You may as well know, each member of the Roman Catholic Church, in general, every organization, is a representative of the totality. When one decides for himself, he decides for the whole.
The facts on hand will object this. Anybody loyal to the 2000 year old fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church always has to think with the Church (
sentirae cum ecclesia).
History shows you that persons who deviate from the fundamentals of Church teachings commit a heresy. Heresy comes from the Greek word
heresias which means wrong choice. Hence, a heretic is someone who has chosen his own interpretation above the Magisterium (Teaching Office) of the Church.
This censure safeguards the 4 ecclesiastical marks: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Recall the Nicene Creed, and you'll see there "We believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". If a Catholic has a view which is at radical variance from the Magisterium, then he/she compromises the Unity and Catholicity of the Church. Afterall, Catholic comes from the Greek work
kata holos which is translated into English as "universal".
There can be no Universal and United Church if one prefers his own interpretation above the learned, inspired and holy men and women spanning 2000 years. After all, can any one of us admit we know better than they do?
Another addition is that the Catholic Church is not a democracy, where her fundamentals are decided by popular vote. Whatever we have, we receive it from Divine Revelation. This Divine Revelation is transmitted to men through Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition.
Why is it that Holy Tradition is needed, and not scriptures alone? I bet you can easily answer this. It's because the book cannot defend itself. The Church Fathers, or the significant followers of Jesus immediately after his death, were very hesitant to write down what has handed down to them (
traditionem, traditio) because one of the reasons was that writing these down would be subject to adultery and manipulation. Why is it that people find contradictory passages in the Bible and after which, they dismiss the Bible as something illogical? Very simple - they tried to interpret it themselves. Without a guide, you will certainly be lost.
Perhaps this explains some bizarre religious people who completely and blindly follow the bible that their decisions become rash, illogical and out of touch with reason. If the Bible speaks of Truth, but brings illogical answers, the problem does not lie in the word, but the one who understands and interprets the words.
But now more problems arise. How do we know which particular ones are saints or sinners? How do we know if saints or sinners compose the majority of the entire clerical institution? How do we know if the current Vicar of Christ himself is a saint or a sinner?
There are alot of avenues towards the attainment of Truth. First is of course common-sense. This is the only avenue that does not need any proof because it is demonstrable in itself.
Second is through personal experience. There are human experiences that can never be subject to scientific measurement, and yet we are very sure of what we feel. People of exceptional holiness radiate this feeling such that other people who surround exceptionally holy people feel at ease and at peace.
I have personally never encountered such persons, but then again, who am I to judge that others who have experienced did not experience it authentically? Can I hold it back against them?
Third, and this is the most important of all - is through conformity of the object knower with the object known. This conformity is also called Truth
(aedequatio rei et intellectus)
If the actions of one person are consistent with his speech, or when the answers of one person are in conformity with one's actions, then we can say that there is a conformity between the object knower (subject) and the object known (object).
The philosophical principle that underlies this conformity is what we call the Principle of Non-Contradiction. This principle states that
Nothing can be and not be at the same time at the same respect. This is the foundation of Truth that no atheist as far as I know, have been able to refute.
The Church has Her methods of identifying whether one person is a saint or is eligible for sainthood or not. In fact, she even has a special office for this called "The Pontifical Congregation for the Causes of Saints". This office employs rigid scientific testing, official court testimonies and witnesses similar to court trials in order to prove if one person has indeed lived a life that is in
con-formity with the ideals he held. After only a very long time and a very strict process can a person be canonized as a saint.
I hope you would not be surprised that there's the word "rigid scientific testing" - ask any Church official and he will tell you that the methods and standards of science are employed. So from this, it should be enough to refute your oft-repeated claim the Church and Science are mutually contradicting areas of knowledge.
Of course, Science requires at least one human agent. Science, Religion, Politics, Art; those are called human constructs for a reason. I don't get why Science has to be degraded for being a human tool.
On the contrary, Science is not degraded but even affirmed because we recognize her proper place in the scheme of things.
Justice plays a very important role when we talk about words such as "degradation" and "exaltation". When one object is regarded higher than its worth, there is an injustice because something is rendered to something which is not due to itself.
When, for example, the human
body is preferred above the human
person, the human body is degraded because we are giving undue emphasis on it. Just read the news and see what damage this kind of mentality causes to millions of young women in the third world. Because people look only after the body and not after the person, the human becomes a play thing, a sex slave, whose value is only as good as her body.
Now, when it comes to science, it finds it proper place when it is regarded only as a tool and not as an end in itself. When it is regarded as an end in itself, then an injustice takes place. An injustice takes place because other more important things are subordinated (sub-ordinated) for the achievements of science.
This is unethical because throughout history, we once again find numerous instances where the dignity of the human person is violated for the sake of scientific advance. For example, during World War II, hundreds of thousands of Jews, Gypsies and other non-Aryans were subjected to merciless scientific experiments under the leadership of Dr. Josef Mengele.
Dr. Josef Mengele, in his pursuit of genetically determining which is the superior race, have caused thousands of senseless human deaths. You can say that his objective was in scientifically determining which is the superior race, but at the cost of human lives.
This solid example tells us that when science is exalted above its own proper place, then science is at the same time degraded. Why is science degraded when it is put above its own proper place? Science is degraded because now it is something that is used for evil ends.
Now do you understand why Theology is above Science and that in no way can Science dictate whether a God exists, or whether fetuses must be abortedd or not, or whether old people can be euthanized or whether human life can be measured in pounds or in gold or in dollars.
Theology is above science, but theology does not destroy science. Rather, it seeks to fulfill its ends by properly directing its path towards the glorification of God. When scientific endeavours work towards the glorification of God, science is exulted. When scientific endeavours work towards its own glorification in place of God, science is degraded.
That is why you sir, who adhere strictly to science, are actually the one degrading it. While I, knowing the harmony and concorde of things, elevate science by recognizing what is just, proper and due to it. I have already agreed with you that Science owes everything that it is today to Religion. To question that would be to question history. But my point is that giving additional credit to Religion for creating Science is inappropriate.
At best, I only see this as some form of unexpressed and presumable irrational, personal disgust at religion.
I wish there was an international atheist organization as big as the Roman Catholic Church, one with a strong scientific inclination, one with a morality system of their own. And then we will see if God really is necessary to engage in the "business of hope".
That's taking a leap of faith. Under the very methodologies of science, you are not allowed to make such predictions without compelling evidences.
An organization that relies on science alone cannot be totally morally reliable
True. Because Science, left to its own excess, with no one to direct it, can fall into error and cause destruction.
likewise an organization that relies on morality alone cannot be totally scientifically reliable.
Not true.
Morality is above science, therefore, a primarily moral-organization can incorporate scientific activities. Since both Morality and Science and noble human activities, both can exist hand in hand.
But the stress should be made that Science should be subordinate to morality, even if strictly speaking, they belong to different categories of thought.
It is perhaps permissible here to draw attention to a distinction made by Martin Heidegger, who speaks of the duality of calculating and reflective thought. Both modes of thought are legitimate and necessary, but for this very reason neither can be absorbed in the other. There must be both: calculating thought which is concerned with makeability, and reflective thought which is concerned with meaning. And one cannot deny that [Heidegger] has good deal of justification for expressing the fear that in an age which calculating thought is celebrating the most amazing triumphs, man is threatened, perhaps more than ever before, by thoughtlessness, by the flight of thought. By thinking only of the practicable, of what can be made, he is in danger of forgetting to reflect on himself and on the meaning of his existence.
1You talk as if Christian morality is not a human construct in itself. The clerics of yesterday and today invented their own morality system based on scriptures, tradition, and other worldly factors.
So what if it's a human construct, which is really what it's supposed to be. You cannot touch, taste and see morality as much as you can't touch taste and see science. It's I think another way of labeling things as either abstract or concrete.
But I think what you mean by ''human construct'' is similar to the Marxist approach to reality which is called "base vs super-structure'. According to Karl Marx, the social and legal customs of society are super-structures that stand of the base of economic modes of production.
In other words, he says that society's beliefs (legal, cultural, religious) depends upon the dynamics of that society's economics - Just because the 'Christian World' as we know has progressed and flourished with food and technology and other comforts of living, the Christian World got its ideas of morality out of this super abundance of material resources.
This is what I mean, when Karl Marx says, and I quote:
The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. 2But this is wrong. History has shown that a moral absolute has been deeply planted in the human person. Material forces cannot dictate truth. Just because I am poor, for example, does not give me the right to say all rich people are bad. Or just because I am, let's say, a black african slave does not mean that all white people are evil.
Truth as perceived by man does not depend on social existence. In the same vein, Christian Morality is not produced out of thousands of years of Christian superiority, or because the early Christians have gained prestige among kings and nobles.
The dictates of Christian Morality stem from God, who Is Truth, who can neither deceive or be deceived. I will explain this a little bit more later on.
You also talk as if atheism is incompatible with morality.
It is incompatible with morality. Whatever that is against the social doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church is immoral.
You don't need God to tell you how to label "right" and "wrong".
Okay, let me clear this up. Truth and God are one and the same. Let's start from there.
If I don't need God who Is Truth, then how can I know for certain the things that I know?
Without the Divine Intellect who made the Human Intellect, simple things such as establishing the certitude of my human existence can never be known. Why is this? Again, let's go back to the principle of non-contradiction. I can't be Pach and Vin at the same time at the same respect. That's a total logical contradiction that only befits a lunatic. Whoever disagrees with that does not have a normal functioning brain.
There is a conformity between the object-knower and the object known. Once we're sure of this, then we're sure that Truth absolutely exists. If truth absolutely exists, then we can make sure judgments. If we can make sure judgments, we can establish in this world certain things that ought to be correct and ought to be wrong, things that ought to be moral and ought to be immoral, things that ought to be virtuous and ought to be repulsive.
Why do we need God? Because God is the foundation of all reality, of all actuality, of all that is True and credible and just, and fair, and right because Truth and God are one in essence. God is the ground that upholds all truth-ness and all being-ness in this world precisely because He is the God that can never deceive nor be deceived.
And because Truth exists really and solidly, then values are not invented but discovered. We do not make up our own truth but conform to it.
That is the cold, hard brutal fact. Any thing other than this is a blatant logical contradiction.
There can be atheistic existentialists who would invent their own morality system based solely on their own concept of freedom. Those acts that promote and advocate freedom are "good", and those that hinder and violate freedom are "evil". You don't even need to put God in the picture. Neither you nor I are in position to judge their morality system without adhering to our very own morality systems. Humans always invent their own standards.
I concede that humans always invent their own standards, but I also have to say that what they invented does not automatically mean it conforms to Truth.
For example, the Soviet Union, an officially Atheist system, ''invented'' its own system of dogmas and doctrines based on dialectical materialism. Materialism teaches that, as the name implies, everything is matter and what matters is just matter.
From these fundamentals, the Soviet Union leaders formulated certain ethical statements and propositions, even economic, political and military doctrines and strategies. IT took the Soviet Union a mere 70 years for it to collapse.
Why did it collapse? Because the fundamentals of Soviet Dogma are wrong. Wrong in the sense that they do not conform to truth.
This all the more strengthens the position of St. Thomas Aquinas "
Quia parvus error in principio magnus est in fine - Error in the beginning generates greater error in the end.
A system based on lies will someday capitulate!
There, Tribe Leader A has already invented a moral standard of his own. From that moral standard, a morality system would develop.
In that case, he did not invent his own morality, rather he discovered it. Moral absolutes such as "thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal" are not invented (even if some people may view it that way). The mere fact that they have arrived at such ethical propositions means that they can access the truth: the truth that all human life is sacred and that all human property must be respected.
As I said, you cannot invent truth, you can only discover it. There's no escaping that.
The ultimate foundations of all proof, on which thought rests, are never measured; they are only perceived. But everyone knows that perception is something unique. It is not to be separated from the intellectual stance an individual has adopted during his lifetime. The deepest perceptions of man require the whole man. It is clear, then, that such knowledge has its own mode of existence. We cannot verify God as we would verify some measurable object.
3----
1. Introduction to Christianity
2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure3. Credo for Today: What Christians Believe
