Moral truth - relative or absolute?
Card. Ratzinger / Pope Benedict wrote of moral relativism as the central problem for the Church today. I wonder how many among us in this forum are moral relativists.
Do you believe that moral truth is absolute and unchanging, or is moral truth in fact determined by the personal subject?
If you believe that moral truth is absolute and unchanging, do you accept the magisterium of the Church as the authorized spokesman of that truth, to the extent that such truth has been revealed to mankind?
If you believe that moral truth is absolute and unchanging, but do not recognize the authority of the magisterium in such matters, whom (if anyone) do you recognize as authoritative?
If you believe that moral truth is in fact determined by the personal subject, do you believe in a (universal human) "natural moral law"? If you do, what do you see as its source or origin?
Thanks in advance, for your thoughts.
Thomas
Thomas: you asked "do you
Thomas: you asked "do you accept the magisterium of the Church as the authorized spokesman of that truth"
There is a book "The Vatican Exposed", that presents very disturbing evidence about the Catholic Church.
p67: "Several commandants and officers at death camps were Catholic Priests"
p67: "Catholic priests...not only encouraged but also took an active part in the slaughter"
p71: "a large number of priests, clerics,... actively participated in all these crimes, but more terrible, even Catholic priests became camp and group commanders, and, as such ordered or tolerated the horrible tortures, murders and massacres"
p71-2: at the end of the war Archbishop ... was arrested for war crimes... the Archbishop was found guilty and sentenced to 16 years in prison. Upon hearing the verdict, Pius XII ... ordered the excommunication of everyone who had taken part in the trial. Archbishop ... was presented as a champion of religious freedom"
For all we know, there could easily be priests who were part of these atrocities holding positions of authority in the Vatican. This is why I do not and never will recognize the (absolute) authority of the magisterium in these matters.
Hello col55, The book you
Hello col55,
The book you are reading is one I am not familiar with - from what I can find out, it sounds suspiciously like a "hatchet job" by a very disgruntled person. That does not mean that it is completely without merit - I'm not discounting it entirely at this point, but I must confess I am very suspicious of it so far.
You quote several charges against some priests. I hope you know that priests are not automously and authoritatively part of the magisterium by virtue of their ordination. They are supposed to teach in the name of the Church, and they are supposed to be faithful - but as you surely know, not all are and not all do.
The Catechism describes correctly the Magisterium:
++++++++++++Catechism quote begins++++++++++++++++
The Magisterium of the Church
85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”
++++++++++++++++end of Catechism quote+++++++++++++++
So we see that the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church, which is held by the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, and those bishops in union wiht him.
Thus the priests are certainly supposed to teach what their faithful bishops teach - but they do not always do this. Priests not in union, with the bishops who are in union with the Pope, do not speak with authority - they do not speak for the Church, in any areas of their disunity.
The Archbishop you refer to is another matter. He should be in union with the Pope, he should be part of the Magisterium - but as you know, not all bishops are in union with the Pope on all matters of the Faith.
So anyway, the Magisterium refers to teaching authority - not personal holiness, and not personal faithfulness, and not personal courage. It is a sad possibility, but it is possible that some priests and some bishops were not courageous representatives of the Faith of the Church, in the times of the Nazi atrocities. Certainly ther are other examples of great and heroic fidelity - i.e. St. Kolbe, but many many others as well.
Even if those examples reported are accurately reported in your book,
THIS DOES NOT NEGATE THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH - NOR DOES IT NEGATE THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH. (I'm not "shouting" - I put caps only for emphasis. I wish this forum had other means to express emphasis, but I haven't found any other means yet....)
Thomas
"The book you are reading is
"The book you are reading is one I am not familiar with - from what I can find out, it sounds suspiciously like a "hatchet job" by a very disgruntled person"
I expected to hear this, just not from you. The copy I am reading came from the public library. Paul Williams, the author has impressive creditials. It is worth the time to find and read. It will assist you in understanding why I feel the way I do about the magisterium (note, not the church itself, just the leadership).
In what matters are you
In what matters are you refering to? It is a Truth of the Catholic Faith that Christ Has entrusted the Magisterium to interpret, teach, and defend the Deposit of Faith. The Catholic Church that Christ Has founded is Holy, despite the fact that some have brought scandal to it. This does not change the Truth of The Deposit of Faith.
Anne, I agree that Christ
Anne, I agree that Christ has entrusted the magisterium to teach us.
--- To teach us by their example how NOT to act.
--- To teach us by their example how NOT to live.
--- To teach us by their example what love is NOT.
There seems to be one consistant trait about the magisterium that can be counted on (at least in those activities that are not hidden behind the Vatican veil of secrecy) ... they will consistantly do the WRONG thing.
As far as the truth of the deposit of faith, as far as I'm concerned, they have corrupted that as well.
There is an element of this
There is an element of this discussion that says, "You can never change your mind; you can never consider new information or technologies". Because it seems that to do so, means you are a relativist.
I will readily admit that when it comes to philosophical underpinnings of a moral discussion, I am always awash.
But it seems like this is a trick question, a pharisee's question.
But what little I know of church teachings seems to indicate that people have tussled with how new information fits into overarching concepts forever. But for me so much of science describes the wonder of God's creation, so when scientific research shows great support for certain ideas then we have had-perhaps!-a little glimpse of God's over-arching vision.
In health care, pain is pain. We've dealt with the problem of pain for a long time. Did the discovery of Morphine and surgical techniques and antibiotics change what we can do about pain? Well yes it did. But in life there is still pain, pain that remains recalcitrant to all of our interventions. Does that mean we should not use or integrate ANY of the pain relieving information we've accrued over time? I sure hope not. But ultimately our human frailty always has the last word and we will all experience pain that cannot be readily relieved. Albeit, some in a much more terrible way than others.
Thank you for your
Thank you for your response.
Morality and Aristotle go hand in hand. I think its a matter of common-sense, not a matter of intangible and wishy-washy morality that directs philosophers such as "poor Thomas" as you mentioned.
Firstly, Aquinas needs to be taken with a grain of salt, because his language is used and understood by careful philosophers who do not quickly denote medieval language as synonymous with contemporary language. From the Latin, subject means subjectus “placed beneath.” So if everything is “placed beneath” what is above? A moon and the planet in which it revolves around have a relationship together that doubly effects each other. However, they are both subject to the physical law of gravity, and the principle laws in nature.
Morality itself is reducible to a science, insofar as we determine what the “end” of each human person is in life. As I mentioned earlier happiness is that ultimate goal, and not one single human being on the face of the earth, denies this. Even those who commit suicide, are attempting to find peace. Those who cut themselves, an escape. Those who do drugs and find themselves completely miserable and unhappy all the time, do it because they want to be happy.
This means that there is a “correct” way to become happy and a “false” way to become happy. Very quickly Catholics transpose the words “good” to correct, and “evil” to false. This is so because the morality we have is pragmatic, not platonic-up in the sky having nothing to do with our real tangible material reality.
So when I mentioned virtue ethics and eating, I was addressing what is reasonable for a person to achieve “TRUE” happiness, not an illusive happiness, or a false happiness or as Aquinas puts it, an “apparent” happiness.
Its understandable that many contemporaries don’t understand Aquinas’ philosophy. It seems complicated, but as G.K. Chesterton would hold, its really common-sense and even atheists live by most of the same standards and principles of morality – they just don’t realize it because they define it as something less practical.
Anyways, if you want to continue debating, my e-mail address is cpietra@uwo.ca
"If God is wholly Love, and wholly Power, and wholly "One", then there is no difference between Power and Love."
Morality and Christ go hand
Morality and Christ go hand and hand, because Morality, is the Way we are to Love one another in communion with God. That would make Christ, the Word of Love, absolute. God is absolute.
Much of the debate seems to
Much of the debate seems to confuse sperm with homunculi.
From Wiki:"The term homunculus was later used in the discussion of conception and birth. In 1694, Nicolas Hartsoeker discovered "animalcules" in the semen of humans and other animals. This was the beginning of spermists' theory, who held the belief that the sperm was in fact a "little man" (homunculus) that was placed inside a woman for growth into a child." Modern biology refutes this perception and therefore any argument that flows from it.
Contraception threatens patriarchy because it reduces the male's funtion to satisfying the woman. She then is in control and he has lost his position of privilege as owner of both wife and children.
"Contraception threatens
"Contraception threatens patriarchy because it reduces the male's funtion to satisfying the woman"
No wonder contraception is such a big issue to the church leadership. To validate contraception would mean that they would have to validate that the only thing a man is good for is to satisfy a woman. They would have to admit that they had the paradigm backwards all these years.
And that is really sad, because being with and satisfying a woman one loves, there really isnt much in life that is better than that.
Hello frannie, "Homunculi"
Hello frannie,
"Homunculi" have nothing to do with this discussion, which concerns human reality, not prescientific theories. Contraception violates the human meaning of sexuality - perceived in the natural law - and it violates the spiritual meaning of human sexuality as made clear in the teachings of the Church.
In the proper context of marriage of one man and one woman, any witholding of the person in the sexual act is a denial of its intrinsic meaning - a denial of the sacred gift of self, one to the other. This is what contraceptive sex does - it denies the gift, and denies therefore the fullness of love. Such denial is poison to the heart of marital love: it is a cancer in the covenant; it is a betrayal, a lie in the very embrace of the beloved. For all these reasons it is clear - contraceptive intercourse is a sin. It hurts persons deeply, profoundly, by attacking the meaning of love.
Thomas
The idea that ssex involves
The idea that ssex involves total mutual donation is lovely and I'm sure the ideal. But the idea that all sexual contact must end in the possibility of procreation flies in the face of what John Paul called the theology of the body. It makes sense in a phallocentric universe, but in the theology of MY body the clitoris was made for pleasure and has no reproductive function. One would therefore understand that pleasure and the bonding it supports is part of the design that has nothing to do with pregnancy and birth.
Hello frannie, Yes, sexual
Hello frannie,
Yes, sexual love is a sacred sharing, a mutual self-donation that reflects the divine Self-Outpouring of Persons of the Holy Trinity. It is therefore our ideal, yes - and our vocation if we are called into the sacrament of marriage.
It is not that all sexual contact must end in the possibility of children - but conjugal intercourse must be within an openness to life, to conception given the context of God's design of female fertility cycles. When faithful right reason judges that now is not the best time for a new child to be conceived - yet accepting he goodness of new life, but for good reason not at this time - then the couple can cooperate with God in using His gift of cyclic fertility in the woman. In other words, God has designed into the fertility of the woman period of fertility and infertility - thus God Himself has made a way for reasonable cooperation with Him in His plan for us to "be fruitful and multiply." To do so is not to block the self-gift, it is to fully receive the self-gift - because God designed the woman in this way.
Your feminine body is designed to receive pleasure in sexuality, as also the man's is, NOT as a sign that mere pleasure is a good in itself! But rather, as a sign that God's gift of sexuality, within the context of its proper expression, is a good because conjugal love is a good - the dual purposes of sexuality (procreation and the full personal unity of the spouses) are both good. But they cannot be separated: one cannot be sought while definitively denying the other.
Thomas
Sex between a committed
Sex between a committed couple results arguably in pleasure but also in a bonding, a deepening of the sense of the couple. The two become one for a second.
So why is there so little regard for the power of intercourse and orgasm to give life to the couple, to enrich the relationship of the two?
To parse sex as only for procreation and having no purpose beyond procreation is to view it too narrowly. And sex and procreation are seperated all of the time. But to say they have no legitimacy unless procreation (or the potential for) is part of the union is to deny the power of the act.
Hi Molly, Please read the
Hi Molly,
Please read the (universal) Catechism, whcih speaks beautifully of the unitive power of conjugal love. I quote parts of it below (using the number, you can look this up yourself):
1643 “Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values.”
2361 “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.”
..........
2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”
The Creator himself . . . established that in the
2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
Thomas
These two meanings or values
These two meanings or values of marriage _cannot be separated_ without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
***
Then I guess I would call this last paragraph the leap of logic with which I disagree.
I would also suggest that the experience of many, many couples has not supported this statement. And further, that people who tried to live this sometimes found that it inflicted a lot of damage on their relationship and their family.
It is possible to make more babies than a couple can realistically support, feed and nurture. Then you get your basic lose-lose situation. And sometimes the damage is manageable and sometimes it is not.
These really do speak for
These really do speak for themselves:
1643 is superfluous verbosity that really doesnt say a whole lot
2362 "limits of just moderation" - this one was accurate until it got to this point
2363 "cannot be seperated ..." is a deception and a lie,
all of these are obviously fabricated by someone who has never been in a committed marital relationship, and who has an agenda that is something other than the good of the couple
Molly, you asked "So why is
Molly, you asked "So why is there so little regard for the power of intercourse and orgasm to give life to the couple, to enrich the relationship of the two?"
When one considers that those who are making these rulings are celibate (or are supposed to be anyway) then one realizes that they have no practical understanding of what it is to give and receive during intercourse with a loved one. They sleep alone, live alone, never knowing that depth of love with/from another. They self righteously pontificate their idea of morality out of their ignorance and prejudice.
In simple terms, they dont have a clue what they are talking about.
Thomas, Is abstaining during
Thomas, Is abstaining during woman's fertile time morally better than using a contraceptive during a woman's fertile time?
Marie, you just identified
Marie, you just identified another magisterium contradiction
In practical fact, there is no difference, other than the couple having more opportunity to freely celebrate the joy of their union, a joy which the sexually frustrated magisterium who are making up these ridiculous rules, can only dream about.
Here's another magesterial
Here's another magesterial contradiction. An American woman can licitly use oral contraceptives to treat acne or painful periods. An African woman can't use a condom to save her life. Racism? Genocide.
Hello Marie, Abstaining from
Hello Marie,
Abstaining from sexual intercourse during a woman's fertility cycle is morally neutral in itself - the morality of the abstinence depends on the circumstances - including the motives of the persons involved. If the couple abstains because they agree together that postponement of conception is better at this time, for good and honorable reasons, then their abstinence is good. They are using the fertility cycles that God Himself put into the person of the woman - cycles which allow the couple to cooperate with God in the growth of their family.
Such use of the fertility cycle is a "yes" to God in His design of the body, and in His will that procreation cannot be separated from the unitive good of conjugal love.
This abstinence, when done for righteous reasons, is an act of self-mastery, self-discipline. Note what the Catechism writes about self-mastery:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.
+++++++++++++++++ end of Catechism quote++++++
God did not design into the body of the woman or the man an on/off switch for fertility, that they can flip to the "off" position (and leave off, if they choose), such that they can have sex at will whenever they like. There is not designed into the body a "no" to conception, at will. Such is "contra-ception" - and contraception opposes God, and seeks to eliminate Him and His will from the marriage bed.
Contraception denies God, and is a "no" to the meaning He put into conjugal love. It separates the unitive from the procreative dimensions - and this separation is an immoral lie.
I hope, Marie, that you will research this further. I am certainly not the definitive theologian on this issue! I am not the best spokesman for what is a beautiful moral truth. Please get a book by some more articulate and complete than I am - the truth deserves better than I can do.
Thomas
Thomas, once someone is an
Thomas, once someone is an adult and has attained a certain degree of self-mastery, not to mention established a mature, lasting relationship with a member of the opposite sex, people of the other Christian religions see that person as being able to use additional means, in consultation with his or her spouse, in order to postpone conception or avoid it all together, depending on their specific situation. Such a situation might be where one of the spouses travels a lot for work and the couple's only time together happens to fall during the wife's fertile time.
Thomas, I am open to hearing from anyone who advocates your position on this matter. However, aside from a handful of self-appointed interpreters of the Catechism, one seldom encounters any sources that claim to know, in total disregard of particular circumstances, what it is that other people should be doing.
Nevertheless, the issue of whether moral truth is relative or absolute is confounded by the issue of contraception because, while it may be an absolute moral truth that one is to welcome offspring, it does not seem to be an absolute moral truth that one must seek to produce offspring at all times and under all circumstances.
To answer the question posed by this topic, then, it would seem that one could say that all moral truth is absolutely true in principle but that the application of moral truth is dependent upon circumstances and, thus, relative.
From 1Cor 7:5 Do not
From 1Cor 7:5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self‑control.
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society
Paul seems to understand that extended periods of abstinence are dangerous to a marriage. Note he doesn't extol self-control, he says don't count on it.
How can you say:Your
How can you say:Your feminine body is designed to receive pleasure in sexuality, as also the man's is, NOT as a sign that mere pleasure is a good in itself! That's EXACTLY what it means since it's funtion is unrelated to reproduction. Therer's no getting around this one.
I'll go you one better on the total self donation front. I think that's the Christian ideal for all our lives in every relationship. We are called to imitate our Lord and pour ourselves out for our neighbor. It is exhausting in both meanings of the word and those who achieve it visibly we call saints.
Hi frannie, Is the pleasure
Hi frannie,
Is the pleasure associated with eating good food also unrelated to its function - the function of eating (to provide nutrients to the body)? Some think so, and are called gluttons. Some eat, and vomit, and eat more all for the pleasure of eating. But although God has provided pleasure in eating, pleasure is not the final purpose of eating. Neither is sexual pleasure the purpose God has put into it. God is calling us higher - we are greater than the animals.
Thomas
The pleasure we exerience in
The pleasure we exerience in eating is inextricably bound to the normal method of obtaining nutrition. Pleasure in the sexual experience for males is inextricably bound to the normal method of impregnation.
But sexual pleasure for women is separate and distinct from the normal method of impregnation. For the gospel written in the design of her body makes clear that pleasure is good in and of itself. This is also distinct from animal cycles in which the female seeks sexual congress when she is fertile. In this sense it is the clitoris which elevates humans above the animals, for whom sexual congress and the continuation of the species are determined without choice or joy.
In all of these discussions,
In all of these discussions, one thing is missing:
If God had really intended celibacy to be the way, our bodies would not have been designed for the process to be pleasurable.
The fact that God created the body to experience pleasure, and the fact that God truly is infallible, leads one to conclude that we were meant (by God) to enjoy the pleasure of experience, not to pervert experiences it into whatever it is that the sexually frustrated geriatric men of the magisterium are attempting to force us into believing.
Actually, Frannie, I see
Actually, Frannie, I see this Thomas's way in that this particular pleasure exists so that people will do what it takes to procreate.
Not so. It is with plants
Not so. It is with plants and even animals. Human adds intelligence, reflection, and thus will or purpose which a)intensifies physical pleasure; b)adds the unique factor of understanding and thus another level of pleasure; c)the right, the obligation to 'manage'(not the most sensitive word) sex and sexuality within relationship and sets of contexts.
Sex for procreation only is simply copulation, pleasurable or otherwise.
But, Dennis, if we children
But, Dennis, if we children were produced by cutting our fingernails, we would not be engaging in this particular activity no matter how much we have dignified it by using our intellect.
I agree that this is the way
I agree that this is the way men's bodies work. It is also part of the design that pleasure insures that we eliminate and not explode. But women's bodies separate pleasure and procreation, make procreation and pleasure available to choice and celebration.
I don't think you are making
I don't think you are making a valid distinction between men and women.
There's an old sex joke that
There's an old sex joke that says what there is between males ande females is a vas deferens. But seriously, I did not make the distinction, the Designer did.
For men, pleasure and insemination go together. For women, the physiology of pleasure has nothing to do with pregnancy.
If that is true, why so much
If that is true, why so much concern over masturbation?
It's hard for me to answer
It's hard for me to answer for the magisterium. My memory is that the church's position is that sexual pleasure is soley the province of a sacramental
marriage. I have heard religious counselors say that masturbation is primarily a problem of the teen years and could make the pressure to find a mate less intense.
As I pointed out to Anne, masturbation within a marriage is licit provided it finds it's end in intercourse.
Masturbation cannot give you an STD. Masturbation does not reify another person into a sex object. Masturbation releases endorphins and endogenous corticosteroids which can control pain and inflammation. Masturbation can produce deep relaxation and help with sleep.
After all, who would go
After all, who would go through the trouble of childbirth and rearing? ;-)
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
For many women childbirth
For many women childbirth and family are the apotheosis of a good life.
Frannie, your commentary
Frannie, your commentary seems to presume that women always choose to become pregnant and do so for the selfish reason of enhancing their status, while men get women pregnant inadvertently because they get so much pleasure from the sex act.
What usually happens in real life is that a man and a woman find themselves irresistably attracted to one another for a reasons they and others cannot explain. When they do what they feel called upon to do, the woman becomes pregnant and the couple, and everyone they know, experiences happy and worried anticipation.
Upon seeing the child born, people are filled with awe at the miracle of reproduction and with feelings of God's love for newborn life. They become profoundly aware of their connectedness to the eternal past and future.
Subsequently, they are much more conscious of the power in their attraction to one another and are humbled by it. They are aware of the presence of God in their relationship, whether or not they articulate it to each other or the world. They go beyond looking for pleasant physical sensations and find themselves in a kind of worshipful experience.
Most people, when they have more children, are not doing this out of ignorance about how children are conceived or because they want to obey some authority on the matter or because raising children is easier than they thought or because it impresses people or because they like how it feels on different parts of their bodies.
Firstly, relativism is
Firstly, relativism is self-refuting. Because for a thing to be relative to another, it must have an objective reference point to be compared to another object. Or if everything is subjective, it means that it is "subject" to something objective. A subject, by its very nature implies inferiority or that to which is under something else (substance).
Secondly, all subjects are "human" meaning all human beings have an innate sense of what is morally true, which is promulgated by the human heart's design, insofar as we all desire and hope for the good: real or apparent.
St. Thomas Aquinas has the most relevant defense of Natural Law, that has yet to be destroyed though commonly ignored by contemporaries. The mere fact that all human beings desire happiness or the good, goes to show that there is an intrinsic nature in all human beings that is not relative.
However Aquinas was no extremist and in his virtue ethics admitted that there is a relative mean. So to eat in a "good" way, one should eat moderately (Objective principle). However, that mean (moderation) differs in everyone because of varying body size, matobolism, et cetera.
So its not that relativism doesn't exist, but that it is subordinate or "subject to" the objective realities defining it as subject.
This stance is called "moderate-realism" which in it of it itself seems to proclaim it as true.
St. Thomas is the man!
"If God is wholly Love, and wholly Power, and wholly "One", then there is no difference between Power and Love."
When the Power of Love
When the Power of Love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. As long as we separate the two in our daily decisions and fail to see the connection we will be at the mercy of the love of power.
colkoch.blogtoolkit.com
Colkoch, what you simply and
Colkoch, what you simply and eloquently stated here is what Buddhism has been teaching for centuries. It is a transformational paradigm that would end suffering. (oops, I quoted buddhism - am I going to hell now?) It is also a transformational paradigm that would reconstruct the entirety of the catholic church into a form that is more in alignment with what Christ intended.
Imagine what would be possible for the world if those of the magisterium gave up their love of power.
Dear ChrisPietraszko~ Your
Dear ChrisPietraszko~ Your opening sentence is at least humourous and almost true: If I absolutely judge that there is no absolute standard, that must be my absolute standard. Unfortunately logical tricks a valid argument do not make. Poor Thomas (St.Aquinas, that is) might be rolling over in his saintly grave over the abuse of his reputation.
I am not a physicist but it would surprise me that a 'thing' requiring another thing, you call it 'and objective reference point' regarding which it is related, or relative is any argument against relativism. Quite the contrary. The earth moves relative to the moon, both are moving both are changing and the relativity between the two keep changing. Moral values are even less tangible and, unfortunately fall prey to similar complexities of change.
Next, being a 'subject' does not mean being subjected to something or somebody else, though it does not exclude it and may and is in certain circumstances and relationships. My wife and I are both "subjects" we are involved in a multi-dimensional relationship (I-Thou, ego-te) neither is 'subject' to the other, we are equals. One of the greatest dangers within the realm of ethics, morals and relationships is when a 'subject'(a person) is treated as an 'object' (objectively, a thing) and Augustine's principle of all things being utilitarian towards salvation, or "Satan's" temptation to personal gratification leads to abuse of relationships. So, to use your reasoning, objectivity, especially absolute objectivity is the root of sin.
Let's face it the 'human heart' is designed to pump blood. The human tendency towards 'the good' is an orientation yes, equally distributed among all humans, no. Absolute in its universality and consistency? No. That, in my mind is why natural law is not 'law' in either the physics or legal sense, except when the observations of its norms (not,its always, ever and musts) are deemed to be considered either necessary or useful to good order and are incorporated into an enforcable code. "The sun will come up tomorrow" (Orphan Annie's song) is more absolute than natural law in its pristine state. That, to my mind is why the codification called natural law must be open to historical, sociological, and even religion based change. Not willy-nilly as the stereotype or extreme of relativism but mutable.
Great comment Dennis. I'd
Great comment Dennis. I'd have rated it a 4, but that feature seems to be unavailable to me for some unknown reason. Don't know if everyone's experiencing the same?
Butterfly ~ Thanks. Same
Butterfly ~ Thanks. Same here. I thot it might be my system. I miss the ratings, for all their failings. It helps keep clutter down. I can simply say "I agree" or "thanks" or "great" (or not) with a rating.
The "Confusion of Words".
The "Confusion of Words". Subjectivity, objectivity, relativism and relativity are words that confuse because they are used for conflicting purposes. Words of multivalent meanings can be and are used for ideological (subjective) purposes. The motivation of purpose qualifies the “objectivity”, the truthfulness of words and meanings.
Understanding the root derivation of words is helpful in understanding their multivalency, the rightness and wrongness of the use of words. “Right” and “wrong” is understood in two senses with respect to the ideological usage of words; right and wrong pertain to the correctness of ideological presumptions and to the correct correspondence of words to the ideology. Objectively correct application of words to a particular ideology is possible even though the ideology is wrong in its premises.
For example, dominion theology fixated in creationist philosophy can use the words objective, subjective, relativity and relativism correctly with respect to its philosophical/ theological ideology; however, correct usage says nothing about the correctness of the ideological presumptions underpinning the philosophy and theology. Ideologies over time are exposed for their untruth and so is their misuse of ambiguous words.
To dominion theology and patriarchal politics, the words “subjectivism” and “relativism” are pejorative terms for they militate against the “objective” motives and underpinnings of imperial religion and patriarchal politics.
As to the meanings of the words: “subjectivity” understands that all knowledge comes to consciousness through the senses. Knowledge evolves because consciousness builds on cumulative experiences. Wisdom is the insight of cumulative consciousness. Experience comes to be codified in cultural, genetic memory.
“Objectivity” speaks to the truth that reality is qualified in the relationships of things, subjects and objects. Reality is dynamic and changing as are the relationships of subjects and objects to each other. (Informed consciousness, subjectivity, acquires understandings of changing objects.)
“Relativity” speaks to the understanding of the fluid nature of objects (quantum science) and to the openness of consciousness to new understandings of changing relationships. (This is not to say that there are no "natural laws" governing the dynamics of subject/ object relationships.)
“Relativism” is selective fixation in subjective ideology for purposes of serving the subjective ideology. It is true to say that no ideology is without some truth; it is also true to say that all ideology is subject to change based on new acquisitions of understandings.
The philosophy/ theology of “objectivism” (imperial theolgy/ patriarchal politics) rejects evolution out-of-hand, for the reason that the basic premise of evolution recognizes the deep fluidity (quantum relativity) of reality, of all subjects and objects.
Very interesting thomas.
Very interesting thomas. Thanks for bringing up such and important and fundamental topic. I suppose, none of us can really discuss obligations to moral acts unless we recognize the Truth as real, personal, simple, and unchanging. I've been in a longish discussion with several friends about these issues and I look forward to their further discussion here.
Peace and Good,
Your Brother in Christ (Franciscan Tertiary of Mary, Mother of the Most Blessed Sacrament)
Hello, SaintandSinner, ....
Hello, SaintandSinner,
.... and welcome to this discussion. Please feel invited to respond to some of the other responses posted below: I'd be very interested in your thoughts in response to some of them.
I appreciate your use of the word "obligation" here. I think it was C.S. Lewis in The Abolution of Man (I could be wrong....) who noted that denial of (objective) Truth manifested to humanity in the natural moral law leads to the abolution of all moral obligation, and eventually of course to our self-destruction.
I think it is a most beautiful discovery for a human person, to find within himself - and outside of himself - a "should" - a moral imperative - an "oughtness" in creation, that is his bond with a Truth that transcends him.
Thomas
“Moral truth - relative or
“Moral truth - relative or absolute?”
The answer to your first question Thomas, in the Title of this thread, is RELATIVE.
“Card. Ratzinger / Pope Benedict wrote of moral relativism as the central problem for the Church today.”
Now this statement Thomas doesn’t inherently mean that “moral relativism” in “itself” is the problem. It could mean that what is “morally believed in relatively” is in error. Which would mean the function itself (moral relativism) is not in error, but the content of the function that is error. So you should clarify what you mean (the function or it’s content) and if you can clarify if that is what the Pope meant.
“I wonder how many among us in this forum are moral relativists.”
Because of the lack of definition and clarity of what is meant by a moral relativists it would be difficult say.
“Do you believe that moral truth is absolute and unchanging, or is moral truth in fact determined by the personal subject?”
Now here you offer a definition to Relative that might not be acceptable to most relativists. “determined by the personal subject.” That’s “personal moral truth” NOT “relative moral truth.”
Relative moral truth is determined by the prevailing acceptable truth based on prevailing acceptable “conceptual frames of reference” based on the consensus of the popular majority, scientific and/or religious minds, political and intellectual minds etc.
“If you believe that moral truth is absolute and unchanging, do you accept the magisterium of the Church as the authorized spokesman of that truth, to the extent that such truth has been revealed to mankind?
If you believe that moral truth is absolute and unchanging, but do not recognize the authority of the magisterium in such matters, whom (if anyone) do you recognize as authoritative?
If you believe that moral truth is in fact determined by the personal subject, do you believe in a (universal human) "natural moral law"? If you do, what do you see as its source or origin?”
I don’t believe the moral Truth is absolute and unchanging as far as we are concerned as humans. ONLY God is and perceives the Absolute Truth. As per the prior answer - God in His revelation of the Living Truth to us His Church is the authority. Check out the link in this old post I made.
“http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm”The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia educates us on The “LIVING MAGISTERIUM” not static and “unchanging” but living and constantly changing according to Our Time sand Our Ability to understand the Truth as properly revealed to us by God as we become ready to receive it.
The changes are initiated by
Submitted by joer on September 15, 2007 - 10:55pm.
The changes are initiated by the Sprit of God to the faithful and then after a thorough examination by the those in the Church that maintain the Truth and than assigned to, "an assemblage of doctrines and institutions consigned to books or other monuments. Books and monuments of every kind are a means, an organ of transmission, they are not, properly speaking, the tradition itself."
But it should forever be remembered that, "this formula expresses very well one of the aspects of tradition and one of the principal roles of the living magisterium. But this idea of a deposit should not make us lose sight of the true manner in which traditional truth lives and is transmitted in the Church. This deposit in fact is not an inanimate thing passed from hand to hand; ... properly speaking"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
III. The proper mode of existence of revealed truth in the mind of the Church and the way to recognize this truth.
There is a formula current in Christian teaching (and the formula is borrowed from St. Paul himself) that traditional truth was confided to the Church as a deposit which it would guard and faithfully transmit as it had received it without adding to it or taking anything away. This formula expresses very well one of the aspects of tradition and one of the principal roles of the living magisterium. But this idea of a deposit should not make us lose sight of the true manner in which traditional truth lives and is transmitted in the Church. This deposit in fact is not an inanimate thing passed from hand to hand; it is not, properly speaking, an assemblage of doctrines and institutions consigned to books or other monuments.
Books and monuments of every kind are a means, an organ of transmission, they are not, properly speaking, the tradition itself. To better understand the latter it must be represented as a current of life and truth coming from God through Christ and through the Apostles to the last of the faithful who repeats his creed and learns his catechism. This conception of tradition is not always clear to all at the first glance. It must be reached, however, if we wish to form a clear and exact idea. We can endeavor to explain it to ourselves in the following manner:
We are all conscious of an assemblage of ideas or opinions living in our mind and forming part of the very life of our mind, sometimes they find their clear expression, again we find ourselves without the exact formula wherewith to express them to ourselves or to others an idea is in search as it were of its expression, sometimes it even acts in us and leads us to actions without our having as yet the reflective consciousness of it. Something similar may be said of the ideas or opinions which live, as it were, and stir the social sentiment of a people, a family, or any other well-characterized group to form what is called the spirit of the day, the spirit of a family, or the spirit of a people.
This common sentiment is in a sense nothing else than the sum of individual sentiments, and yet we feel clearly that it is quite another thing than the individual taken individually. It is a fact of experience that there is a common sentiment, as if there were such a thing as a common spirit, and as if this common spirit were the abode of certain ideas and opinions which are doubtless the ideas and opinions of each man, but which take on a peculiar aspect in each man inasmuch as they are the ideas and opinions of all. The existence of tradition in the Church must be regarded
as living in the spirit and the heart,
thence translating itself into acts, and expressing itself in words or writings; but here we must not have in mind individual sentiment, but the common sentiment of the Church,
the sense or sentiment of the faithful,
that is, of all who live by its life and are in communion of thought among themselves and with her.
The living idea is the idea of all,
it is the idea of individuals, not merely inasmuch as they are individuals, but inasmuch as they form part of the same social body. This sentiment of the Church is peculiar in this, that it is itself under the influence of grace. Hence it follows that it is not subject, like that of other human groups to error and thoughtless or culpable tendencies.
The Spirit of God always living in His Church upholds the sense of revealed truth ever living therein.
“Thanks in advance, for your thoughts.
Thomas”
Thank You Thomas for this opportunity to examine our living faith and belief in Our Living God. J
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will