Theological Implications of Right to Lifers

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Deriving paradoxes from Catholic doctrine is hardly a challenge.

Suppose that the Pope makes this ex cathedra proclamation: The Lord has told me that He has just revoked the 5th Commandment, in a similar manner to how he revoked many other Old Testament Laws.

Does LH now hold that it is morally permissible to murder? If not, what distinguis ...[text shortened]... Catholics to continue to put stock in my ex cathedra proclamations."

Will LH believe this?

The point of infallibility is that it would be impossible for the Pope to actually make proclamations of the type you're talking about. So I cannot treat your situations as even hypothetical, I have to treat them as purely imaginary.

Since they're imaginary situations, I can answer in pretty much any way I want to your questions.

So, my answer - sure, why not? If I have to choose between contradicting doctrines, I'll toss a coin.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So doing everything you were ever told would be an "exercise of free will"?

Would doing the exact opposite of everything you were ever told be an exercise of free will?*

If I accept what the Church teaches, then it is because I choose† to accept them. So, yes, it is an exercise of free will.

---
* This is the problem the existentialists have. To be "truly free", one must be completely random/arbitrary in one's decisions.
† No deterministic vs. non-deterministic free will discussions, please! 🙂

(Shrug) Free will seems a pointless concept if you do what you're told just based on someone's assertion of authority. If a doctor told me I didn't have cancer, I wouldn't accept that it was impossible for him to make an error. I guess that's why I couldn't make a good Catholic (besides the believing in the OT God thing); the idea that any human being could be infallible in anything is absurd to me.

Originally posted by bbarr
'Direct' here means 'unmediated'. The causal link between Christ's crucifixion and our opportunity for salvation was mediated by God. That is why the two cases are analogous. If the causal link between Christ's crucifixion was unmediated by God, and if it is the case that it wasn't Christ as God that was crucified but, rather, Christ as man, then there woul ...[text shortened]... crucifixions of other men didn't have similar effects on our opportunity for salvation.

First, I'm not sure how one can speak of "opportunity for salvation" and "[unmediated] by God" considering that salvation, by definition, involves God.

As to why the crucifixions of other men didn't have similar effects, two reasons:

1. The "spotless lamb" (aka "perfect sacrifice" ) - Only the self-sacrifice of a man who was himself without sin could suffice for redemption.

2. Volition and knowledge - The person making the self-sacrifice had to be completely aware of how the sacrifice worked, why it worked, and what it was for; he also had to freely undertake the sacrifice.

Only Christ could have satisfied these two conditions.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
First, I'm not sure how one can speak of "opportunity for salvation" and "[unmediated] by God" considering that salvation, by definition, involves God.

As to why the crucifixions of other men didn't have similar effects, two reasons:

1. The "spotless lamb" (aka "perfect sacrifice" ) - Only the self-sacrifice of a man who was himself without sin ...[text shortened]... ly undertake the sacrifice.

Only Christ could have satisfied these two conditions.

Salvation involves God, but that's not the point. The point is that there was a causal process that ran from Christ's crucifixion to our having access to an opportunity for salvation that we didn't have before. This causal process was not nomologically necessary; it wasn't direct or unmediated by God. God was the one who took this sacrifice and thereby brought it about that humanity would have henceforth have access to an opportunity for salvation they didn't have before. So, God intervened. God could do the same with zygotes. If it didn't undermine our moral autonomy in the Christ case, it wouldn't with the zygotes either.

1. Just means that God would only accept as a sacrifice the spotless lamb.

2. Just specifies conditions on the sacrifice.

Now, if these are the only criteria for something's being a perfect sacrifice, then any man who satisfied them would have done, correct? But nobody other than Christ was without sin, and necessarily so, since we are all born with original sin. So, God intervened in bringing Christ into the world without original sin (so as to prepare in advance the lamb). Any way you cut it, this is an instance of God playing a direct causal role of a sort that doesn't undermine our moral autonomy. So, again, what's the worry with the zygotes?

Originally posted by no1marauder
(Shrug) Free will seems a pointless concept if you do what you're told just based on someone's assertion of authority.

To me, that's a bit like saying intelligence is pointless if one says something just because one thinks it's correct.

If one judges that an authority is legitimate, then it would be a misuse of the will not to submit to it. We submit to legitimate authorities all the time in our daily lives. No doubt you pay your taxes and obey traffic rules. When you practise law, no doubt you obey the code of conduct.

I guess that's why I couldn't make a good Catholic (besides the believing in the OT God thing); the idea that any human being could be infallible in anything is absurd to me.

Many Catholics (particularly in the West) have problems with infallibility. Personally, I don't because I see no reason why a human being cannot be infallible when he is aided by God, even if he cannot be infallible on his own accord.

As to the OT God, I stopped having troubles with it once I stopped reading the OT literally.

No, no, no. There is a difference between submitting to authority and believing that the authority is infallible. I do not follow a code of conduct because I believe the people who drew it up could not err; I follow it because I believe it to be correct. Or perhaps I submit to the authority because I fear the consequences if I do not. Your comments are nonsensical.

If you wish, you can keep insisting that agreeing to be someone's slave is an exercise in free will, but whatever "philosophical" justification for such a point of view you can conjure up, I believe it is contrary to human nature and makes the concept of "free will" a mockery.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As to the OT God, I stopped having troubles with it once I stopped reading the OT literally.

Good move. I stopped having problems with Christ when I started reading him mythologically.

Originally posted by no1marauder
There is a difference between submitting to authority and believing that the authority is infallible.

Of course. I can believe the Church is infallible and still refuse to submit to its authority. That is no less an abrogation of my free will than submitting to its authority because I believe it to be infallible. In either case, I still choose what I do.

I do not follow a code of conduct because I believe the people who drew it up could not err; I follow it because I believe it to be correct.

I'm no different. I follow the Church's teachings because I believe them to be correct.

If you wish, you can keep insisting that agreeing to be someone's slave is an exercise in free will, but whatever "philosophical" justification for such a point of view you can conjure up, I believe it is contrary to human nature and makes the concept of "free will" a mockery.

Don't be silly. Are you the government's "slave" because you stick to the 80mph speed limit? Are you making a mockery of free will by paying your taxes (especially when you have fundamental disagreements with the way your government spends it)?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The point of infallibility is that it would be impossible for the Pope to actually make proclamations of the type you're talking about.

What would make the Commandment proclamation impossible in the face of infallibility?

Originally posted by bbarr
Salvation involves God, but that's not the point. The point is that there was a causal process that ran from Christ's crucifixion to our having access to an opportunity for salvation that we didn't have before. This causal process was not nomologically necessary; it wasn't direct or unmediated by God. God was the one who took this sacrifice and thereby brou t doesn't undermine our moral autonomy. So, again, what's the worry with the zygotes?

This causal process was not nomologically necessary

I would argue that it was.

it wasn't direct or unmediated by God. God was the one who took this sacrifice and thereby brought it about that humanity would have henceforth have access to an opportunity for salvation they didn't have before. So, God intervened.

I think you are equating mediation and intervention here. God mediated the process, yes, but it was a man (Christ) who initiated it. So, I wouldn't say God "intervened" in the crucifixion-salvation process.

Now, you might argue that God initiated the process (which should now be Incarnation-crucifixion-salvation) by creating Christ. In that sense, yes, it is an intervention. But the fact that Christ had to be human shows that the principle of moral autonomy of mankind was not affected. Salvation is still the result of man's action.

Besides, autonomy does not mean complete dissociation. I never said God would not play a role in human affairs.

1. Just means that God would only accept as a sacrifice the spotless lamb.

From utter simplicity, I think it follows that "would" and "could" mean the same thing for God. So, God could only accept as a sacrifice the spotless lamb.

So, God intervened in bringing Christ into the world without original sin (so as to prepare in advance the lamb).

It would've been impossible for Christ to have original sin anyway. But that he was born without original sin did not mean he did not live out the consequences of original sin (suffering, death etc.) So God still preserved moral autonomy.

Any way you cut it, this is an instance of God playing a direct causal role of a sort that doesn't undermine our moral autonomy. So, again, what's the worry with the zygotes?

It's still not clear to me how you see the two situations as being analogous. The crucifixion works because it follows the principle of moral autonomy. Growth of zygotes does not because it violates that principle.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What would make the Commandment proclamation impossible in the face of infallibility?

Not sure what you mean by this question.

Just to clarify - I'm not opposed in any way to unborn children being admitted into Heaven. But just because I want it to happen does not mean it should happen. Based on everything I've read until now, Limbo appears to be the most reasonable option to understanding such doctrines as original sin, Heaven, Hell, necessity of baptism etc.

Clearly, many theologians (including Ratzinger) disagree. No doubt they have some very good arguments against limbo and, if I were to read them, I might very well change my mind.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not sure what you mean by this question.

You told me that it follows logically from the pope's infallibility that him making a proclamation about the Lord revoking the 5th Commandment is an impossibility. I am asking for the reasoning behind this finding.

I can accept that the other, paradoxical proclamation is impossible for an infallible being to make (although I don't concede that the pope is infallible), but I don't see how the Commandment proclamation is impossible.

Matt.22

[1] And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
[2] The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
[3] And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
[4] Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
[5] But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
[6] And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
[7] But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
[8] Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
[9] Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
[10] So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
[11] And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
[12] And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
[13] Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[14] For many are called, but few are chosen.
[15] Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
[16] And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
[17] Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
[18] But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
[19] Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
[20] And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
[21] They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
[22] When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
[23] The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
[24] Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
[25] Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
[26] Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
[27] And last of all the woman died also.
[28] Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
[29] Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
[30] For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
[31] But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
[32] I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
[33] And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
[34] But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
[35] Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
[36] Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
[38] This is the first and great commandment.
[39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[40] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
[41] While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
[42] Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
[43] He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
[44] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
[45] If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
[46] And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

King James Version: http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4478498

New American Bible: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew22.htm