a Moral Authority.

Let’s do it.

Keep going, now.

What do you say in response to my view that it’s moral if it helps society and that I don’t think Do Unto Others is very smart for society.

I shan’t be repeating myself again.

 

[PRmerger]

I shan’t be repeating myself again.

Why can’t you just keep doing what we’ve been doing here for years?

I’m just representing another atheistic position.

What’s the big deal?

 

[Aloysium]

Not for Modern People. For instance, Modern People say segregated churches were never a sacrifice which blacks had to make to live in harmony. Modern People believe segregated churches actively prevented a loving society from ever existing. We’d all agree with Modern People on that.

But Modern People also see the past treatment of gays in the same light. You may disagree but in Spain, Ireland and America a majority of Catholics approved equal marriage, along with other Modern People. To them it’s living in harmony and supporting one another, it’s a more loving society, it’s more moral.

The bottom line in a very long discussion:

• Tolerance is anything but love.
• Marriage is a sacred institution bringing God into the relationship between a husband and wife.
• The modern trend is to make marriage illegal, replaced by a sham. What comes to mind is how after May 13, 1995, when the current Dalai Lama confirmed that a boy called Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was next incarnation, the Chinese Communist Party announced its own candidate, chosen after a mock Golden Urn ceremony. The choice of the current spiritual leader is under house arrest, while the pretender carries on with his duties under the control of the Party.
• One never knows, but it is rational to conclude that with prayer and God’s intervention, between two commited people of the same sex, a celebate, deeply loving relationship is the likely outcome.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, that’s why there’s the Catholic way of looking at things which is to have a relative absolute morality?

Nothing could demonstrate the irrationality of your stance better than this proposition. Of course, it is NOT the Catholic way… it is YOUR personal way. When you can draw a line which is BOTH straight and circular, come back.

I am always amused as well as bemused by the fundamentalist thinking that often accompanies folks like Vera.

I don’t think that Vera will be up to the task of answering my questions, so I will present what I think would be her answers.

And, of course, Vera is free to correct me where I am wrong in presenting her views.

PR: Is it possible for a moral framework to embrace the idea that some things are relative, but some things are absolute?

Vera: Yes, I would agree. It’s possible for a moral framework to look at some things as relative while other things as absolute.

PR: Then you have endorsed a relative moral absolutism. Thank you!

PR: And this is not an incoherent position?

Vera: No. It is, actually, a rather coherent position.

PR: But does that mean that we have now embraced such a thing as drawing a line which is both circular and straight?

Vera: No, we haven’t embraced such a thing at all! We have simply acknowledged that in the moral life, some things can be relative while other things are absolute…like it is NEVER permissible to execute a man for being homosexual. That is a moral absolute I have endorsed.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, and just for clarification:

The above, as well as the next series of posts (on this tributary) which I anticipate I will be presenting DO NOT REPRESENT MY PERSONAL VIEWS.

They are for rhetoric only, and to aid in discussion of morality without a theistic framework.