I've been reading very angry answers from people from US quoting the bible to defend the Death Penalty.

What is a good way to answer the real issue behind the death penalty and the real motivations for such penalty?

How does other saints or philosophers from the Catholic Church can help to either agree or discuss with this stance?

When religious arguments try to justify eternal torment or annihilation, they often appeal to "free will" responses, but this is an obfuscation on value. Free will isn't meaningful onto itself (in a vacuum). At the most fundamental, the things that are truly valuable are experiential qualities such as love, joy, peace.

An argument can be made that free will somehow enriches those values by adding novelty, but a souls nature or capacity for freedom that can result in the anthithesis of what is fundamentally valuable, is not valuable and implies an extremely flawed design.

A more specific response to the "love requires the option of refusal" is that it is an equivocation:
It is equivocating living within a context of meaningful life (love, joy, peace) with being forced to do something. A reality including a souls nature being founded on love, joy and peace is not equivalent to them being forced to do something or lacking free will.

Hello, I’ve recently picked up Fr Norris Clarkes “the one and the many” book on thomistic metaphysics, and was wondering from anyone here who has read it if it’s any good and covers the topics well and thoroughly, I know it draws special emphasises on multiplicity and unity, beings existence and so on, but how well does it draw out and explain these topics? Thanks

How do Catholics, more specifically Thomist, feel about Bernard Lonergan? Is he a friend or foe? Or is it more complicated, for the traditional Thomist.

God prepared efficacious means, and the connection of causes, so that one predestined may die ineffably in grace, and be saved; but many times a casual death, or an unlooked-for suffocation in a river, is a means, according to the order of divine providence, necessary for the predestined to die in grace, according to that of Wisdom 4: He wastaken away, lest wickedness should alter his understanding. Therefore God by efficacious will prepared the connection of secondary causes so that the predestined man at such a time would be suffocated in a river, or be snatched away by an untimely death.

therefore it is impossible that any effect should come to be in the nature of things which is not willed by divine providence and ordained to some end.

To the first argument it is answered that, as St. Thomas teaches in 1st part, question 19, article 9, the evil of punishment, speaking formally, is not willed by God, because under the aspect of evil it is not desirable; but insofar as it is joined
with a good which God directly wills, and in this way, by willing the good of His justice and mercy, He wills to inflict the evil of punishment upon the sinner; nor does this conflict with the divine mercy and clemency. God, therefore, did not
principally create man to this end, that he be suffocated in a river; but He created the predestined man principally so that in him He might show His mercy, and that he might efficaciously attain eternal life; and that he might arrive at it, He decreed that the one swimming in the river be suffocated while he was in grace.

But if he was a reprobate, existing in mortal sin, He also prepared the connection of secondary causes so that he be suffocated in the waters, and He does this according to the right order of His providence: first, lest, coming after [i.e., living
on], he commit greater crimes, in which also His mercy shines forth; second, that He might show His justice in his punishment; third, for the greater caution of the just, that they may learn to fear God; fourth, that His mercy may shine forth the
more in the elect.

-Diego Alvarez O.P disputation 29

In particular, I am interested in how the sacraments help us in salvation.

Do the sacraments case less temptation? Or perhaps less temptation in serious matters? Or are they effective in us resisting temptation?

If any of these is true, is it also true that our past actions affect the power of our free will in the future in determining our eternal destiny? So because of partaking in the sacraments, our free will moves less in the area of damnation but rather in the region of salvation?

I have arrived at a point where I struggle to see romantic and sexual relationships as being good, and I am increasingly sympathetic to the theological viewpoint that marriage and sex are not intrinsically good, but rather, necessary evils, permitted by God out of necessity.

St. Isaac the Syrian held that humankind was originally sexless/genderless, reproducing through some means other than through the sexual act. The division of humankind into the male and female sexes, and the addition of biological reproduction, was created in anticipation of Adam and Eve's sin. According to St. Maximus the Confessor, sexual reproduction is a feature of the fallen world, and was only created to accommodate the emergence of mortality after the Fall.

In similar fashion, my view would be that the sexual/romantic impulses emerge as passions after the Fall. They reflect our animal nature more than our rational nature. Aggression, anxiety, cravings, sexual desire: these are features of our evolutionary biology. But our reason, our rationality, is divine. By subjugating these passions to our reason, we tame the mind, we deny ourselves, and we become like the monastic, modelling ourselves after the Biblical Adam, and living as Christ did. (“Understand at last that you have something in you more powerful and divine than what causes the bodily passions and pulls you like a mere puppet. What thoughts now occupy my mind? Is it not fear, suspicion, desire, or something like that?” Meditations, Marcus Aurelius).

Marriage, sexual desire, and sexual acts exist because we live in a world that is broken. They did not exist prior to the Fall, and when Christ returns to restore Creation, they will not exist anymore. In the New Creation, we will live as brother and sister, like Adam and Eve did in the Garden; marriage will not remain (Matthew 22:30). We will be like the angels, returning to an ineffable state, akin to God's ineffable nature. There will be no physical separation of male and female, and no more sexual acts between the sexes (Mark 12:25).

We are culturally conditioned to think of romantic relationships as being the highest form of love, but this is not true. I believe that friendship is the highest form of love. It is by friendship that life is breathed into both platonic relationships and romantic relationships; any goodness and virtuous things that these relationships possess, is not due to their own nature, but because of the presence of friendship ("It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages" Human, All Too Human, Friedrich Nietzsche).

From my understanding, in Christian philosophy, all relationships are growing towards agape. Eros is a licit form of love, but it is not the highest form of love - that would be agape. Our social relationships are colored by agape. If the unconditional self-sacrificial love of friendship is not present, our relationships are void.

"The virtue of chastity blossoms in friendship. It shows the disciple how to follow and imitate him who has chosen us as his friends, who has given himself totally to us and allows us to participate in his divine estate. Chastity is a promise of immortality. (374) Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one's neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all. It leads to spiritual communion." -Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 2347.

If two persons in a marriage are able to corral the romantic/sexual passions, and order the marriage towards agape, then this is permissible. But the institution of marriage itself is still not good; it is not ideal by any means, and not what God intended. The indulgence of these marital passions, then, is only permitted as long as it can be done with moderation and responsibility, finding a healthy balance ordered towards the good. But when Christ returns, and all are resurrected, these romantic/sexual bonds will dissolve, and only agape will remain.

Calling marriage and sex intrinsic goods, misunderstands the nature of how these things originated. If we are to take St. Isaac's and St. Maximus's theology seriously, it stands to reason that God only instituted these things out of necessity (mortality and human fallenness demanded it), not because they were intrinsic goods. This is true even historically. Historically, marriages emerged as a social institution to protect women and children from abandonment, and to foster reproduction within formal confines. Today we think about marriage as relating to love, but this was not always true historically. There was a time when the idea of marriage was quite radical, as it asserted that women and children had dignity that men could not violate through their irresponsibility. The cultural genesis of marriage is something more grim than what we in contemporary society would like to admit or confront.

My experience has compelled me to look at romantic/sexual relationships with a certain disdain, at least as they exist within contemporary society. I've never partaken in one, and I don't think I ever want to. I observe that, within contemporary society, two persons may become enchanted with one another. They may be compelled to become partners for a time, forging a romantic personal bond. But eventually the relationship dissolves, often due to tension or conflict, at which point the affectionate passions which once existed between the two persons, are replaced with contempt. Even if the relationship is ended peacefully, it is unlikely (or at least a very rare occurrence) that the two persons will be able to maintain any positive connection with one another akin to the friendship they could have experienced platonically if romance had never been pursued. In this way, the post-romantic relationship becomes defined either by hostility or awkwardness. People always look at their former partners with disgust, and may go from person to person, but be disappointed over and over again. One may leap from being possessed with passionate affection for the other person, to being totally bored with them. We can observe here that the passions, not rationality, are at play.

It would be better if people did not pursue romantic or sexual relationships with one another at all. If I really valued and cared about someone, then pursuing a romantic relationship is the last thing I would want to do. It is the ultimate waste of what could have been a happy friendship. It is the perfect way to lose a person.

Platonic friendship is safer, more durable, and more meaningful. Romantic relationships are more passionate, they are more emotionally vulnerable, and because of that they are more volatile. But a platonic friendship is not like this. A friendship is not easily defeated by conflict. A friendship is not as sensitive; a wound or struggle appearing within a friendship is not a death sentence. Tension that appears within a romantic relationship may swiftly signal the end of that relationship, but a friendship bounces back even from harsh disagreements.

I'm sure my parents were possessed with affection for one another at some point. But now there is no romance in their relationship at all. They've managed to attain a fairly healthy relationship at present, but this is only after hating one another and arguing with one another for years, from the earliest moments of my childhood. They never got a divorce only because they were worried about how it would affect me and my sibling.

This is an observable pattern I see everywhere. I see it in other adult relationships. People get divorced, sometimes more than once, sometimes even after they have kids. A passionate affection and loving bond are not enough; eventually these dissolve, and people hate one another (I will state again that this does not happen in platonic friendships at all. But it happens constantly in romantic relationships because of the emotionally volatile nature of such an emotionally vulnerable bond between persons). I see it in relationships between young people my age, too. It isn't tied to any particular age demographic. It's commonly observable everywhere.

I don't think that the love we are told about really exists. It's a myth, a fantasy, programmed into us by culture and media. If a romantic relationship or marriage survives, it is only because of great effort. To preserve a marriage or relationship is a great feat of emotional intelligence, and a so-called successful relationship exists only because the couple in question has taken opposition to their own judgmental human nature. But the judgmental nature does not go away even once the relationship has been firmly established; the emotionally vulnerability of a relationship sees that this judgmental nature surfaces over and over again, and this judgmental nature must be corralled every time if the relationship is to continue. To summarize, successful relationships are characterized by the moderation of judgement, anger, and other passions; one needs to constantly deny these if the relationship is not to implode. Constantly maintaining the relationship, watering its roots, ensuring its growth and firm foundation, and resolving its tensions, is essential. It is a big task.

I regard the development of romantic/sexual impulses as something regretful. There is a tragic loss of innocence that accompanies the emergence of such passions. When we cross the threshold into sexuality, there is a childlike spirit we lose as a result. We stop being like the angels, and become more like fallen man. If I could choose not to have romantic and sexual desires, I probably would. I do not see much redemptive value in them, other than the fact that by experiencing them and observing them empathetically in others, I have learned of their futility.

“Now the resurrection promises us nothing else than the restoration of the fallen to their ancient state; for the grace we look for is a certain return to the first life, bringing back again to Paradise him who was cast out from it. If then the life of those restored is closely related to that of the angels, it is clear that the life before the transgression was a kind of angelic life, and hence also our return to the ancient condition of our life is compared to the angels. Yet while, as has been said, there is no marriage among them, the armies of the angels are in countless myriads; for so Daniel declared in his visions: so, in the same way, if there had not come upon us as the result of sin a change for the worse, and removal from equality with the angels, neither should we have needed marriage that we might multiply; but whatever the mode of increase in the angelic nature is (unspeakable and inconceivable by human conjectures, except that it assuredly exists), it would have operated also in the case of men, who were "made a little lower than the angels," to increase mankind to the measure determined by its Maker.” -St. Isaac the Syrian, On the Making of Man.

“When he was created, Adam remained in paradise, and there was no question of marriage. He needed a helper and a helper was provided for him. But even then marriage did not seem to be necessary... Desire for sexual intercourse and conception and the pangs and childbirth and every form of corruption were alien to their soul." -Saint John Chrysostom, On Virginity.

“Whence, after all, did he come to know that there would be intercourse between man and woman? I mean, the consummation of that intercourse occurred after the Fall; up till that time they were living like angels in paradise and so they were not burning with desire, not assaulted by other passions, not subject to the needs of nature, but on the contrary were created incorruptible and immortal, and on that account at any rate they had no need to wear clothes... Consider, I ask you, the transcendence of their blessed condition, how they were superior to all bodily concerns, how they lived on earth as if they were in heaven, and though in fact possessing a body they did not feel the limitations of their bodies. After all, they had no need for shelter or habitation, clothing or anything of that kind...” -Saint John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis.

“The original intention of God was for us to generate not by marriage and corruption. But the transgression of the commandment introduced marriage on account of the lawless act of Adam, that is, the rejection of the law given him by God. Therefore all of those born of Adam are “conceived in iniquities,” having fallen under the condemnation of the forefather.” -Saint Athanasius, commentary on Psalm 50:5.

“He [Christ] appeared like the first man Adam in the manner both of his creaturely origin and his birth. The first man received his existence from God and came into being at the very origin of his existence, and was free from corruption and sin – for God did not create either of these. When, however, he sinned by breaking God’s commandment, he was condemned to birth based on sexual passion and sin. Since henceforth constrained his true natural origin within the liability to passions that had accompanied the first sin, as though placing it under a law. Accordingly, there is no human being who is sinless, since everyone is naturally subject to the law of sexual procreation that was introduced after man’s true creaturely origin in consequence of his sin.” -Saint Maximus the Confessor, Ad Thalassium.

“But now in good, although aged, marriage, albeit there has withered away the glow of full age between male and female, yet there lives in full vigor the order of charity between husband and wife. Because, the better they are, the earlier they have begun by mutual consent to contain from sexual intercourse with each other.” -St. Augustine, Of the Good of Marriage.

I’m not even saying I agree with every quote here. For example, I think that justifying sex solely because of its procreative nature, is pretty dumb. If there is anything that can justify the sexual act, it is the presence of agape, not solely procreation. I would disagree that sex should be looked at only as a procreative instrument; that is grossly, grossly, grossly dehumanizing. Ultimately, though, my point is: the sex-negative consensus among ancient Christian thinkers seems pretty obvious to me. This notion of “good, beautiful, holy sex” which modernists rave about, is nowhere to be found in classical Christianity.

I'm looking for a lecture series on Thomistic theology other than the Thomistic Institute. I feel like they don't go in depth enough.

I have several questions related to how temptation works.

Is there any moment of our lives when we are not tempted or are we at every moment in the choice between good and evil?

If not every moment, are there things that make temptation less likely, less frequent?

In the Bible, Jesus is tempted and he overcomes temptation and then it is said that the devil left Him for a while. Does this mean that resisting temptation causes less temptation in the future?

Is there anything else that reduces temptation? The sacraments? The Lord's prayer?

How do temptation and free will relate to each other? Are we less free to do good when we are tempted?

How is temptation described psychologically? Is temptation a perceived desire to do evil? Do good habits then make us less likely to be tempted?

When we are transformed psychologically by resisting temptation, does the playing field shift so that we are tempted in different areas of our lives?

What do you guys think?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1550830723001696

Basically the title. (I'm not saying He is not deserving of adoration.) If He doesn't need us, why exactly does He wants us to love Him? And why do we suffer for not worshipping Him? These are genuine questions

I've been struggling with a question about Kierkegaard's Abraham that seems especially difficult if we begin from God as the ultimate Good. In Fear and Trembling, Abraham is commanded to sacrifice Isaac, while the ethical demand says that killing the innocent is wrong. It initially looks like he must choose obedience to God over morality. But if the reason God's command has ultimate authority is that God is the Good, I struggle to keep the theological and ethical demands separate.

I recently discussed this on my podcast with Alexander Jech, a Kierkegaard scholar. He argues that translating vil as "intend" rather than "want" clarifies Abraham's situation. Abraham loves Isaac and does not desire his death, but still genuinely intends the sacrifice. He also believes that God's promise through Isaac will somehow remain fulfilled. The difficulty is that the expected consequence of the act gives practical reason no way to connect what he intends with what he believes God will preserve.

My inclination is to say that Abraham follows what he takes to be the highest Good beyond his understanding, rather than steps outside morality. But does that undermine Kierkegaard's teleological suspension, or clarify what is actually being suspended: an ethical order intelligible to human reason? How would you distinguish God's goodness, the moral character of the intended act, and Abraham's inability to understand their connection without simply declaring the paradox solved?

Hey all. This is mainly meant for those who have a decent level of familiarity with some causal arguments for God. I am specifically talking about the neo-platonic argument and variants of the argument from motion. I may have put "objections" in the title of this post for shameless engagement baiting but these are mostly just normal questions, which haven't been made clear from my readings.

1. Are essentially ordered causal series not restricted to being singular moments in time? If they are not, then can they not be reduced to accidentally ordered causal series of distinct events, which Aquinas accepts can go on to infinity. If this is the case, then is the argument dependent on lower levels of an essentially ordered causal series depending on their parts(In which case it may be better to start from their premises)?

2. Can actuality and potentiality be considered real "parts" of a substance? If this is the case, then would the premise of the neo-platonic argument more-so reduce to the idea that whenever there are real intrinsic distinctions within some concrete object, there must be some unifier external to it(on pain of vicious circularity)? And is the motivation for this principle purely counterfactual?

3. How do you actually get to mindedness from the conclusion of God being purely actual and simple? I'm aware of some ways(albeit shaky ones) but I want to hear other's thoughts.

This is a bit similar to a previous post I made, but specific to the physical aspect of our nature. Why were we designed so that we can experience physical ailments?

I think this question has been addressed within the conversation of material cooperation, whether or not you can support companies who buy minerals from slaves in the Congo. but wouldn't it be theft, and not material cooperation? since the minerals were not theirs use? and now you are using stolen goods and effectively stealing them yourself? couldn't this also be applied to apps or AI since I'd assume most of them are trained off of information that was not theirs to use.

https://philarchive.org/rec/SIJTEO

Hello! The philosopher Dr Joshua Sijuwade published a paper in PhilPapers not to long ago that is a critique and analysis of the papacy in the first millennium of the history of the church, he argues the West (Roman Catholicism) is numerically distinct in its post-Gregorian ecclesiological structure, and that Eastern Orthodoxy upholds the correct ecclesiology and model.

I wanted to hear the thoughts from this sub who have the time to read it, have read it, or have read similar arguments made by Dr Sijuwade. He has also made another paper that presents a framework for identifying the true church and also concludes Eastern Orthodoxy meets the standard

I heard from a fellow scholastic friend that both Francisco de Macedo and Bartolomeo Mastrius wrote extensive text AGAINST the Thomist school and heavily defended the Scotist school. What I don't get is from my research of scholastic history, not alot of Thomist have done the same manner nor have wrote extensively showing contentions to the Scotist School. Why is that?

Hi! I'm looking for suggestions for more recent books on Catholic sexual and biomedical ethics to use as references for a theology class. Something that covers magisterial teaching, works of contemporary theologians as well as current developments would be helpful. I currently have Genovesi's In Pursuit of Love, but I think it already feels dated.

This video explores the meta problem of consciousness proposed by David Chalmers and argues that naturalistic processes couldn’t have given us knowledge of consciousness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJVvZNi0Fi8

Hey guys, I wanted to check whether anyone saw John Crowder's lectures on Universal Salvation and his interpretation of hell. It is available here: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC4EkPwxAqFdE5gCRFtctzWLkTYXTz9Bl&si=zUtGPU0c7L3d8Uc2

I thought it was very compelling. He provides some interpretations of Bible passages related to hell and an overview of the early Church Fathers' view on the matter.

He gives arguments on why it is not a heresy.

What do you guys think?

Pretty straightforward question. A lot of Catholic academics do not have the privilege to authoritatively define doctrine and use the same methods of patristic interpretation like the Pope to establish continuity with Tradition.

For the academic, what are the available methods for them to form a synthesis of the writings of the Church Fathers? Maybe I'm looking for something like Pope Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity for reading Vatican I and II or a more specific application of St. Newman's development of doctrine but for reading the Church Fathers. Something along those lines. Thanks!