The Moral Debate on Rape

[TheReturnofLive]

Source of ego?

I'm not sure that is how I'd phrase it.

And it isn't just "disagreement', but a disagreement on fundamental principles and putting gut checks and personal opinions above a highly developed theological masterpiece.

So it is clear: you are putting your thoughts and gut above that of St Thomas's works and all the moral theology developed and taught, because it doesn't feel right to you, regardless of your actual understanding of the words used.

You are right. I cannot refute this. It is a matter of your ego and I cannot argue against that effectively

Masterpiece as it may, and influential as it may, St. Thomas Aquinas isn't infallible, nor is his Summa. He very clearly didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception, as the most famous example. His Summa is not part of the Scriptural Canon, and disagreeing with his implication on the basis of something so obviously true (unless you seriously want to contend masturbation is worse than rape in God's eyes) is okay for a Catholic to do.

then I demand that you


admit the Earth is the center of the universe,

It is. The "center" of the universe is one's own inertial frame of reference. It is called "Relativity".

Nice; that's not how St. Thomas Aquinas understood it though. The Earth is stationary in his universal model.

What does "exist" mean? Gravity isn't a "thing". It is, according to the best theories of science, merely a warping of space-time around mass.

According to contemporary theories of science, it is a "thing" as it is an inherent property of matter itself; all matter has a gravitational pull - the more matter, the stronger the pull; which is why we are pulled to Earth and the moon isn't.

but rather the heavenly bodies are upheld and moved by the angels of Heaven

That could be one way of viewing it or expressing the glories of the Kingdom of Heaven using natural imagery.

However, whatever he wrote on any subject is not valued for the natural sciences, but for the theological development.

Versamilitude is the nature of our understanding of most things: we never hold the Truth directly, but only approach it as we are able.

All science, in this light, is "wrong", but the issue isn't about being true or false, but about being closer to truth, and that can depend heavily on available information.

Does that mean it is an error to use the available information?

So you refute your points above on the basis that the natural sciences and theological sciences are distinct entities? How is cosmology not a part of theological belief?

Quite the ego one must have to disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas, the end all be all theology of Catholicism. As we all know, he is the only source of Catholic truth and none wrote before him.

[Insanis]

The point of this thread was the importance of being aware of moral theology, the dangers of being influenced by social values and feelings, and being able to exercise the intellect by being able to distinguish that some usages of words are quite different from other usages, despite being the same word.

I did not expect these sorts of responses and I am not going to respond to them anymore. This is not the venue for attacking the moral theology itself, creating straw men about whether anybody even claims that infallibility is an issue in this matter, or introducing personal opinions about moral theology.

(unless you seriously want to contend masturbation is worse than rape in God?s eyes)

I am not contending that. I am not introducing any personal opinions here. I'm presenting a greater work as the topic of discussion, and yes, as defined rape is a lesser evil than masturbation as a species of sin. And if you read my post, you can see how and why this might not mean what people think it means.

It certainly isn't the thread for attacking the person presenting this topic either. Are you doing this because you like the other post, don't like me, or aren't Catholic? This is not the thread for these things.

[Insanis]

So you refute your points above on the basis that the natural sciences and theological sciences are distinct entities? How is cosmology not a part of theological belief?

If you think physics has anything to do with moral theology, I'm sure that would be a good topic you could create for discussion.

Quite the ego one must have to disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas, the end all be all theology of Catholicism. As we all know, he is the only source of Catholic truth and none wrote before him.

Just because someone used the word "ego" before in another context, it doesn't mean you can just hold it up and reuse it without cause. And nobody claimed any of those propositions.

I am also not interested in defending the Church or the theology valued by the Church against the attacks of non-Catholics.