Why Catholics Fail to Convince Modern People

[FollowChrist34]

I think it is because the modern world and the Catholic Church have different measures of progress - i.e, different yardsticks by which we show whether the world is getting better or worse.

In the modern world, convenience; plenitude; an increase of ability or power; an increase of information about the world; diversity of ideas; among other things, are considered measures of a better society.

Most (if not all) of these criteria of progress are either irrelevant or contradictory to the Catholic sense of progress. And when Catholics try to show the Church is progressive by the world’s metrics, it naturally fails because many of these metrics are at odds with the Faith.

For instance, it seems to me it would be wrong to ask whether the Catholic Church is more intellectually diverse than the world. The answer is obviously not; you have lost the faith if you hold certain positions, such as atheism. But that is because Truth is more important to us than a diversity of opinions.

So it seems to me the better discussions would be to question the secularist as to why we should care about his rubrics.

Is there any reason to care about non-Catholic measures of authority, progress, goodness, etc?

Would arguments be more compelling if they attacked the authority behind, or pointed out the existential irrelevance of, the modern world’s morals?

I often remind myself that since the beginning of the Church many have struggled for faith. This includes Peter and the Apostles. Lack of faith and faithfulness to the ways of God are some of the most common themes in both the Old and New Testament. It is very tempting to imagine Christianity as full of truly transformed, committed believers. I don’t think this has really ever been the case on earth. Once you accept this as a fact, that changes the question about modernity vs. Christianity and the Church’s seeming weakness to stem the tide. The modern scientific age, Enlightenment, etc. have simply allowed people to express their views and follow their own counsel more openly as the Church has receded as an intellectual social and moral force in the West over the last 400 years or so.

I also think the Catholic Church in the last 50 years or so (200+ for Protestants) have been far too apologetic and accommodating to modern thinking and values - in many cases actually bringing this mentality into the Church in an effort to “modernize” and/or soften it. This only serves to weaken and distort Christianity further.

I have come to believe the Church has an obligation to witness to all, try and save all, but as to whether that will come to pass, could be unlikely. You have to deny your reason and experience to believe that. The gate is narrow. I find accepting that to be quite a tonic for engaging and practicing the faith. By which I mean actually witnessing Christ in love, not telling people they will go to hell by rejecting God and essentially supplanting Christian morality and mercy with their own will, though that has a place.

Just think of it as one by one by one. You are the Church to a vast majority of nonbelievers you see everyday, your whole life. Very existential.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The gate is narrow. I find accepting that to be quite a tonic for engaging and practicing the faith. By which I mean actually witnessing Christ in love, not telling people they will go to hell by rejecting God and essentially supplanting Christian morality and mercy with their own will, though that has a place.

And the New Testament is the place:

.“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

“If we have died with him we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us.”
2nd Timothy 2:11-12

 

[Bradski]

We use our own minds by submitting intelligently to a higher Mind, the Mind of God.

So we do use our own minds. That’s a little clearer (although directly contradicting what was previously said). But use it by ‘submitting to the mind of God’.

I’m not really sure that that will solve the problem that I keep bringing up. In fact, I know it doesn’t. Because the question still remains: how do we know if someone has been given the correct answer to any given moral problem?

The short answer to that is: We don’t. Because, obviously, anyone can claim that the answer that he or she has obtained is by submitting their mind intelligently to the mind of God. And if that differs to someone else who also claims to have used your method, then how are we to tell who is correct?

Either only one of them is right or both of them are wrong.

Maybe we can use out mind to determine which is which. By submitting it intelligently to the mind of God.

But…well, I’m sure that you see where this leads. Tight little circle, isn’t it.

 

[PRmerger]

So we do use our own minds. That’s a little clearer (although directly contradicting what was previously said). But use it by ‘submitting to the mind of God’.

I’m not really sure that that will solve the problem that I keep bringing up. In fact, I know it doesn’t. Because the question still remains: how do we know if someone has been given the correct answer to any given moral problem?

The short answer to that is: We don’t. Because, obviously, anyone can claim that the answer that he or she has obtained is by submitting their mind intelligently to the mind of God. And if that differs to someone else who also claims to have used your method, then how are we to tell who is correct?

Either only one of them is right or both of them are wrong.

Maybe we can use out mind to determine which is which. By submitting it intelligently to the mind of God.

But…well, I’m sure that you see where this leads. Tight little circle, isn’t it.

Look, friend, lets get one thing straight: this discussion isn’t about whether an individual can determine what’s right and wrong without a theistic framework.

The discussion is about whether atheism can provide a coherent framework for morality.

It cannot.

So while you can conclude, on your own, that it’s wrong to execute homosexuals, you cannot offer any other person, esp. those who disagree with you, a reason why it is, except, “I don’t like it. It’s yucky”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So we do use our own minds. That’s a little clearer (although directly contradicting what was previously said). But use it by ‘submitting to the mind of God’.

I’m not really sure that that will solve the problem that I keep bringing up. In fact, I know it doesn’t. Because the question still remains: how do we know if someone has been given the correct answer to any given moral problem?

The short answer to that is: We don’t. Because, obviously, anyone can claim that the answer that he or she has obtained is by submitting their mind intelligently to the mind of God. And if that differs to someone else who also claims to have used your method, then how are we to tell who is correct?

Either only one of them is right or both of them are wrong.

Maybe we can use out mind to determine which is which. By submitting it intelligently to the mind of God.

But…well, I’m sure that you see where this leads. Tight little circle, isn’t it.

Generally speaking, yes. A tight little circle of the people who open their minds to God.

The rest open their minds to Nogod, so they get little or no enlightenment.

 

[Bradski]

Look, friend, lets get one thing straight: this discussion isn’t about whether an individual can determine what’s right and wrong without a theistic framework.

That’s right. It’s how someone WITH a theistic ‘framework’ can determine what is right or wrong. I’ve never gor a coherent answer. See below for an example of how people talk around it without addressing the question.

 

[Bradski]

Generally speaking, yes. A tight little circle of the people who open their minds to God.

You have again avoided answering the question. You are, referring back to the OP, failing to convince anyone that you have an answer.

I have an idea that all you are likely to do is repeat what you have previously said. Which doesn’t answer the question which I will repeat again: How do we know who is right?

 

[Cheiron]

True that, but how do we know that being medically useful is good? I’m not saying it isn’t, but - I presume you are irreligious? - even you and Cheiron, being atheists, do not agree as atheists. Do you understand why?

You cannot because your moral authorities are different. (Are almost certainly different.) And those need to be examined and evaluated - as being either true or false - before we examine whether particular issues are good or bad.

Vera_Ljuba and I both take well-being as our moral authority.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. Male circumcision is medically useful, especially in the geographical areas where it was developed (Middle East, mostly). Just like the prohibition of consuming certain foods (pork).

I think circumcision should only be allowed if it’s medically necessary, not if it’s medically useful. The essential question is this: can a parent violate the bodily integrity of their children in name of their religion? My answer is no. Bodliy integrity applies not only to adults, but to children and babies as well. Secondly, children should have freedom of religion as well. What is someone stops believing in Judaism or Islam? They’re forever marked with the faith of their parents.

So while you can conclude, on your own, that it’s wrong to execute homosexuals, you cannot offer any other person, esp. those who disagree with you, a reason why it is, except, “I don’t like it. It’s yucky”.

And you can’t offer any other reason than: “The Bible says we shouldn’t kill.”

Objective morality applies to everyone, regardless of his or her own views on the matter. Catholic morality doesn’t provide an objective basis, because a lot of people - such as myself - disagree that the Catholic Church is the moral authority.

Braski has asked, time and time again, who the moral authority is that decides what is objectively right and wrong. I think he hasn’t received an answer because apologists know very well that any name means that morality is dependent on that particular observer.

The best attempt at objective morality I’ve read so far is Sam Harris’ idea of taking well-being as the moral standard. Because there are objective truths about well-being: killing has obviously a detrimental effect on the well-being of the person being killed, so it’s immoral. This applies to everyone, regardless of someone’s personal views. The rub is ofcourse that people have to agree to the definition of well-being as the benchmark for morality. So, ultimately, that’s subjective too. But once we agree morality relates to well-being, then we can come to an objective moral framework.

 

[PRmerger]

And you can’t offer any other reason than: “The Bible says we shouldn’t kill.”

Ehm, no.

You do know you’re on a Catholic forum, in dialogue with (mostly) Catholics, yeah?

As such, you should know that we do not get our morals (nor our theology) from a book, no matter how holy.

We are not a religion of the Book, Cheiron.

You should know that by now.

Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”

 

[PRmerger]

That’s right. It’s how someone WITH a theistic ‘framework’ can determine what is right or wrong.

By informing your conscience–by conforming your views to that which is Good.

 

[PRmerger]

Vera_Ljuba and I both take well-being as our moral authority.

What if your well being conflicts with the well being of society?

Whose well being takes priority?

 

[Bradski]

By informing your conscience–by conforming your views to that which is Good.

This is another non-answer. It leads nowhere. It explains nothing. It solves no problem.

Yet again, who has this ability? Who do you know that has an informed conscience? Who do you know that has conformed her views to that which is Good (which is apparently somethng different to ‘good’ because it needs to be spelled with the upper case).

Point them out. Tell us where we can find someone like this. Who is the one that sort the wheat from the chaff? Who is the person that gets it right.

Because if there is no-one (and we all know there isn’t), then you and Charles and everyone else who claims that there are absolute answers to all moral problems are in exactly the same position as myself and Cheiron.

That is, using the best advice we can find, we make these decisions ourselves.

 

[PRmerger]

That is, using the best advice we can find, we make these decisions ourselves.

I keep telling you that we agree on this.

The argument is, and has always been, that the atheist has no coherent argument when someone says, “But I think that it’s perfectly moral to execute homosexuals!”

Now, you used to claim to be a moral relativist, which would mean that you would have to say, “Well, I guess that it’s true for you that it is indeed perfectly moral to execute homosexuals.”

But now, thanks be to God!, you have acknowledged that, no matter what someone thinks, it actually is OBJECTIVELY immoral to execute homosexuals.

 

[Bradski]

I keep telling you that we agree on this…

Getting agreement is meaningless. It is no more than voting on the matter. Bringing up boiler-plate examples of beating women and harming children gets you nowhere. It is, in fact, avoiding the question by saying: ‘Look, we agree!’ When, again, agreement is meaningless in determining if there is an objective morality to all moral acts.

All you and others have are some incoherent platitudes such as ‘Inform your conscience’ or '‘conform your views to The Good’.

If Charles says he does this and you say you’ve done this and you disagree, then who is right?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Because if there is no-one (and we all know there isn’t), then you and Charles and everyone else who claims that there are absolute answers to all moral problems are in exactly the same position as myself and Cheiron.

That is, using the best advice we can find, we make these decisions ourselves.

I don 't see how you can say this. Catholics submit to their decisions to the authority of God and the Church he established to guide us for our well being.

You submit to no one but your own personal judgment.

So how can we be in exactly the same position?

Back in four weeks. :tiphat:

 

[Bradski]

I don 't see how you can say this. Catholics submit to their decisions to the authority of God and the Church he established to guide us for our well being.

You submit to no one but your own personal judgment.

So how can we be in exactly the same position?

Back in four weeks. :tiphat:

There is no answer there, Charles. But have a good break in any case.

 

[PRmerger]

Getting agreement is meaningless. It is no more than voting on the matter. Bringing up boiler-plate examples of beating women and harming children gets you nowhere. It is, in fact, avoiding the question by saying: ‘Look, we agree!’ When, again, agreement is meaningless in determining if there is an objective morality to all moral acts.

I think you’ve missed the point completely, luv.

We aren’t talking about whether we agree that executing homosexuals is immoral.

We are agreeing on how we come to know that this is immoral: through informing one’s conscience.

Do you accept this?

 

[Cheiron]

What if your well being conflicts with the well being of society?

Whose well being takes priority?

I would say it depends on the case. I tend to go with the well-being of the individual, because ‘society’ is vague term and not an entity with feelings. But again, it depends on the case.

Ehm, no.

You do know you’re on a Catholic forum, in dialogue with (mostly) Catholics, yeah?

As such, you should know that we do not get our morals (nor our theology) from a book, no matter how holy.

We are not a religion of the Book, Cheiron.

You should know that by now.

I notice you haven’t told me how you get objective morality.

I keep telling you that we agree on this.

The argument is, and has always been, that the atheist has no coherent argument when someone says, “But I think that it’s perfectly moral to execute homosexuals!”

Now, you used to claim to be a moral relativist, which would mean that you would have to say, “Well, I guess that it’s true for you that it is indeed perfectly moral to execute homosexuals.”

But now, thanks be to God!, you have acknowledged that, no matter what someone thinks, it actually is OBJECTIVELY immoral to execute homosexuals.

But what would you say to someone who says it’s perfectly moral to execute homosexuals? You don’t seem to have a coherent argument either.

In fact, it becomes more complicated for you, because the Church has endorsed the death penalty for homosexuals in the past. Clergymen have carried out the death penalty; the Spanish inquisition is a good example. Was the Church wrong to call for the death of homosexuals in the past? Or is it wrong to discourage the death penalty for homosexuals now?

I don 't see how you can say this. Catholics submit to their decisions to the authority of God and the Church he established to guide us for our well being.

You submit to no one but your own personal judgment.

So how can we be in exactly the same position?

Back in four weeks. :tiphat:

We’re in the same position, because morality is still dependent on the entity making the rules. Whether that entity is Bradski, you, me, the Roman Catholic Church of even God - it does not matter. In all these cases, morality is subjective.

When we’re looking for objective morality, we need to find something that applies to everyone, regardless of his or her own views on the matter. If I say that I won’t burn my hand when I stick it into a fire, I’m objectively wrong. I will burn my hand, regardless of my own views. I haven’t encountered a similar example with regard to morality.

 

[PRmerger]

I would say it depends on the case. I tend to go with the well-being of the individual, because ‘society’ is vague term and not an entity with feelings. But again, it depends on the case.

So let’s take this case: having a child with a disability conflicts with my well being. So may I kill this child?

Why or why not?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

We are agreeing on how we come to know that this is immoral: through informing one’s conscience.

Well, I am happy to announce that I had a revelation today, which urged me to examine my conscience.

After examining my conscience now I find that executing homosexuals is perfectly moral. After all they poison the marriage of heterosexuals, they corrupt the innocence of children, they are a scourge on society in general. So, with a few like-minded people we formed a secret society, which will perform ritual tortures and executions of “faggots”.

After further deliberation, we decided to extend this purgation to the adulterers as well. Adulterers must be treated as all the other sexual deviants, including the self-abusers. Also anyone who will be caught using condoms and other artificial methods of contraception will be tortured and killed. Now, we also decided to hold our horses (of the Apocalypse) and wait for some well-reasoned arguments, which might convince us about the error of our ways. Our name will be OPR - Only the Pure Remains.

But the arguments must be objective. No more wishy-washy reference to “conscience”.

Any takers?

Vera_Ljuba