The list of potential topics here is endless, so for the sake of argument, I'll discuss pre-marital sex. Now, the Church says: chastity then marriage. That's it, right? Masterbation: sin. Sodomy: sin. And so on. My own personal opinion (I'm not a Catholic) is that physical love, rather than sex, between consenting, but most of all, loving, adults, is alright. Full stop. However, I'm not here to argue in favour of my views. I'm here to ask whether or not there is any real belief that the dogma that governs, at least, the Catholic life, is malleable. Whether it can evolve. Religious law, such as contained in the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran, is a reflection of the will and intentions at the time of writing. Of course, the central belief for the respective religions is God was speaking through those writing these texts, hence, their legitimacy. I've no problem with that. However, obviously, one cannot argue successfully that God had not intended humanity to evolve: technologically and philosophically we have advanced incredibly in 4000, 2000, or 1300 years, depending on who one talks to. The old axiom, that "if men were meant to fly God would have given us wings" reflects an unwillingness to realise that God instead gave us the capacity to conceive and develop methods of flying. So, the question is then, can the same principle be applied, in this case, to Catholicism? If God gave us the ability to grow and change, albeit with His guidance, did He also allow for the possibility that His Word, and its interpretation, might change? The law recognises de facto relationships as whole and meaningful. Homosexuality is on the whole, socially acceptable. Sodomy is no longer a crime in most predominantly Christian countries. As God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, can't one argue that this is in fact His work? And if the Catholic Church is going to arrest the continual dimishment of it followers' numbers, and maintain its relevance well into the 3rd millenium, shouldn't it recognize this need to evolve also?

-- Arthur (nospam@bigpond.com), April 13, 2003

Answers

Jmj
Hello, Arthur.

You wrote: "I'm here to ask whether or not there is any real belief that the dogma that governs, at least, the Catholic life, is malleable. Whether it can evolve."

Within Catholicism, we don't speak of a doctrine (i.e., a teaching about faith or morality) "evolv[ing]". We do believe that some doctrines may "develop." This refers to a gradual process of our being enabled to sharpen our focus and better understand a religious truth.

If you believe in biological evolution, you are talking about one species gradually turning into another -- becoming a radically different species. This term, "evolution," therefore is not proper to use with respect to Catholic doctrine. What was once true always remains true. It's just that we slowly grasp that truth more profoundly, sometimes in more detail.

One analogy that has been used is the gradual opening of a rose bud into full flower. It was always the same flower, but the one viewing it could not appreciate it fully at first. [Notice how this differs from evolution.]

Development of doctrine never results in a new doctrine that contradicts an older doctrine. Therefore, what you are seeking is something that you will never find in Catholicism. The Church will not say today that Jesus was divine ... and then say, a millennium from now, that Jesus was not divine. Likewise, the Church will not say today that sodomy is a deadly sin ... and then say, a century from now, that sodomy is a moral act. Some human actions (e.g., murder, rape, arson, homosexual acts, abortion, child abuse, euthanasia) are "intrinsically evil," and will be so until the end of the world.

You stated: "Religious law, such as contained in the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran, is a reflection of the will and intentions at the time of writing."

You are partially mistaken about this. Those "religious laws" that comprise the "natural law, written on the heart" of each of us "is a reflection of the will" of God for all time. The Ten Commandments are a basic list of the principles of the natural law.

You asked: "If God gave us the ability to grow and change, albeit with His guidance, did He also allow for the possibility that His Word, and its interpretation, might change?"

The answer is "no." One of the qualities of God is his immutability. God does not change. Nor does his revelation. The only thing that seems to "change" is the fact that we have to apply perennial truths to new situations that arise in life. A recent example is the determination of the immorality of the killing of human embryos to obtain stem cells. It was not possible to take the ancient principle [prohibition of killing innocents] and somehow come up with a justification for murdering embryonic babies.

You wrote: "The law recognises de facto relationships as whole and meaningful. Homosexuality is on the whole, socially acceptable. Sodomy is no longer a crime in most predominantly Christian countries."

Wow! You packed together several errors in a small space!
----- Not all "de facto relationships" are recognized as "whole and meaningful."
----- By "homosexuality," you seem to be referring to "acting out homosexually." By no means is this considered "socially acceptable." It is tolerated in some quarters, but most people know that (1) the very same-sex attraction is disordered, (2) the activity is perverted, and (3) that the state should not to allow for same-sex marriages. And that is in the "tolerant" U.S.. In many other countries of the world, over 90% of the people totally condemn homosexual activity. They know that it is an abomination.

You wrote: "As God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, can't one argue that this is in fact His work?"

I may have lost your train of thought here, but it appears that you are theorizing that sodomy is God's work. You might as well say that rape is God's work, simply because some people do it. You couldn't be further from the truth! Sodomy is intrinsically evil, and nothing can ever excuse it. It is an evil act, done by the free will choice of a huma being, contrary to a command of God. The fact that God permits people to exercise free will does not mean that each human act is part of "God's work."

You conclused by writing: "And if the Catholic Church is going to arrest the continual dimishment of it followers' numbers, and maintain its relevance well into the 3rd millenium, shouldn't it recognize this need to evolve also?"

Double wow! Again you pack a multitude of errors into a paucity of words ...
---- Contrary to what you said, the Catholic Church grows in numbers ever year, now exceeding 1.1 billion people. [There is no diminution (your "dimishment") of the numbers.]
---- The Church is not worried about her "relevance." She is a community founded by God himself, and the Lord will take care of her health and welfare, as long as the shepherds and sheep are faithful to him. You are making the mistake of asking the Church to "evolve" into something she is not, to teach falsehoods. This would make her unfaithful to God and therefore lacking in "relevance."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 13, 2003.

No, the substance of dogma does not evolve. Dogma is truth, positively guaranteed as such by God. Genuine truth (as opposed to opinion) is objective and absolute; therefore it cannot evolve. Indeed, if it changes, it is necessarily devolving, not evolving, since any change in that which is already absolutely true can only make it less true. That having been said, it is of course possible to attain a greater understanding of the intricasies inherent in the substance of absolute truth, by ongoing study over time. Our comprehension of every doctrine of the faith is far deeper today than it was during the early centuries of Christianity. So, understanding of dogma does, in that broad sense, "evolve" over time; however, "evolve" is really a very poor choice of terms here, since it suggests an innate property of the object itself. Dogma does not change - period. Understanding of dogma likewise does not change or increase of its own volition. But it can BE increased in human minds by the process of ongoing study. One does not say that understanding of mathematical principles "evolves" as a result of taking math classes. We simply learn as we study. The facts of math do not change, do not evolve, but our understanding of them increases, that is "changes" quantitatively, over time. It is the same with theology, including doctrinal and dogmatic matters.

That having been said, you are actually not talking about dogma here anyway. You are talking about morality. The principles governing morality are similar to those governing dogma; however, moral teachings are not dogmatic, strictly speaking. Still, morality is always objective, never subjective. Specific behaviors are not morally wrong because the Church teaches that they are. Rather, the Church teaches that they are wrong because they ARE in fact wrong, objectively and intrinsically. There is nothing that can make an objectively immoral act morally acceptable. The current trends of society are not a measure of the validity of the Church's teaching. Rather, the Church's teaching is a measure of the validity and morality of society's current trends and beliefs. Slavery was on the whole socially acceptable. That didn't make it morally acceptable. The fact that society at large accepts homosexuality, extramarital sexual relations, abortion, euthanasia, sterilization, artificial contraception, and other objective moral evils doesn't make such behaviors any less evil. It simply makes society at large more evil. The teaching of the Church remains the same, in accord with objective truth. It cannot be otherwise.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 14, 2003.

Thank you John for your contribution. I found it very interesting. God Bless you too.

It must be nice to see the world in complete black and white. I can't attempt to answer all of the things you said, many of which I completely disagree with, but I would like to say a few things. Firstly, it would be nice to believe that all works presented as religious canon are sacred and immutable, and acts by God's representatives were above reproach, but that would then necessitate, if one were being honest, the acceptance that the Church, when committing atrocities in the name of God, was doing God's work. I cannot believe that - those in the Catholic church, and other religious orders or religions who killed, tortured or raped were acting of their own violition, on their own agendas. But if we accept that the Church, for the sake of argument, was right to condone atrocities over the centuries, surely the fact that the Church these days does not, indicates that the doctrines change. To borrow your metaphor, the rose that blooms, eventually dies and a new one grows in its place. In evolving conditions, eventually a new form of rose will develop.

You are definitely mistaken if one suggests that the word of God doesn't change. Islam is the only monotheistic religion where the word hasn't changed over the centuries. With the Bible, continuous versions and translations have inevitably changed it in minute ways. Minute, I'll grant you, but change nontheless. But much more importantly than this, and this is my legal training kicking in, there is a world of difference between the written word, or law, and it's interpretation. You say: "The Ten Commandments are a basic list of the principles of the natural law." Fine, but you have to admit they are very vague. "Thou shalt not kill" is not clear, because clearly the Church has condoned killing over the centuries. You say: one cannot kill innocents, which then requires the definition of innocence. Ultimately, it comes down to interpretation, which is why there are so many people, many of whom are crackpots, who claim the Bible supports their acts, which to rational people may seem insane, or may just seem insane to a particular denomination.

I think a real problem that you have is this dedication to the truism. I realise that it is part of your faith, but I see no reason why logic and reason cannot go hand in hand with faith and religious dedication. Believing something does not end the argument. It merely provides a starting point. De facto relationships are recognised at law - this means that couples, (at this stage heterosexual couples only in most countries) who cohabit for sufficient periods of time acquire rights under the law. As for homosexuality - I'm sorry, you are not qualified, and neither am I, to state that most people know that homosexuality is perverted/disordered/an abomination. I tend to feel that we should leave the omniscience to God, what do you think? Between five and ten percent or so of people in the world are gay. Statistically. So, chances are 1 in 20 people you know are gay. Do you know any gay people? I'll bet you know several. And I bet they don't seem like perverts at all. That's because they aren't.

I should like to point out that I never suggested that sodomy is God's work. What I was suggesting was that if humanities moral values, goal posts if you will, have moved, is that not God's work. There is a difference if you think about it.

Finally, I think that you need to check your figures. The numbers of Catholics in western countries are dropping considerably. This is not news - there was a recent symposium to address the issue. The numbers of Catholics around the world aren't falling as fast, but that's because of growth in the 3rd world.

Anyway, thank you for your response. The Catholic faith is in many ways open to all types and I hope that your mind is also open. The truth that we all seek is not in our faith but in what our faith means to us.

Bless you,

Arthur

-- Arthur (nospam@bigpond.com), April 14, 2003.

To Paul: get a life, mate. I cannot comprehend the level of your ignorance. And intolerance. It always amazes me how unchristian Christians can be. Oh well, anyone who actually thinks morality is an objective concept is so out of touch with reality that actually trying to respond to your drivel would rob me of minutes of my life I would rather spend elsewhere. You aren't interested in a discussion, which is what I thought this group was about. So why bother?

-- Arthur (nospam@bigpond.com), April 14, 2003.

Definition of terms: dogmas have to do with what is true about God and human nature - two things that don't change.

While "Morality" comes from the Latin "Mores" which may be translated as "customs" in general Catholic usagage the term has to do with what is good and right for human nature, not what is good and right in this culture or that.

This customs certainly change from one generation to the next. But morality does not, because human nature does not. The ancient Egyptians were just as human as we are today. Advances in technology and philosophy don't effect changes in what human beings are.

This is why what is good won't stop being good just because we have better tools or neater ideas.

Any use of sex outside of a committed relationship between one man and one woman is seriously selfish - and thus, can only do harm.

Why? Well certainly NOT just because "the church says so". Sexual activity involves our bodies and souls in visceral ways - it deeply influences our psyche and emotional health. Although people can and do use their bodies and imaginations as play things, and try to live care-free and no-strings-attached lives, strings ARE attached!

extra-marital and pre-marital sex is immoral because it is always harmful. ALWAYS. Physically, emotionally, and morally because the primary goal inevitably is the gratification of the self, and not love for another and the selfless pursuit of their own best good.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

Not to mention the production of children in the absence of a stable home in which they can be raised safe and healthy. But of course our hedonistic society offers a ready solution for that little problem too, compounding evil with greater evil.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 14, 2003.

Most moral relativists establish the bed-rock of their thinking on the idea that "so long as both parties accept "X" action, that action is moral, good, acceptible, etc. FOR THEM."

Most may add a proviso that "except in cases of death or physical harm".

But this is to claim that goodness and rightness is a construct of the human will. That willing something to be good, makes it good. Or feeling it good, makes it good.

And if the goodness of some act is dependent on the independent whim of the actor, irrespective of something humanity has determined to exist called "human nature", then even the proviso "except in cases of death or physical harm" would be irrational and hence, dependent on democracy or cultural mores for enforcement.

In this scheme of morality, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hussein would all be "good" because all their actions were willful and what they desired as good would be good...for them. If you have no problem with this type of reasoning, you shouldn't have a problem with anything.

If you add the proviso about physical harm or death, then suddenly you must determine who will judge and what criteria you will use to determine what "health" is and to what degree it can be risked before an action becomes "unhealthy".

Unfortunately, most relativists believe health too is something determined by the individual's whim... and thus even the proviso "except in cases of harm..." is really a figment of imagination.

That is is absurd is obvious: homo sapiens is a species capable of reason not just free will. And reason, unlike opinion (which is private) makes judgements based on reality (something "public") applicable to all situations and people.

No matter how good you feel about drinking poison, it will still kill you. There are limits to the human body and mind - limits which we must respect on pain of either dying or being maimed or ill.

In many things it's hard to make the case that this is not in fact so. But fortunately in all things sexual it's not hard to prove that this line of thinking is in fact patently false and ridiculous (even while not loosing any of its attractiveness).

Sex you see immediately involves the body (ergo, a biological/psychological/health component) and the will/reason (ergo a spiritual & interpersonal component of the question: is this good? Will this act lead to the other's good, health, human flourishing or rather lead to immediate biological infection, contagion, vice, obsession, and/or emotional baggage?

Just because two people (or one person) thinks pre-marital sex is harmless, we know that there are literally hundreds of potential STD's out there which render a good portion of the public as "risky" for such intercourse. One should not morally engage in any activity which includes high risk for one's health if your motive is merely "recreational". (Yes this means that some "extreme sports" are also immoral - it's hard to argue that risking one's life for the sake of some "high" is legitimate.)

From the strictly biological point of view then, pre- and extra marital sex is highly risky - and thus, from a strictly biological level, is "wrong".

But psychologists also add their input into the emotional and psychological damage that of necessity occurs when someone "says with their body" what they don't say with their heart...i.e., "making love" and being in love are two different things. Women especially are deeply wounded by men who use them for pleasure without caring for their deeper needs. (friendship, compassion, commitment, concern...fidelity, support). Thus this type of selfish sex or self- oriented sex is psychologically harmful.

Masturbation makes people turn inward and as any instant gratification (be it a drug or other substance such as pornography) will become habit forming - this action is sinnful because it takes some good thing whose purpose is unitive and procreative, and reduces it to a toy. But it's not a toy. Using it as such will necessarily turn a man towards serious selfishness.

Mutual masturbation (via pre- or extra-marital sex, hetero or homo) is an action that turns both people away from each other and towards themselves - using each other, not for the good of a potential 3rd person (fruitfulness, life-giving) or for the good of the other (unitive, self-lessness). This is so precisely because of these "unions" are temporary - based on passion, urges, emotion, ephimeral things rather than on the reasoned and full will required in matrimony.

Marriage therefore is a matter of human maturity - all other actions are immaturity and do not lead to human flourishing.

Thus without even invoking the Bible or arguments from authority (because I or you, or God told you so...), one can establish that certain actions are by their nature and by the nature of the people doing them, harmful - and therefore wrong and immoral.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

Arghh! Truisms!

Much of what you all have said is true: in many cases, sex is a weapon; it's harmful and risky. But this is in no way confined to pre- or extra- marital sex. Marital rape has only relatively recently been recognised as a crime. Under the Common Law, it was not a crime to rape your wife. Marriage is not the answer - love is. Love for yourselves, others, and God. Not necessarily in that order. What I'm saying is that the blanket statements regarding the nature of sex don't hold up in the face of actual facts. In the face of actual experiences. Some friends of mine are a lesbian couple. They are totally happy, and totally committed to each other, and also totally accepted at their Church. But unless the laws are changed, they'll never be wed. You would I imagine say that their relationship is sinful, ok, that's up to God, but their relationship is not harmful, at least in this world. I cannot look at their relationship and see a thing that should not be; I see two people in love for the rest of their lives - together for the last 20 years, and going strong.

It's fine for you to BELIEVE that pre-marital sex is ALWAYS harmful. I'm not attacking your right to believe what you like. Perhaps for you it would be. But you cannot make blanket statements like that about the world at large. We live in a world with about a billion Catholics, about a billion Muslims, about a billion Hindus, about a billion Buddhists, and lots and lots of others. What's true for one religion isn't necessarily going to be true for another. A whole lot of people refuse to eat pork. Another billion or so don't drink alcohol. For some, priests and such can be married, for others, they can't. Who's right? It isn't for me to say.

It seems to me that there is a real committment to your beliefs here that I truly admire, but I think that one can be true to themselves and their beliefs, and THEIR god without demonstrating a prejudice towards others. The statements made in this thread have been very interesting for me to read, but there is so little acceptance of others from some that it frightens me a little. There is no single set of rules in the world, which is why you cannot say that morality is immutable. You can only say it's immutable for you. Which I guess kind of answers the question I asked in the first place. So thank you. And God Bless.

-- Arthur (nospam@bigpond.com), April 14, 2003.

"Marriage is not the answer - love is. Love for yourselves, others, and God"

A: Yes, we are called to love all people. But we are not called to have intimate relations with all people, or to raise a family with all people, or to pledge lifelong fidelity to all people. Therefore, there is obviously much more to marriage than just the fact of loving someone. It is a unique kind of love which God has clearly defined and elevated to the status of the sacred - a sacrament. Therefore pointing out that love is essential, while certainly a valid concept, only begins to scratch the surface of what marriage is about.

"Some friends of mine are a lesbian couple. They are totally happy, and totally committed to each other, and also totally accepted at their Church. But unless the laws are changed, they'll never be wed"

A: This is what you don't seem to grasp. The nature of marriage is not determined by the laws of the Church. The laws of the Church are determined by the objective reality of the nature of marriage, as defined by God. If the laws of the Church were changed, the laws would simply become wrong; the objective nature of valid marriage would not change in the slightest; and your friends would still never be wed, because it is an objective impossibility!

"You would I imagine say that their relationship is sinful, ok, that's up to God, but their relationship is not harmful"

A: Yes, it is up to God. The Word of God says no homosexual will enter the kingdom. It describes homosexual acts as "an abomination". Could God have spoken more clearly on the subject? Sin is always harmful. That fact, and that fact alone, is the reason God has defined certain behaviors as sin - not beceuse He wants to limit our freedom, but because He wants to protect us from that which is innately harmful, to ourselves and to others.

"It's fine for you to BELIEVE that pre-marital sex is ALWAYS harmful"

A: It is not a matter of some nebulous "belief". It is a matter of knowledge of the truth, and acceptance of it. God has revealed the objective truth. Each person either accepts it or rejects it (or in many cases, partially accepts and partially rejects it).

"But you cannot make blanket statements like that about the world at large. We live in a world with about a billion Catholics, about a billion Muslims, about a billion Hindus, about a billion Buddhists, and lots and lots of others. What's true for one religion isn't necessarily going to be true for another"

A: Nonsense! Truth is truth. Truth is objective and absolute. There is no such thing as "true for me" or "true for you". There is simply "true", or "not true". The earth orbits the sun. Does it make sense to say that this statement is true for some people, but not for others? Of course not, because truth is absolute, and what is true for one MUST be true for all, or it simply isn't truth. Of course, one can reject the truth that the earth orbits the sun - but that doesn't make it any less universally true. It just places an individual's personal beliefs outside the realm of objective reality.

"A whole lot of people refuse to eat pork. Another billion or so don't drink alcohol. For some, priests and such can be married, for others, they can't. Who's right?"

A: None of these examples are matters of objective truth. They are all matters of preference, opinion, discipline. Therefore there is no intrinsic right or wrong involved in such matters. The only question of right or wrong associated with such matters is the question of obedience to lawful authority. These disciplines, UNLIKE doctrinal and moral teachings, are established by men, and are therefore subject to change by the men who established them. Such examples have no bearing whatsoever on questions of either doctrine or morality, which are NOT matters of opinion, but matters of objective truth, and which are NOT established by men, but by God.

"there is so little acceptance of others from some that it frightens me a little"

A: There is a world of difference between accepting "others", and accepting the false beliefs of others. We can accept, respect, work with, and even love others, while completely rejecting the false beliefs they may hold. And that is precisely what we are commanded to do by God.

-- (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 14, 2003.

Paul, I truly am sorry for you. Perhaps to have total, complete faith requires living in a world of absolutes. But the world, if you open your mind, is not made up of absolutes. There are many aspects of our faith which are, to us, incontrovertable, such as Christ's sacrifice and resurrection. In order to have faith, we must believe it happened. But not everything in the world works like that. The fact that the earth orbits the sun is indeed an objective, proven fact. But other 'truths' cannot fall into that category. You say the nature of marriage is an objective truth. As determined by who? God? Sure, but God tells Mormons that they can have multiple wives; that Muslims can have up to 4. The muslim faith teaches that Muhammad was the Final Prophet; that Jesus and Abraham were also prophets, but that Muhammad brought the final message from God. That is a central truth of the Muslim faith. A truth created by God not by man. Clearly it isn't one for Judaism or Christianity. Presumably the only way you can reconcile this is to say that all Muslims are wrong; that it simply is not a 'truth'. Personally, I can't bring myself to dismiss a fifth of the world's population like that. People that believe in the same God as you and I. I believe that God is responsible for this world, and all the people in it. And I believe that we see God in different ways. Which is why I can't live in a world made up only of absolutes.

-- Arthur (nospam@bigpond.com), April 15, 2003.

People do indeed see God in different ways - no problem. Including contradictory ways - big problem. Contradiction means untruth, and God, in the person of Jesus Christ, told us that the truth would set us free. Obviously then He must have made it possible for us to actually know the truth. Obviously God does not tell Mormons or Muslims anything contrary to what He tells Christians. Otherwise He would be a liar. Jesus Christ clearly demonstrated that He was God. Muhammed and Joseph Smith did not. Therefore it comes down to following God or following men.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 15, 2003.

Arthur--

The fact that the earth orbits the sun is indeed an objective, proven fact.

Actually, as a physicist, i can tell you that that is certainly NOT a proven fact. In light of that, there is more proof that evolution occured than there is proof that the earth rotates around the sun. What you have here is a case of social conditioning. AND FURTHERMORE... your adherance to the idea that homosexualty is not wrong is also a matter of social conditioning. namely, existentialism and the influx of hedonic measurements of morality, even in the form of utilitarianism, has led to a consequentialist view by most populations. this has led to the downfall of morality. deontologically speaking, we have a duty to do what is right independent of the consequences. Only in this way can moral law be absolute, universal, and unconditional. further, there may be different opinions of God, but there are underlying moral rights, one of which is that by and large homosexualty is wrong in most churches world wide. either way, however, this is irrelevant. in an a priori assessment using reason, which is the only valid way to determine moral law, we can see that homosexuality applied as a general universal law would be the death of humanity, which makes it a moral wrong. next, you are fallen victim to a fundamental naturalist error. you observe the way that humans sometimes act, and you falsely characterize that as the way that humans should act. this is indeed not the case. Human nature is not necessarily good... morality is good. and in the end, morality can serve no end other than itself. but you wont listen to this arguement, because your socially conditioned naturalist perspective wont let you. so have a nice day. paul (not to be confused with Paul, the moderator)

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 15, 2003.

Actually, as a physicist, i can tell you that that is certainly NOT a proven fact.

I'm glad you said that. My kids are taught geo-centrism at school, not helio-centrism. They are definitely considered oddballs in that aspect by other children.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.

Galileo didn't prove helio-centrism. Read his work. He did provide some experiments that would point to the earth's rotation on its axis. However until the stellar paralax (sp?) was discovered there was no confirmation that the earth actually orbited the sun.

It's interesting to discuss the geo/helio-centric cosmomology debate and the grief the Church suffered a hundred years after the fact via English anti-Catholic propaganda - among which was created the myth that Columbus proved that the earth was round. In fact, the Greeks and Roman's knew it was round and so did the Church.

As for the debate on evolving beliefs...distinctions are in order. Some ideas grow - such as the unicity of the human race, the relative nature of some cultural norms such as dress, seasonal and local diet, language, traditions. Other ideas do not grow because they are proven to be simply true: the ancient Hebrews knew man to be both a free and thinking being. You don't get more free or more thinking just because you understand more or have more options!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.

Jmj

I just want to thank you, Paul and Joe, for all the work you have done here to help Arthur. Your fantastically clear and correct explanations have made this an absolute "gem" of a thread.

I don't mean to insult Arthur by saying this, but his "counterpoint" arguments against you and me stand as truly "classic" examples of "moral relativism," the likes of which I have never quite seen before. Arthur thus unintentionally provided several unambiguous openings for you to explain several terribly essential truths.

The only sad part for me is to see that Arthur has continued to resist in the face of the irresistible. No matter. With time and prayer, he will come around. He is a committed thinker, not lukewarm. It is the lukewarm/indifferent that are far more likely to go to their graves without undergoing conversion.

Joe and Paul, you have taken care of the most important problems in Arthur's messages. I hope to respond to one or two lesser mistakes of his in a future post.

Praying for you, Arthur!
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 17, 2003.

I'm with you on geocentrics Isabel.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 17, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Arthur.
In my last message (to Joe and Paul), I mentioned that I had noticed some mistakes in your latest messages -- less important things that they chose to bypass in replying to you. I'd like to refer to them now ...

QUOTE: "Firstly, it would be nice to believe that all works presented as religious canon are sacred and immutable, and acts by God's representatives were above reproach, but that would then necessitate, if one were being honest, the acceptance that the Church, when committing atrocities in the name of God, was doing God's work."

COMMENT: Catholic doctrines, having come from God, are indeed "sacred and immutable." I previously asked you to accept that fact. But I never asked you to accept the idea that "God's representatives [are] above reproach." All men are sinners, including popes. That fact takes nothing away from the "sacred and immutable" character of Catholic doctrine. Human sin cannot cause God's truth and laws to change.

QUOTE: "But if we accept that the Church, for the sake of argument, was right to condone atrocities over the centuries, surely the fact that the Church these days does not, indicates that the doctrines change."

COMMENT: Well, by starting with a false premise, you arrive at a false conclusion. Contrary to some anti-Catholic propaganda that you may have encountered, it is not true "that the Church ... condone[d] atrocities over the centuries." There have been individual Catholics (or groups of Catholics) who have done some terrible things, but these have not been "condoned" by "the Church." Nevertheless, if a Catholic leader (bishop or pope) were to "condone" someone else's sin, that would not be a "teaching act" -- not a case of teaching the Church something that would have to be "untaught" later.

QUOTE: "To borrow your metaphor, the rose that blooms, eventually dies and a new one grows in its place. In evolving conditions, eventually a new form of rose will develop."

COMMENT: But every analogy has a weakness. In my analogy, I referred to a rose, which indeed can die. But neither the Catholic Church nor any of her doctrines can ever die.

QUOTE: "You are definitely mistaken if one suggests that the word of God doesn't change. Islam is the only monotheistic religion where the word hasn't changed over the centuries. With the Bible, continuous versions and translations have inevitably changed it in minute ways. Minute, I'll grant you, but change nontheless."

COMMENT: I will continue to say "that the word of God doesn't change." (Islam does not have the "word of God," so it does not matter if the Koran changes.) If there are variations in manuscripts or translations, that is man's doing. The "word of God" itself "doesn't change." Keep in mind that Catholicism is not a "Bible-only" religion. We have 2,000-year-old doctrines that arise from the blend of scripture and Apostolic Tradition (the orally transmitted Word of God). Go back and read the Fathers of the Church [Catholic popes, bishops, and theologians of the earliest centuries], and you will find that our doctrines have not changed/evolved.

QUOTE: "You say: one cannot kill innocents, which then requires the definition of innocence. Ultimately, it comes down to interpretation, which is why there are so many people, many of whom are crackpots, who claim the Bible supports their acts, which to rational people may seem insane, or may just seem insane to a particular denomination."

COMMENT: You are exactly right [see bold type]. And that is why Jesus gave mankind one and only one "authentic interpreter" of God's Word (written and unwritten) -- those who have the "magisterium" (teaching authority) in the Catholic Church: the popes and the bishops who are in union with them.

QUOTE: "... I see no reason why logic and reason cannot go hand in hand with faith and religious dedication.

COMMENT: I agree with you. So does the pope, who published an encyclical named "Faith and Reason" a few years ago. Surely, you must have seen how we employ logic and reason in debating you here, right? We don't act on faith alone. The Bible tells us that we have to be ready to give a reason for what we believe.

QUOTE: "Believing something does not end the argument. It merely provides a starting point."

COMMENT: This is true sometimes. However, at other times, believing something "end[s] the argument." Otherwise, you would have to allow a rapist to argue with you that his actions may be acceptable. We all know that every single rape is intrinsically evil (and always will be), so that "end[s] the argument." The same is true of various other human behaviors -- e.g., homosexual "acting out" (intrinsically evil and always will be).

QUOTE: "... I'm sorry, you are not qualified, and neither am I, to state that most people know that homosexuality is perverted/disordered/an abomination. I tend to feel that we should leave the omniscience to God, what do you think?"

COMMENT: If you really want to play the ostrich on this, I can't stop you. I didn't claim "omniscience." One doesn't have to "know all things" [be omniscient] to be aware "that most people know that homosexuality is perverted/disordered/an abomination." I'm sorry that you are not aware of this being known from (1) polls in developed nations and (2) the fact that, in developing nations, homosexual activity is condemned even more harshly than in places where the polls have been taken.

QUOTE: "Between five and ten percent or so of people in the world are gay. Statistically. So, chances are 1 in 20 people you know are gay."

COMMENT: This is false. I'm surprised that you missed the (confirmed) research findings (published in the media some years ago) that, in the developed world, only 1 or 2 people in 100 have a same-sex attraction, and not all of them call themselves "gay" (which is a word denoting political activism and active practice of sodomy). In time, I think that we will find out that the percentage is even lower (than 1% / 2%) in developing nations. The 10% figure that you picked up somewhere came from the debunked Kinsey "research" of several decades ago. Mr. Kinsey has been exposed as a homosexual who sexually abused children and did not use proper surveying techniques, intentionally obtaining his skewed figures from non-representative populations (such as people in prisons) as a means of justifying his perverted way of life.

QUOTE: "Do you know any gay people? I'll bet you know several. And I bet they don't seem like perverts at all. That's because they aren't."

COMMENT: I am now 52, and I have never met anyone who claimed to be "gay." I knew one man, about 20 years ago, who was rumored to have a same-sex attraction -- but that is all. This certainly confirms my confidence in the recent surveys that show the frequency of this psycho-sexual disorder to be about 1%.

QUOTE: "I should like to point out that I never suggested that sodomy is God's work. What I was suggesting was that if humanity's moral values, goal posts if you will, have moved, is that not God's work. There is a difference if you think about it."

COMMENT: No, it is "not God's work." It is the free-will choice of certain men, contrary to God's will (and work). Moreover, I do not concede that "humanity's moral values ... have moved." The Church is part of humanity, and her "moral values" have not moved (and never will).

QUOTE: "... I think that you need to check your figures. The numbers of Catholics in western countries are dropping considerably. This is not news - there was a recent symposium to address the issue. The numbers of Catholics around the world aren't falling as fast, but that's because of growth in the 3rd world."

COMMENT: Well, Arthur, it is you who needs to "check your figures." I have been keeping a close eye on such matters as this for almost twenty years, and you are simply mistaken. Back in 1985, I recall that there were fewer than 900,000,000 Catholics, with about 50,000,000 in the U.S.. Every year, I have heard or read the new figures, and the numbers have always gone up. If you go to (the non-Catholic) www.adherents.com and do some digging, you will see numbers like 968,000,000 in 1995 ... 997,000,000 in 1999 ... and 1,050,000 in a subsequent year. In the U.S., that 50,000,000 has grown to more than 60,000,000 now. Your thinking may be skewed by the fact that non-immigrant populations are shrinking in EVERY nation of Europe (where you live?), and the result may be smaller numbers of Catholics over there. Europeans are aborting and contracepting their cultures into oblivion, not producing sufficient offspring to replace the people who die. (An exception may be England, where many have converted to Catholicism in the last decade. More Catholics than Anglicans go to church each Sunday in England.)

QUOTE: "The Catholic faith is in many ways open to all types and I hope that your mind is also open. The truth that we all seek is not in our faith but in what our faith means to us."

My mind is "open" to the truth. And the fullness of truth is in the Catholic faith.

QUOTE: "We live in a world with about a billion Catholics, about a billion Muslims, about a billion Hindus, about a billion Buddhists, and lots and lots of others. What's true for one religion isn't necessarily going to be true for another."

COMMENT: According to www.adherents.com (updated in September), the estimates are 2,000,000,000 Christians ... 1,300,000,000 Moslems ... 900,000,000 Hindus ... but only 360,000,000 Buddhists. [Surprisingly large is the number who call themselves "secular" or "nonreligious" or "agnostic" or "atheist" -- 850,000,000. Maybe I should not be surprised, though, since most of these are in Red China, which has more than 1,000,000,000 people.]

QUOTE: "The fact that the earth orbits the sun is indeed an objective, proven fact. But other 'truths' cannot fall into that category. You say the nature of marriage is an objective truth. As determined by who? God? Sure, but God tells Mormons that they can have multiple wives; that Muslims can have up to 4. The muslim faith teaches that Muhammad was the Final Prophet; that Jesus and Abraham were also prophets, but that Muhammad brought the final message from God. That is a central truth of the Muslim faith. A truth created by God not by man. Clearly it isn't one for Judaism or Christianity."

COMMENT: Are you serious, Arthur? Or am I misreading your words? You have stated something that indicates that you consider yourself a Christian. But now you say that "a central truth of the Muslim faith ... [was] created by God not by man." Do you actually believe that God revealed himself to Mohammed and that the Koran is the Word of God? No Christian can believe such a thing. Do you actually believe that Islam has "truths" for Moslems that are not "for Judaism [and] Christianity"? No Christian can believe such a thing.

QUOTE: "Presumably the only way you can reconcile this is to say that all Muslims are wrong; that it simply is not a 'truth'. Personally, I can't bring myself to dismiss a fifth of the world's population like that. People that believe in the same God as you and I."

COMMENT: Hmmm. I see that you really were serious. But that means that you are seriously wrong. If a Christian/Catholic "say[s] that all Muslims are wrong," that does not mean that they are wrong about everything. They do possess some elements of the truth, but they are missing much of the truth, and they believe many errors. To say these things is not to "dismiss a fifth of the world's population." If you believe that both Christianity and Islam teach the truth and nothing but the truth, you are the worst "religious indifferentist" -- and least logical person -- I have ever encountered. If you really think such mutually contradictory things, you are in an untenable position that is occupied (I believe) by hardly anyone else on this planet.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 19, 2003.