tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post2979362027882886592..comments2024-03-21T04:02:46.799-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: Is it sin or "personal preference"? Why it's so hard to evangelize today.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger241125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-6828698339339110142011-09-30T12:41:31.049-07:002011-09-30T12:41:31.049-07:00Hi Mary,
Understood.
I believe Bethany was stating...Hi Mary,<br />Understood.<br />I believe Bethany was stating that one cannot use scientific method to understand an objective morality. (Unless she's referring to a science of moral systems).<br /><br />I just wanted to reiterate that's true in so far as scientific method cannot measure or quantify morals. Scientific method cannot indicate a moral truth, it can be used in the social sciences to observe/study human behavior, but again, I believe Bethany was pointing to the objective morality as standing apart from any subjection.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-1196737710167727742011-09-30T12:10:42.950-07:002011-09-30T12:10:42.950-07:00Hi Nubby,
Bethany said that scientific methods are...Hi Nubby,<br />Bethany said that scientific methods are not objective. I replied that they try very hard to be. The scientific method is based on an ideal of objectivity.maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05613163382453563548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-82001496703389754102011-09-30T07:46:43.372-07:002011-09-30T07:46:43.372-07:00And congratulations on your newest bundle, Bethany...And congratulations on your newest bundle, Bethany!Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-44816108430725357672011-09-30T07:44:48.258-07:002011-09-30T07:44:48.258-07:00Modern scientific methods are in place to point to...Modern scientific methods are in place to point toward truth, yes; but this has nothing to do with morality. Morality isn't dictated by scientific method.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-49107656333261251362011-09-30T07:37:28.662-07:002011-09-30T07:37:28.662-07:00Congrats to Bethany. Getting any sleep?
Bethany...Congrats to Bethany. Getting any sleep? <br /><br />Bethany said (via Leila) "...modern scientific methods. none of which are truly objective. "<br /><br />Although modern scientific methods can be flawed and not objective, their goal is objectivity. Without the scientific method, where ideas are tested and tested and retested, what could they otherwise do to convince you of their attempts at objectivity?maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05613163382453563548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-77940171436297905982011-09-29T21:42:58.026-07:002011-09-29T21:42:58.026-07:00Nicholas, it's helpful to remember that when w...Nicholas, it's helpful to remember that when we speak of the natural law (universal moral law) which is accessible to all men by reason and is "written on the heart", it is essentially the Ten Commandments, the Catholic moral law. No separation there. That is why St. Paul talked of even the pagans understanding it. <br /><br />(Of course, doctrinal truths are a different matter and require revelation; although they are absolutely not opposed to reason, they do transcend it.)Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-60247631821321632392011-09-29T20:15:33.157-07:002011-09-29T20:15:33.157-07:00While Bethany's comment is a valid opinion, I&...While Bethany's comment is a valid opinion, I'd say that referring to "Catholic morality" is still useful in the context of having clearly defined terms and understanding (subject to the caveats she offers, of course).<br /><br />Otherwise it is back to the "Who's on first?" skit, because people have been talking about at least two, possibly three very different definitions for moral relativity and a couple of different definitions of morality :-)<br /><br />It is the same problem with the marriage debate since the two sides use completely unrelated definitions of marriage.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10142475137957516460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-50822260184794295372011-09-29T18:08:14.400-07:002011-09-29T18:08:14.400-07:00From Bethany, back from giving birth, and now havi...From Bethany, back from giving birth, and now having trouble posting (darned blogger!!). So I am posting this at her request:<br /><br /><i>Admittedly I'm still trying to get back into the swing of catching up on blogs, and I have not actually read through each and every comment here, so I apologize if this has already been addressed. But are we really arguing about what moral relativism is?<br /><br />I will submit this for evaluation (cause this is how I always understood it). <br /><br />Moral relativism exists when people (and I believe part of Leila's point is that it is now society in general) not only believes that morality is ultimately an individualized, autonomous choice, therefore the morality of one may be different from the morality of another and both are equal and good. But ultimately their morality is <b>subject</b> to (as Maizeke pointed out) <i>free and open inquiry, reasoned discourse, supporting evidence, honest respect for opposing positions, and modern scientific methods. </i> none of which are truly objective. <br /><br />I'd like to point out that the objective morality that the Catholic Church teaches is not "Catholic Morality" in the sense that Catholics, back in the day, did not sit around and come up with a bunch of rules and regulations and every Pope since then has "reigned" with an iron fist adhering to those rules and regs. The entire point of objective morality is that it is morality not born of either an individual or a humanity co-op. Supernatural or otherwise, Objective Morality transcends humanity. It existed before humanity existed and it will exist long after the sun supernovas. </i>Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-66868768622273303742011-09-29T16:19:53.811-07:002011-09-29T16:19:53.811-07:00Mary, yes! That's it! It's that people und...Mary, yes! That's it! It's that people understood, no matter the era, the creed, the society, that there actually <i>is</i> a moral authority higher than themselves. Natural law is on the heart of all men. Professor B calls today's era "eerie", because in the past, people would reject or refuse to live by the light of natural law, but today, we deny that natural law even <i>exists</i>. It's a whole new ball game now, and it's, like he said, <i>eerie</i>.<br /><br />I feel better that we may have connected a bit here.<br /><br />By the way, one can be a Christian vegetarian. ;)Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-70960735247658438192011-09-29T15:23:21.545-07:002011-09-29T15:23:21.545-07:00OK...at the risk of sounding very dense, are you s...OK...at the risk of sounding very dense, are you saying that the main thrust of this article is that THE REASON it used to be easy for the Church to preach to people who were unbelievers (say Pagan Greeks for example) as opposed to say, pagan Wiccans today, is because even though their moral systems were twisted as compared to Christianity, they at least believed in the reality of a single moral authority? So they were more ready to accept the Church's message then as compared to now, even though much of it (i.e. God loves slaves equally to kings) was totally foreign to them? <br /><br /> The key idea being that, since the would-be converts had only previously been exposed to one type of moral system (not the "supermarket" to use Nicholas' term, of options we have today, they would accept a new moral authority more easily.<br /><br />I will have to think about that, but at first pause, it seems that I have been exposed to many different creeds and cultures in my life, and I have spent a great deal of mental energy comparing and contrasting them and comparing them to Christianity. Most of the time Christianity holds up (the vegetarianism of Bhuddists seems entirely logical and loving and tempts me).maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05613163382453563548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-84874213427777528402011-09-29T13:52:47.489-07:002011-09-29T13:52:47.489-07:00Mary, I can't help but think you are missing t...Mary, I can't help but think you are missing the point totally. We are not talking about whether or not someone is acting more morally than someone else. <br /><br />Again, watch Pinocchio, read "The Lottery" (which should horrify us all, and used to, but doesn't horrify college kids anymore, who don't see the big deal). That should help you understand that we are discussing the idea of <i>a sense of personal sin</i>, which once existed and now is largely lost. <br /><br />The idea that we are to conform our lives to an objective truth (my goodness, have you read those ancient Greek philosophers? They are all over that!) and not expect that morality is something we cobble together individually and subjectively.<br /><br />Totally different mindset. Totally different disposition of the heart. Totally different obligation as a human being.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-89812914161878988772011-09-29T13:25:15.444-07:002011-09-29T13:25:15.444-07:00@Mary -
To be frank, this entire conversation is ...@Mary -<br /><br />To be frank, this entire conversation is conjecture. I have never claimed to be an expert in this field. We are giving a critical analysis to the best of our ability this article penned by Fr. Grimm. Nothing more or less.<br /><br />Also, my conjecture is not that we are less moral today. It is my conjecture that there is more moral diversity.<br /><br />I will agree that I probably had Western Europe/US in mind with those statements.<br /><br />But even regarding the ancient world, again this is just my conjecture -- The societies you mention, I'm not interested in their specific moral practices. I am guessing (again, not a classics scholar) that their populations probably had a narrower range of moral authorities - religion, or whatever that culture accepted.<br /><br />My comparison is that today, in the US, you can go pick your moral guidelines from the supermarket. There are a plethora of religions, all mainstream, there are philosphies and pseudo religions like Transcendental Meditation, Buddhism, etc. Those are particularly populat nowadays. The Dalai Lama is a celebrity. Then you have the secular goups like Secular Humanism.<br /><br />Morality is something that has become fully part of the marketplace of ideas. It is my gut feeling that was certainly not the case, at least to the degree it is now, in ye olden tymes.<br /><br />As far as you last point, I believe I stated earlier in the thread, I do not believe that we are any less moral than previous eras. We're the same as we ever were. I am saying that because the idea of a central moral authority has largely dropped out of view, it is that much more difficult for the Church to get its message across. No more, no less. Not even pining for good old days.<br /><br />We're just discussing an article that is essentially op-ed.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10142475137957516460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-24308669395402385532011-09-29T13:09:12.271-07:002011-09-29T13:09:12.271-07:00Nicholas said: " The current test appears to ...Nicholas said: " The current test appears to be "a viable biological entity capable of independent existence without physical or organic dependence on another human being" as their definition of personhood. But I am sure that even within the Secular Humanism community there would still be debate."<br /><br />I agree, this seems to be the view of secular humanism, but we should be able to fight it because it is inconsistent (not only against the Golden Rule of Jesus)! Most (even non-religious persons) would not easily condone the death-by-starvation of quadriplegics, or infants born with deformities that make them dependent on feeding tubes. Probably more would be OK with terminating the comatose, or people with severe intellectual disabilities, but still, most would not.maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05613163382453563548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-69223914456094417562011-09-29T12:54:40.434-07:002011-09-29T12:54:40.434-07:00Nicholas,
Here is my beef: You said "but I ...Nicholas, <br />Here is my beef: You said "but I think in the context of the original post it is fair to say that there is certainly a lot more diversity in moral thought than there once was. " <br /><br />When is "once"? What is your source? Otherwise it is just conjecture to support your idea that we are less moral today, or less morally cohesive (which is a bad thing). Who is "we"? <br /><br />In ancient Greece, the civilization upon which much or our Western traditions and institutions are based (classics), they thought pederasty was just great! Their neighbors in Palestine did not. The ancient Egyptians thought nudity was fine, and women could have sex before marriage. <br /><br />Are you meaning that we were more cohesive in our morality in the United States 100 years ago? I suppose one could support this statement. In that case, you would consider the zenith of moral homogeneity to be about 1850 or so in the US? <br /><br />Why am I arguing this? Because so many people want to claim that things were better "before". We are depraved "now", and need saving. Our behavior now is because we have lost our moral compass, which we had so much better "before". I reject this. Yes, some things have gotten worse (abortion, out of wedlock births), but lots of moral issues have gotten much much better. We should try to figure out why that is, and learn to apply it.maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05613163382453563548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-3123557631190058372011-09-29T12:45:38.370-07:002011-09-29T12:45:38.370-07:00Hmmmm. Apparently, in MaiZeke's world, this st...Hmmmm. Apparently, in MaiZeke's world, this statement:<br /><br />"I do see a moral disconnect between condemning sexual abuse of children yet supporting the murder and dismemberment of children. Seems to me that they're BOTH moral evils and should BOTH be condemned, not just the former."<br /><br />is interpreted as:<br /><br />"I don't have to listen to anything you say about priests and how the bishops handle them, because YOU believe abortion is correct! So there!" <br /><br />I'll just let other commenters judge for themselves on whether or not that interpretation is even remotely accurate.JoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-34022193822625640912011-09-29T12:04:58.270-07:002011-09-29T12:04:58.270-07:00Actually, MaiZeke, what is "beyond my grasp&q...Actually, MaiZeke, what is "beyond my grasp" to "comprehend" is why you won't answer my direct questions.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-85513914233938872502011-09-29T11:24:11.163-07:002011-09-29T11:24:11.163-07:00acknowledgment that you have morals and a moral co...<i>acknowledgment that you have morals and a moral code doesn't necessarily mean I am free to acknowledge the validity of all tenets. </i><br /><br />Neither am I. The nice thing about debating with you is that you acknowledge that I have a worldview that actually works. You do not agree with it, I understand. But comprehending it is something that seems to be beyond Leila's grasp.<br /><br />I'll also let JoAnna have the last word on the pedophilia/abortion issue, call it fleeing if you will - since she basically just said the same thing (again) that I accused her of saying initially.Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07052774273963187257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-45180380898448075152011-09-29T09:32:39.975-07:002011-09-29T09:32:39.975-07:00Nicholas, well said!Nicholas, well said!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-50412683410344049162011-09-29T09:17:39.022-07:002011-09-29T09:17:39.022-07:00Secular humanism as it stands now appears to accep...Secular humanism as it stands now appears to accept abortion but would be against infanticide. But as Leila notes the problem is that its policies are derived from rational human thought and philosophy, and are therefore subject to change and review. The current test appears to be "a viable biological entity capable of independent existence without physical or organic dependence on another human being" as their definition of personhood. But I am sure that even within the Secular Humanism community there would still be debate.<br /><br />Since Secular Humanism rejects any appeal to divine authority, it also doesn't have any claim to authority other than voluntary adherence. Well, it also references international law, and such things as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However I for one am pretty skeptical of the UN since it is a pretty dysfunctional body that is completely subject to the vagaries of politics. You cannot count on the UN to be either correct or effective.<br /><br />All in all, wholly insufficient from the Catholic perspective. You know I hate that I keep qualifying these statements, but it is a difficult habit to break. Also, it isn't like you can really "win" this kind of debate either way, the two sides are not only miles apart, but approaching from completely different points of origin and seeking completely different outcomes.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10142475137957516460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-44552226270422473632011-09-29T08:51:16.701-07:002011-09-29T08:51:16.701-07:00By the way, MaiZeke is well aware that we have nev...By the way, MaiZeke is well aware that we have never said she has no moral code (she is the one who claims we say that). Of course every human being has moral code! But the question is, what is the source of that code and do we conform ourselves to it (something outside of ourselves)? Or does our moral code conform to us. I had one atheist tell me that she did believe that "truth" and "opinion" are essentially the same thing, after pondering that question for a few days.<br /><br />But even she (like MaiZeke) has a moral code. That was never the issue.<br /><br />Hope that helps.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-83686154919061617662011-09-29T08:43:42.763-07:002011-09-29T08:43:42.763-07:00This is also like you saying that because evolutio...<i>This is also like you saying that because evolution isn't directed by an "intelligent designer", therefore it is random. </i><br /><br />Go back to the origins, not the mechanisms of the process of evolution. If the Big Bang or the <i>origin</i> of life/matter was not "random", then what was it? Planned? <br /><br />As Giuseppe has said, was there an intellect involved or not? If not, then it was mindless. Meaning, no purpose, no reason involved. We are products of that mindless, purposeless, thoughtless process.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-62652142151635446172011-09-29T08:43:11.076-07:002011-09-29T08:43:11.076-07:00@MaiZeke -
I think we're on the same page. H...@MaiZeke -<br /><br />I think we're on the same page. However, before you thank me too much, acknowledgment that you have morals and a moral code doesn't necessarily mean I am free to acknowledge the validity of all tenets.<br /><br />Since Catholicism and Secular Humanism are diametrically opposed on several key points, I cannot give then equal weight. And even where they might coincidentally agree, I cannot actually credit Secular Humanism since the Catholic Church reserves sole authority.<br /><br />Certainly this is one of the difficult things about Catholicism, since its views are not in step with the more open and inclusive secular society views. But it is a package deal.<br /><br />The two moral systems have such fundamentally different worldviews that reconciliation beyond polite disagreement is difficult.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10142475137957516460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-52892204367839396842011-09-29T08:39:04.439-07:002011-09-29T08:39:04.439-07:00Moral relativism is when someone says "Oh, yo...<i>Moral relativism is when someone says "Oh, your society thinks it is moral to mutilate your daughter's genitals so she won't enjoy sex? Well, your society can decide for yourselves what is moral." and "Oh, your society thinks lashing a woman 10 times for driving a car is an appropriate punishment? Your society is so GOOD at defining its own morals. Yay!" That is moral relativism, and it is not what this society is. </i><br /><br />Actually, no. There are many things that even a society of moral relativism will not tolerate. They still have laws! But it's based on positive law principles, not (what we used to use for our legal system) natural law principles.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-64698658494939244932011-09-29T08:35:35.263-07:002011-09-29T08:35:35.263-07:00Nicholas, you'll have to excuse the way I do t...Nicholas, you'll have to excuse the way I do things around here. I am definitely not a social scientist, and I don't use academic terms for the most part. I use the term "moral relativism" the way most people understand it (there is no moral law, i.e., no natural law; we all decide our own "truths"). It's very simple around here, as I am no expert. Just trying to press and challenge based on common sense and a semi-socratic method. <br /><br />MaiZeke, you say that it is an "absolute truth" that shredding children in the womb is "moral", no matter what anyone says. You say your "source" for this "truth" is "free and open inquiry, reasoned discourse, supporting evidence, honest respect for opposing positions, and modern scientific methods."<br /><br />But that is how Peter Singer came up with his belief that it is completely moral to kill a child even months after she is born. He uses the same "sources" that you do? How do you reconcile that? (Or do you agree with him?)<br /><br />Also, I know plenty of people (myself included, and atheists included) who can use the same "sources" that you use to declare that shredding babies in the womb is <i>immoral</i>.<br /><br />So, now what? Who is right? You? If so, why? Because you say so?<br /><br />And what of when you change your mind on a moral issue (as people are wont to do)? Does that mean that your "absolute truth" was not so "absolute" after all?<br /><br />Sorry, your position does not compute to me and it still looks like it's all relative to what you are thinking, feeling or studying at the time, and that you ultimately get to say what is right and wrong. Unless you actually want to name an outside source of truth that has nothing to do with you, your feelings, your opinions, your particular academic conclusions?<br /><br />Thanks!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-7200443806484319872011-09-29T08:21:59.763-07:002011-09-29T08:21:59.763-07:00should be, *You had no other posts after mine on t...should be, *You had no other posts after mine on that threadJoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.com