Why Catholics Fail to Convince Modern People

[PRmerger]

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

Egg-zactly.

Thank you, Vera!

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Wha?

Again, did you (both) forget that you’re on a Catholic forum?

It should be clear what the answer to Bradski’s question is: the moral authority is God.

Obviously.

There can be no moral authority without a Moral Lawgiver.

 

[inocente]

Bradski;14209900:

So how do we use this guide without using our own minds?

We surrender to it, the same way we surrender to our parents and teachers as we grow and learn about ourselves and the world.

Modern society needs people who think for themselves. Even armed forces no longer accept conscripted cannon fodder, they want all ranks to be professionals using their brains. Children are not taught to surrender to adults anymore. If the Church really does require blind surrender (does it? ) then it’s at odds with what modern children are taught, so will have a harder time convincing them.

 

[inocente]

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

The thread is about Why Catholics Fail to Convince Modern People.

An example is that Ireland, a Catholic country, voted for equal marriage. Equal marriage also got majority approval in Spain, a Catholic country, and opinion polls in America also showed a majority of Catholics in favor.

If your notion of conforming to what you claim is Good doesn’t convince a lot of Catholics, it’s unlikely to convince anyone else.

 

[goout]

Modern society needs people who think for themselves. Even armed forces no longer accept conscripted cannon fodder, they want all ranks to be professionals using their brains. Children are not taught to surrender to adults anymore. If the Church really does require blind surrender (does it? ) then it’s at odds with what modern children are taught, so will have a harder time convincing them.

Modern society needs people who think for themselves in relation to the objective good. To be human means to be in relationship with God and others. “No man is an island”.

Having integrity of thought (what we are really talking about is “conscience”) is not an exercise in isolationism or individualism. Integrity of thought links a person to something outside one’s self. For those who believe in God, that other is God and others. Not others exclusive of God. Those who have belief systems excluding God have an impossible time identifying standards of integrity, as there is not much to identify one’s self with outside popular notions.

Armed forces are professionals who use their brains, in service of a greater good. No Marine thinks merely for himself.
Here is the oath taken upon enlistment:

“I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Integrity of thought in reference to a higher good, not just for the sake of individual thought.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

"PRmerger:

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

Egg-zactly.

Hear! Hear! PR just endorsed moral relativism! If your conscience says that it is immoral to execute homosexuals, than THAT is the moral behavior. On the other hand, if your conscience says that one must rid the society of the scourge of homosexuality, than THAT is the moral behavior.

The funny thing is that she had absolutely no idea what she just said here.

 

[goout]

Hear! Hear! PR just endorsed moral relativism! If your conscience says that it is immoral to execute homosexuals, than THAT is the moral behavior. On the other hand, if your conscience says that one must rid the society of the scourge of homosexuality, than THAT is the moral behavior.

The funny thing is that she had absolutely no idea what she just said here.

Perhaps you misunderstood what she was trying to say.

Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47
1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

A conscience is formed in relation to the voice of God. As conscience is proper to a human being, it is so formed through a human process of education, prayer, discernment, experience, all in relation to the call of God.

1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection:

Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.51
1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.
II. THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE

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.

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.

I’m not sure what the godless person orients his conscience towards, of if the concept of conscience is even acknowledged.

 

[inocente]

Modern society needs people who think for themselves in relation to the objective good. To be human means to be in relationship with God and others. “No man is an island”.

Having integrity of thought (what we are really talking about is “conscience”) is not an exercise in isolationism or individualism. Integrity of thought links a person to something outside one’s self. For those who believe in God, that other is God and others. Not others exclusive of God. Those who have belief systems excluding God have an impossible time identifying standards of integrity, as there is not much to identify one’s self with outside popular notions.

Armed forces are professionals who use their brains, in service of a greater good. No Marine thinks merely for himself.
Here is the oath taken upon enlistment:

Integrity of thought in reference to a higher good, not just for the sake of individual thought.

I’m fine with that. And integrity is the right word. Think of it like this. When I stand before God, I will be judged on my actions. And I will not be able to use the Nuremberg defense that I was only following orders. God will not allow me to avoid moral responsibility by pleading I just did whatever others told me, so they’re to blame. No, I cannot disclaim my moral responsibility, because then I cease to be a moral agent and have no defense.

If there are moral absolutes, then that’s the most important, that a “human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” as the CCC puts it, because without that we are no longer moral agents.

So I’m curious why some Catholics on this thread talk of submitting to authorities, when that will rightly Fail to Convince Modern People, including many Christians.

 

[goout]

I’m fine with that. And integrity is the right word. Think of it like this. When I stand before God, I will be judged on my actions. And I will not be able to use the Nuremberg defense that I was only following orders. God will not allow me to avoid moral responsibility by pleading I just did whatever others told me, so they’re to blame. No, I cannot disclaim my moral responsibility, because then I cease to be a moral agent and have no defense.

If there are moral absolutes, then that’s the most important, that a “human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” as the CCC puts it, because without that we are no longer moral agents.

So I’m curious why some Catholics on this thread talk of submitting to authorities, when that will rightly Fail to Convince Modern People, including many Christians.

Submission to authority is not merely submission to authorities, as it might reside in a human being by a merely human claim.
Submission is at it’s heart a recognition that Christ has shared his charisms, and they reside somewhere (in someone), and his gifts call for our response and submission.

A human being obeys his conscience in making moral evaluations. The source of the moral absolute is God himself. To the degree that a conscience listens and acts with the call of God, the conscience and actions are “good”.

An action is not morally good because an individual conscience determines it so, an action is good, and a conscience is well formed to the degree it recognizes the good.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you misunderstood what she was trying to say.

Yep. Pretty much. :sad_yes:

 

[Bradski]

An action is not morally good because an individual conscience determines it so, an action is good, and a conscience is well formed to the degree it recognizes the good.

So if I ask you a moral question, will you, having a well formed conscience, know the correct answer?

I you say no, then can you tell me who I should ask? There must be somebody who would know. I mean, someone must have this well formed conscience.

If you say yes, then how do I know you are correct? Because some other Catholic may well claim this well formed conscience and give a different answer.

As there can only be one correct answer (you can’t have more than one if absolute morality exists), then how do I know who is correct? Either you are both wrong or only one of you is right. My guess is that you would claim that distinction.

In which case we can defer to you in regard to all moral matters henceforth.

 

[goout]

So if I ask you a moral question, will you, having a well formed conscience, know the correct answer?

If I have a well formed conscience I will make well formed moral evaluations to that degree.

I you say no, then can you tell me who I should ask? There must be somebody who would know. I mean, someone must have this well formed conscience.

Ask someone with a well formed conscience. For foundational principles of morality, consult the Catholic Church for guidance.

If you say yes, then how do I know you are correct? Because some other Catholic may well claim this well formed conscience and give a different answer.

Run it by the Church. These things are pretty exhaustively investigated. Catholics frequently have debates about airliners full of passengers crashing into buildings full of tenants and all that, which is all very interesting but not real practical other than to highlight moral principles.
Catholics might give various answers to moral problems due to ignorance.

As there can only be one correct answer (you can’t have more than one if absolute morality exists), then how do I know who is correct? Either you are both wrong or only one of you is right. My guess is that you would claim that distinction.

In which case we can defer to you in regard to all moral matters henceforth.

If I were you, I would consult a Catholic moral theologian, or read from the giants of Catholic moral theology.
Aquinas, JP2, people like that who understand morality.

By the way, in making a moral evaluation we don’t first focus on merely being correct, we must first know what the good is that a moral evaluation is based on. I think you are overly focused on “correctness”, fundamentalist style.
Morality always serves the good, correct evaluation flows from that.

 

[Cheiron]

It should be clear what the answer to Bradski’s question is: the moral authority is God.

Thank you. That means morality is subjective and not objective. God has His opinion and I have mine. I rest my case.

 

[goout]

Thank you. That means morality is subjective and not objective. God has His opinion and I have mine. I rest my case.

Doesn’t make sense.
Do you understand the difference between objective and subjective?
Having an objective basis for moral evaluation means something outside my self is the source of the criteria for evaluation. And that doesn’t mean I have my own personal invisible twin, it means the source is applicable to everyone.

Subjective means that the basis of morality is *subject to *the individual.
You just stated that you have your opinion. You are subjecting morality to your self.

Perhaps you wish to rephrase. (we know the parsing is forthcoming)

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you. That means morality is subjective and not objective. God has His opinion and I have mine. I rest my case.

Fair enough.

So when a man says he may execute a man for being homosexual, you will say that this is moral for him?

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you. That means morality is subjective and not objective. God has His opinion and I have mine. I rest my case.

Doesn’t it follow that if the moral author is God it makes morality objective, not subjective?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Perhaps you misunderstood what she was trying to say.

There was nothing to misunderstand.

The question was how to decide if an action is moral or not? PR brought up the problem which dealt with executing homosexuals. And she said that both she and Bradski would accept that executing homosexuals is wrong.

When we asked how do we get to this conclusion, she simply referred to our conscience - after all our conscience is the final arbiter. Mind you, she could not provide the argument, HOW our conscience will arrive to this conclusion, she was silent - as usual.

So I played the devil’s advocate and declared that my freshly formed conscience (after some suitable “revelation”) now tells me that homosexuals should be executed, because they are detrimental to society, they corrupt children, they destroy marriage, etc… So it was not because homosexual acts are “icky”, because they are harmful to society. Lo and behold, PR cheerfully accepted this with her trademark “Egg-zactly”. And she even thanked me for opening her eyes.

So the conclusion is that she finally accepts that “morality is relative”.

Run it by the Church.

How? The church is simply an institution. One cannot ask questions from an institution, only from individuals. And if two people both assert that they have well-formed conscience, and STILL have a differing opinion, then what?

 

[PRmerger]

Hear! Hear! PR just endorsed moral relativism!

And just so we’re clear: I’ve always endorsed moral relativism.

Some things are, indeed morally relative.

For example, it may be morally wrong for me to lie to Planned Parenthood, but not for Lila Rose.

Now, the ever present Catholic Both/And is at work here (which is what always makes Catholicism so formidable to argue against): just because some things are morally relative doesn’t mean that ALL things are morally relative.

That is the mantra of the fundamentalist.

And Catholicism is not fundamentalist.

 

[PRmerger]

If your conscience says that it is immoral to execute homosexuals,-] than /-] then THAT is the moral behavior. On the other hand, if your conscience says that one must rid the society of the scourge of homosexuality, than THAT is the moral behavior.

Absolutely not.

It is NEVER moral to execute homosexuals.

And I’m certain you agree with me on this.

Which, of course, makes you a moral absolutist.

(NB: the universe of discourse here is, of course, execution of a man for his disordered desiring of another man)

 

[Cheiron]

Doesn’t make sense.
Do you understand the difference between objective and subjective?
Having an objective basis for moral evaluation means something outside my self is the source of it.
Subjective means that the basis of morality is *subject to *the individual.

You just stated that you have your opinion.

Perhaps you wish to rephrase. (we know the parsing is forthcoming)

Yes I do. I wrote about it on page 8.

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.

If morality is whatever God says it is, then that means morality is subjective. I disagree with your description of what objective morality is. Just because the source of your morality is outside yourself, doesn’t make it objective.

If I did accept your definition, then it would be remarkably easy for me to put an objective moral framework together. I can point to several sources outside myself: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are my sources of morality regarding thinking about church and state. But we would be avoiding the main point, which is why one should prefer moral system X to moral system Y and how we evaluate these matters.

Fair enough.

So when a man says he may execute a man for being homosexual, you will say that this is moral for him?

No, I wouldn’t. From my point of view, it is profoundly immoral to execute homosexuals. It’s also immoral to lock them up, which is why I felt shocked and slightly angry about the thread in Social Justice about criminalizing homosexuality.

Doesn’t it follow that if the moral author is God it makes morality objective, not subjective?

No.