Why Catholics Fail to Convince Modern People

[PRmerger]

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.

So there ya go.

You are a moral absolutist.

 

[Cheiron]

So there ya go.

You are a moral absolutist.

Absolutism is different from objectivism. Objective morality is morality that applies to everyone, but it can still include moral statements that take the context and the consequences of actions into account. Absolute moral statements have no regard for context or consequences.

 

[PRmerger]

Absolutism is different from objectivism. Objective morality is morality that applies to everyone, but it can still include moral statements that take the context and the consequences of actions into account. Absolute moral statements have no regard for context or consequences.

So can you give a context in which it would be morally permissible to execute a homosexual (for his disordered desire)?

 

[Cheiron]

So can you give a context in which it would be morally permissible to execute a homosexual (for his disordered desire)?

I tried to think of one, but no, I can’t. And obviously I disagree with the word disordered, I presume that’s from the view of the executioner.

 

[PRmerger]

I tried to think of one, but no, I can’t.

So…it is objectively true that executing a man for being homosexual is not right.

And it is a moral absolute: one should never execute an individual for being homosexual.

And obviously I disagree with the word disordered, I presume that’s from the view of the executioner.

But you do agree that disordered sexual desires do exist, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

If morality is whatever God says it is, then that means morality is subjective.

This is not a logical conclusion.

If morality is “whatever God says it is”, then morality is OBJECTIVE–we compare our conclusions to God’s…and to the degree that it’s consonant with the Moral Author is the degree to which it is moral.

That’s OBJECTIVITY. Not subjectivity.

 

[Edward_H]

If Catholics are praying, mortifying, and living charity as we should we can’t actually “fail” to convince modern people.

Our job isn’t to “convince modern people”…our job is to be heroically faithful children of God.

There’s far too much “goal line” mentality embedded in this question. It’s I think a product of an Evangelical Christian approach to evangelism.

A Catholic’s way of evangelism, is called Apostolate…and it’s really part and parcel of our love for others. Our love - our desire for the good of others - should be so generous and warm and quiet, that they will become attracted to us, having deeper conversations with us.

They will see “unity” in our life…between our words and actions, and they will be drawn to the Truth by the work of the Holy Spirit in us.

 

[Cheiron]

So…it is objectively true that executing a man for being homosexual is not right.

And it is a moral absolute: one should never execute an individual for being homosexual.

If we take well-being as the benchmark for morality, then it’s objectively wrong.

But you do agree that disordered sexual desires do exist, yes?

There are sexual desires I disagree with. Disordered sounds me to like a psychological qualification and I’m not a psychiatrist. I don’t want to speak on a matter I know nothing about.

This is not a logical conclusion.

If morality is “whatever God says it is”, then morality is OBJECTIVE–we compare our conclusions to God’s…and to the degree that it’s consonant with the Moral Author is the degree to which it is moral.

That’s OBJECTIVITY. Not subjectivity.

No, you compare our conclusions to God’s and to the degree that they’re consonant with each other is the degree to which you regard it moral. Don’t drag me into this. I reject the ‘we’. I don’t regard God as the moral benchmark. God is your, personal, subjective, benchmark; just like secular humanism is mine.

You still haven’t given me a moral standard that I have to adopt, regardless of my own views of the matter. There is no reason whatsoever why I must adopt your moral standard.

 

[Baroux]

The world has always been the same. The same, in relative terms, are going to heaven as to hell, because people are essentially the same. Think about inculpability, and you will see this. “Forgive them, because they know not what they do,” as Jesus Christ mentioned of the Romans carrying the action of crucifying Him.

I think this whole Catholic “things are getting worse”/“end times” is a waste of time.

“Modern people” can still get to heaven by doing exactly what Catholics should be doing: following their conscience.

 

[PRmerger]

If we take well-being as the benchmark for morality, then it’s objectively wrong.

And even if well-being isn’t the benchmark, it’s objectively wrong.

And it’s also an example of a moral absolute you’ve espoused.

There are sexual desires I disagree with.

Why do you disagree with them?

Disordered sounds me to like a psychological qualification and I’m not a psychiatrist. I don’t want to speak on a matter I know nothing about.

Maybe “disorder”, as a noun, belongs in the realm of medicine.

However, “disordered”, as an adjective can also be part of non-professional use.

For example, do you have a problem saying that a room looks “disordered”?

Or that a person’s desire to eat and then throw up is “disordered”?

NB: you need not have to diagnose that person as having bulimia. You, as a layman, can simply look at a person who does such an activity and know it’s disordered. (And, in fact, I think any informed layperson can diagnose someone as having bulimia by looking at her behavior. That’s not something that’s, er, rocket science)

 

[PRmerger]

You still haven’t given me a moral standard that I have to adopt, regardless of my own views of the matter. There is no reason whatsoever why I must adopt your moral standard.

You* do *have to. Whether you like it or not.

Otherwise, you’re an immoral person.

So, you cannot divorce yourself from the Moral Author by for example, saying, “I feel in my heart that it’s perfectly moral to execute a homosexual”.

You may not do that and be a moral person.

 

[Baroux]

You* do *have to. Whether you like it or not.

Haha, Catholics are hopeless.

And if the moderator finds this inappropriate, I then I guess opinions are inappropriate. I understand that we need to be genial, but really, are we trying to force change on people as stated through an example via the quote? That’s more offensive than laughing at the very notion.

Simply put: no, he does not have to whether he likes it or not. Morality is objective via the independent conscience alone, and not on general rules of morality. Again, Catholics need to be reminded of the concept of genuine inculpability of another’s conscience, which can only be affected by that specific individual, and none other.

 

[PRmerger]

Haha, Catholics are hopeless.

And if the moderator finds this inappropriate, I then I guess opinions are inappropriate. I understand that we need to be genial, but really, are we trying to force change on people as stated through an example via the quote? That’s more offensive than laughing at the very notion.

Simply put: no, he does not have to whether he likes it or not. Morality is objective via the independent conscience alone, and not on general rules of morality. Again, Catholics need to be reminded of the concept of genuine inculpability of another’s conscience, which can only be affected by that specific individual, and none other.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by “you have to”.

I am not denying him his free will.

Just like someone “has to” follow the laws of math.

He, of course, is always free to disobey them, but then he’s in trouble.

 

[Baroux]

He, of course, is always free to disobey them, but then he’s in trouble.

Hm, you’ve reminded me of a question I ask myself sometimes: “Why should I even bother?” Maybe he will appreciate my comments more than yourself. You’ve simply posted a looping, rhetorical question that is, in essence, answered in the post you’ve quoted.

 

[Edward_H]

Haha, Catholics are hopeless.

And if the moderator finds this inappropriate, I then I guess opinions are inappropriate. I understand that we need to be genial, but really, are we trying to force change on people as stated through an example via the quote? That’s more offensive than laughing at the very notion.

Simply put: no, he does not have to whether he likes it or not. Morality is objective via the independent conscience alone, and not on general rules of morality. Again, Catholics need to be reminded of the concept of genuine inculpability of another’s conscience, which can only be affected by that specific individual, and none other.

This expression reveals more than it intended to “Morality is objective via the independent conscience alone, and not on general rules of morality”

People have forgotten how to both write and think. It’s so rare to run across people able to generate exactitude of thought. They mumble their way through serious topics hardening their own bad conclusions. Hopeless.

 

[Baroux]

I now, from this moment forth, quit the idea of ever changing anyone’s opinion on anything. Truly, “Beauty is the in the eye of the beholder,” and nothing else.

Goodbye my friends.

 

[Cheiron]

And even if well-being isn’t the benchmark, it’s objectively wrong.

And it’s also an example of a moral absolute you’ve espoused.

I don’t like to describe myself as an absolutist, because I do think context and consequences matter.

Why do you disagree with them?

Because they can be harmful, if acted upon. Pedophilia is the most obvious example.

You* do *have to. Whether you like it or not.

Otherwise, you’re an immoral person.

So, you cannot divorce yourself from the Moral Author by for example, saying, “I feel in my heart that it’s perfectly moral to execute a homosexual”.

You may not do that and be a moral person.

Immoral according to the standard I disagree with. Ultimately, morality is subjective. If we can agree on a definition, then we can go from there to objective moral truths. If somebody says that morality is actually about achieving nuclear annihilation, then I can only say he’s wrong according to my definition of morality. He’s not wrong according to his definition, obviously.

Haha, Catholics are hopeless.

And if the moderator finds this inappropriate, I then I guess opinions are inappropriate. I understand that we need to be genial, but really, are we trying to force change on people as stated through an example via the quote? That’s more offensive than laughing at the very notion.

Simply put: no, he does not have to whether he likes it or not. Morality is objective via the independent conscience alone, and not on general rules of morality. Again, Catholics need to be reminded of the concept of genuine inculpability of another’s conscience, which can only be affected by that specific individual, and none other.

Well, the search for objective morality is about searching for objective moral truths that someone simply must accept, regardless of his own views. This, I think, can only be done if we can come to an agreement about what morality is.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t like to describe myself as an absolutist, because I do think context and consequences matter.

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

Because they can be harmful, if acted upon. Pedophilia is the most obvious example.

What about adultery? Is that wrong only if the spouse finds out?

Or is it wrong at the moment it’s acted upon, regardless of whether any harm comes from it?

 

[PRmerger]

Immoral according to the standard I disagree with. Ultimately, morality is subjective.

You’ve already shown that you don’t believe this, Cheiron.

If it’s truly subjective, then when a man (or government) executes another for being homosexual, and he really feels this is moral…then it is moral.

And yet you acknowledge that, regardless of his personal views, IT IS IMMORAL.

Objectively.

 

[Bradski]

Modern society needs people who think for themselves in relation to the objective good.

No wonder you can’t convince people that you have it right.

We must use our own minds is a recipe for moral chaos.

Argue it out with Charles when he gets back.

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

‘To that degree…’ doesn’t really help, does it. It seems that the answer you will get by mulling over any given moral problem witlkl only reflect the degree to which your conscience has been well-formed. Now how on earth do you know what that is? Is there some sort of scale which you use when making decisions?

‘Well, I’m not quite there in regard to a well-formed conscience, so the answer which I have decided upon in this particular case is probably not 100% correct’.

Doesn’t get us anywhere at all in fact. If I ask you if something is morally right or wrong (there are no ‘none of the above’ cases when it comes to absolute morality), then you have practically admitted that you wouldn’t really know. So what can we do…

Ask someone with a well formed conscience.

And round and round we go. Just point one out, goout. Anyone at all. You have a whole planet full of people available. There must be one, surely.

Catholics might give various answers to moral problems due to ignorance.

So we have a not-so-well-informed conscience not being able to give us any type of definitive answer to moral problems and we also have ignorance. Would that we could tell the difference. Although I suspect that you may not claim ignorance on your part once you have come to a decision. If that were no the case, them how do we know that you are in possession of all the facts?

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.

That’s a bit of a thigh slapper actually. Telling me that I am focussed on getting a correct answer. Yeah, quite the fundamentalist, aren’t I, wanting to know how I know if someone is giving me the correct answer to a moral problem.

Let’s face it. You were right the first time. It’s there at the top of this post. We need to think for ourselves. Yes, with guidance, from wherever and whosever we can get it. But the final call is…ours. Right or wrong. Well-formed conscience or not. Ignorant of all the facts or not.