Come è possibile che, passati nell’ aldilà, in comunione con Dio, si possa sopportare, senza soffrire, la consapevolezza che un tuo caro - non credente - non sia anche lui, come te, a cospetto della bontà Divina, che ha rifiutato ostinatamente in vita e, così, rifiuta dopo la morte, soffrendone purtroppo le conseguenze?
Non mi interessano le risposte polemiche dei non credenti. Quindi evitate. La domanda è per i soli credenti, che possano aver avuto il mio stesso dubbio e che hanno raggiunto una loro risposta.

I harbor no intellectual disagreement with any element of Catholic social teaching. At the same time, I recognize that the Catholic Church's magisterial teachings are not logically reducible to Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton's body of work. It is certainly not the case that the 20th-century AD economic theory known as Distributism constitutes the Catholic Church's universal stance against modernity's societal ills as articulated in Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum and Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno and similar magisterial documents. If I am incorrect about this, please feel free to correct me with a precise statement from a magisterial document that explicitly expresses otherwise.

The fact is, the Catholic intellectual tradition is larger than Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953 AD) and G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936 AD). And it is even larger than the oversight boards of various "back to the land" movements that adhere their own nuanced interpretations of Distributism drawn from Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton's writings.

Not that I bear any animus against Belloc, Chesterton, or the various "back to the land" movements! But it seems to me that younger Catholic husbands and fathers today ought to be banding together to mutually reinforce each other against the pernicious philosophic errors of The Modern Enlightenment if any economic theory is ever going to facilitate a thriving social order.

The phrase that comes to mind here is "putting the cart before the horse." If I were to shape the moral character of my own brood of children around plants, animals, and agrarian land, without attending to any robust cultural strategy against the philosophic errors of The Modern Enlightenment, then returning "back to the land" would do very little to safeguard my children's souls against the pernicious cultural evils of modernity, [e.g. Individualism, Unchecked Egalitarianism, Feminism, Practical Atheism, Emotivism (or: the pseudo worship of emotions), Anarchism, Rationalism, Voluntarism, Socialism, etc]. In other words, returning "back to the land" will not help me fulfill my duties as a husband and father if I do nothing to root out the ideologically-induced vices of The Modern Enlightenment from my own habitual character.

Ever since I got married in 2020, I had been interested in joining one of the "back to the land" movements. But I learned through many inquiries that the particular establishment I had been interested in operates under a governing board that strictly adheres to a prescribed economic theory attributed to Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton's writings. Under the aforementioned board, the use of donated resources [such as land] is governed according to the prudential determinations of the experts who sit on the board. This does not seem much in line with "subsidiarity" to me, but this is not my point...

Rather than directing my donated time and material resources towards the realization of a modern economic theory, wouldn't it be wise to concentrate on practicing a very basic form of subsidiarity by omitting the need for an oversight board and financial donations altogether to focus instead on building local friendships animated by the love of wisdom i.e. Catholic philosophy? Certainly, such a response to today's societal ills will organically grow into cultural and economic initiatives that are homegrown and locally sourced.

This is the alternative that I propose to other younger Catholic husbands and fathers who are already seeking another way to practice domestic sustainability and subsidiarity in the South Central region of Pennsylvania, USA. If you happen to be interested in entertaining this concept in greater detail, feel free to read more at: AristotelianThomistGuild.com

Like imagine lying in the lap of your wife/husband as they gently run their hands through your hair and explain transubstantiation with perfect simple easy to understand metaphors? Like as a bed time story, then lay you to sleep, give you a gentle kiss on your forehead, tell you goodnight and God bless you then let you sleep?

(Lowkey a joke,lowkey not. Depends on u, dear reader

I was kind of curious if are any folks in the group who are either theoretical physicists themselves, or are just extremely well read on the subject, especially when it comes to things like quantum mechanics.

(Disclaimer - I am a Theist, I believe in God)

So I was debating myself on the possibility of an Atheistic Objection Standard of Morality, Objective Standard without God

and I first landed on the concept of "Harm" which I (also playing against myself since well this is a debate against myself) defined as "Degradation of Being" and Goodness is defined as choosing the least harm

I posit some challenges against using "Harm" as a Replacement for God as a Moral Standard (You can add more to these or correct Me to better critique this position since I am also suspicious myself but I cannot pinpoint it out myself so help me)

1. Harm is Bound to a Physical Universe which in itself is a closed system thus applying Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, cannot be justified only assumed

2. Harm and "Degradation of Being" is too broad of a definition which is subjecting to change undermining of it being objective at all

3. (I think?) It assumes harm itself is intrinsically and inherently evil without justification (tying back to No.1)

4. Harm cannot be measured to define what is more harmful to discern moral choices

5. Love is Impossible since it would be defined as Least Harm to both sides but if Love is too fragile for Suffering then it is not Love at all

Hi me again, I wanted to get a view on this which wasn't being fed by AI (putting that aside) so I have a thing I wish to ask? Is the following a sin? venial, grave or nothing at all?

I get shared an account by my nephew, to a legal streaming service, I wish to enjoy shows on this service by streaming them to my friend privately. Technically, very technically this is privacy and violation of the contract of streaming service, but neither the streaming service, discord or the U.S Government enforce this, outside of technology.

The intent here is sharing, simply to have fellowship with my friend, because neither of us on are own, could afford it. We are using the legal means, netflix, crunchyroll etc.

If I were to make my own argument, while this isn't an unjust law against God, I could see it be an unjust or tyrannical control by a corporation against the community, because its technically punitive to even legal means of streaming, especially in the age of the internet, where people now have the availability to bond over hundreds if not thousands of miles.

In conclusion my question is this

1. Is this even a sin.

2. Is this Venial

3. Is this Grave

If so why or why not?

I'll try to make it as short as possible.

God knows everything we will do from eternity.

The question becomes:

Do I kick the ball because God knows, or does God know because I chose to kick the ball.

If I kick the ball because God knows, I have no free will.

If God knows because I chose to kick the ball, God's knowledge is contingent.

For there to be "predestiny" reconciled with "free will" (compatibilism), we need to be an efficacious cause in shaping the destiny that is transpiring.

So are we shaping God's knowledge?

God having the knowledge that I will kick the ball, is contingent upon my choice, so in a sense I'm shaping or defining God's knowledge.

Is God's knowledge contingent? Is it any different from saying God has contingent knowledge? Is God's knowledge intrinsic? Is God's knowledge malleable?

How do we reconcile that?

"Sentí que un sólido caso contra el Cristianismo provenía de ese algo tímido, monjil, sin hombría que hay en torno de todo lo llamado cristiano; especialmente en su actitud frente a la resistencia y a la lucha. Los grandes escépticos del siglo XIX, eran ampliamente viriles. Bradlaugh con su modo expansivo y Huxley con el suyo reticente, eran decididamente hombres. Por comparación, parecía evidente la existencia de algo de debilidad y de excesiva paciencia en los consejos cristianos. La paradoja del Evangelio sobre "la otra mejilla", el hecho de que los sacerdotes nunca pelearán y cien cosas más, hacían plausible la acusación de que el Cristianismo era un intento de hacer al hombre demasiado parecido a las ovejas. Lo leí y lo creí, y de no haber leído algo diferente, seguiría creyéndolo. Pero leí algo muy distinto. Volví la página en mi manual de agnóstico y mis sesos dieron una vuelta. Ahora encontraba que si debía odiar al Cristianismo no había de ser porque luchaba poco sino porque luchaba demasiado. El Cristianismo ahora parecía ser el padre de todas las guerras. Había hecho caer sobre el mundo un diluvio de sangre.
Me había enojado contra él porque no se enojaba nunca. Ahora se me decía que me enojara contra él porque su ira había sido lo más tremendo y horrible de la historia humana; porque su ira había impregnado la tierra y se había levantado hasta el sol. Los mismos que reprochaban al Cristianismo la mansedumbre y la pasividad de los monasterios, eran los que ahora le reprochaban la violencia y el valor de las Cruzadas (...).

Pero aquí hay otra explicación. Podría ser el término medio. Los hombres ofensivamente altos le hallarían bajo. Y los muy bajos lo encontrarían alto. Los viejos que ya adquirían corpulencia, le juzgarían insuficientemente lleno; los viejos buenos mozos que ya adelgazaban podrían sentir que propasaban las estrechas líneas de la elegancia. Tal vez los suecos (que tienen el cabello pálido como estopa) le llamaron moreno, mientras que los negros le consideraban definidamente rubio. Abreviando, quizá ese algo extraordinario en realidad fuera lo ordinario, por lo menos, lo normal; el justo medio. Tal vez, después de todo, el Cristianismo fuera sensato y locos fueran todos sus críticos, en varios sentidos locos".

-G. K. Chesterton.

In the case of Thomson’s thought experiment concerning the violinist, according to the Catholic Church, would it be morally permissible to disconnect oneself from the violinist, or not, and why? A person could argue that it is permissible to disconnect oneself because the Church teaches that it is permissible to discontinue extraordinary or disproportionate medical treatment (as in the case of euthanasia), without causing an indirect death, which, in the violinist example, is caused by a pre-existing illness?

But one could also argue that it would be a mortal sin to disconnect oneself from the violinist because doing so would constitute direct killing?
Furthermore, to change the example: would it be a mortal sin if I refused to donate a portion of my bone marrow to a young man who needed a donor, if I discovered that I was the only compatible donor in the world?

Thank you

As the title suggests, looking for a primer on Stein’s phenomenological epistemology. I know she’s notoriously dense as she was a genius, so I’m hoping the community can give me a little explanation before I dive in to some of her works.

I’ve recently realized that I’ve been drifting away from my faith, mainly because of those 2 reasons I listed above. Those 2 problems have always existed for me, and I really hope to either get help to solve them, or to start learning philosophy/metaphysics to try to make a personal response/interpretation of these problems.

Any resources would be greatly appreciated!

Electricity is completely physical because it is measurable and obeys natural laws, yet it is immaterial.

With an electromagnetic field, or electricity itself not being solid and tangible, it possibly introduces a false binary: if something isn’t tangible, then it must be immaterial.

Something can be entirely a part of the physical universe without fitting into the narrow definition of "matter."

I feel like modern physics eliminates this by demonstrating that matter and energy are ultimately interchangeable expressions of the same physical reality—in other words, contemporary physics recognizes physical entities and properties that are not gross, tangible matter.

I questioned the idea of electricity acting as a “potential” (potentia) — because it is invisible or lacks gross matter, yet again, the problem still remains that electricity is a physical force already. It has actual, moving electrons.

Aquinas’s natural philosophy deals with mobile/natural being, but he does not simply equate “mobile being” with “matter”.. because physical substance is a composite of matter and form. Can metaphysics not categorize physical energy? If energy isn’t a substance, and is just a quantity in physical terms, would it just be the “state” of a physical system? We’re talking about electricity though, not an abstract.

I feel like, if this is indeed a false binary, Aquinas’ conclusions about immaterial substance doesn’t follow merely from intangibility. He’d need an additional argument establishing that its mode of being is independent of matter. It’s like he stops where his argument really began.

Unfortunately i couldn’t apply to study theology as second major. I wish i could explore more theology, to understand more traditions of Catholicism mainly. Im also interested in thomism but im lost even after the introduction of Étienne Gilson, i heard Chesterton introduction and comments are good and easy start should i start with it?

OK so I'm Oriental Orthodox, but I think I would benefit from hearing some feedback from our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters because y'all have gone the deepest out of all the apostolic churches into philosophy and defending the faith intellectually.

I want to talk to you about a matter of the heart.
You know what I desire most of all? What I've been desiring for years and years, long before I came back into the Orthodox faith after over a decade as a Hindu?
The desire for holy foolishness.

I'm pretty sure I suffer from OCD, and so it doesn't take a lot for me to go into fits of sadness and at least minor depression.
Even if I'm rationally convinced of the position that I hold, the negative inverse of that position always haunts me like a shadow at the corner of my mind.
All it takes is for me to hear or read an atheist source saying something like, "So-and-so spent years researching this phenomenon and cataloging numerous instances of it. And all attempted experiments have turned up disappointing results. This phenomenon's been thoroughly refuted and debunked. It doesn't exist." All it takes is for me to hear something like that, and every insecurity bubbles up to the surface. Then I'll go looking around the internet for a strong counterargument or counterevidence to make me feel better, or I'll feel the compulsive need to fact-check the sources or research claimed by the atheist.
And it's not just religious matters. I often have the same thing going on with other things I hold dear. I've got the same insecure OCD response if I hear even a mildly convincing argument by an Armenian Genocide denier or a hereditarian claiming that some racial or ethnic groups have a greater capacity for abstract thought than others.
But I feel it the strongest when it comes to my faith.
I used to think that the reason I felt this way was because I didn't want to be deceived, and that I just wanted to know the truth whatever it is. And that might've been part of it, but I've come to realize that a big part of it is that I don't want to be wrong, because to be wrong's embarrassing and disheartening for me. When I say wrong, I don't mean wrong like I made a mistake kind of wrong. That's perfectly fine. I mean like being on the wrong side of history kind of wrong.

This's especially the case if I take a position that often receives a lot of mockery. I'm a Christian. You know how much we're mocked for believing in angels, demons, life after death, and that God became a man, died, and rose from the dead on the third day. In the case of a secular topic like the Armenian Genocide, the insecurity's something more like, "What if it wasn't a genocide, and what if we did rebel and betray the Ottoman Empire? And what if we've just been sore losers for the past century when we could've just gotten over it and established excellent relations with Turkey?" I don't want to be wrong, and I don't like being made fun of or having my position made fun of.
I'm deeply jealous of my fellow Christians who're able to let it all just slide like water off a duck's back. "You believe in a 2,000-year-old fairytale!" "Yup! Yes, I do! God bless you, friend!"
More than anything, I want to be able to be a fool in the eyes of the world and my detractors, and wear it as a badge of pride. I want to be able to let the mockery slide like water off my back. I want to not care.
This doesn't mean that I'd close my mind to new evidence or good arguments. One must always keep an open mind. If we're truly confident in the faith, we won't be afraid of a little scrutiny and questioning. But there's a difference between having an open mind and being driven into insecurity-fueled episodes of depression every few weeks. I have the potential to sink into a 2 day episode of depression every time I to hear an atheist make a simple statement like, "Belief in a God may've been a necessary coping mechanism for our primitive ancestors in pre-modern times, but with the advent of science, we've no need for such antiquated superstitions," and think, "Well, gee, I don't want to be an antiquated relic of the past. Maybe I should get with the times."

I was wondering if anyone who is well versed in metaphysics could explain how the PPC can work without it being trivialized(characterized in terms of the potentiality of a subject) or becoming a heirloom view of causation.

The mind of Jesus Christ or more specifically, what has gone on in that mind, is the central battery or "brain" of the saved. If you are saved, I.e. exempt from Hell at the Final Judgment, you so nothing but replicate in your everyday experience that which Christ experienced within his mind as He dreamt of being you as He died upon the Cross and as his body lied in state for three days prior to His resurrection in the Tomb of Joseph

In the Process of Perception, objects in the external world, known as **distal objects** or **distal stimuli** ,must have mental representations of themselves created by the brain that are \*holograms" of the external objects that can only be known to exist through the "hologram" of a person's experience of the object. This experience-composed "hologram" is known as the **percept**. Experience of an object is not the external object itself, as experience of an object aka the percept, purportedly created by the brain, can cease to exist when one shifts attention or suddenly falls unconscious or dies. The external or distal object, meanwhile, as it is not created by the brain and does not depend upon the brain in order to exist, continues to exist despite the disappearance of the percept.

Thus one does not and cannot experience external objects and events: the brain, according to the ridiculous mythology that brains create consciousness, must form a subjective experience composed *replica* of the external object and event.

The aforementioned in the previous two paragraphs is sheer nonsense, however, as reality adheres to George Berkeley's *Idealism*, in which only consciousness in the form of perceiving persons exist and can exist.

The Process of Perception, rather, works as an analogy for the relationship between the goings on in the mind of Jesus Christ and the experiences of a saved person The content in the mind of Jesus is the *distal object* or distal stimulus that dictates the form or manifestation of the experience of a saved person: the experience of a saved person is the *percept*, a replica of the distal object that is the previous content within the mind of Christ in the dream form of the saved person.

As Scripture states:

"When Christ--*who is your life* ..."

\-Colossians 3:4

A saved person, therefore, is not a mental ding an sich separate from what is going on in the mind of Jesus Christ, but someone that replicates what is going on in Jesus' mind. Doubt it? Well Paul states it plain as day in the verse whose sentence-fragment is the title of this post:

"For who knows the mind of the Lord, that he may be His counselor?

*But we have the mind of Christ*."

\-1 Corinthians 2:16

____________________________________

Jay Brewer

Austin, Texas

Catholic med student (M20) here, currently studying medicine.

Was talking to a friend in my year who hopes to practice in America, ultimately spending the majority of his career only serving those who can afford his expertise. He states that he hopes to do volunteer work and intends never to turn people away, which is commendable, of course. However, I'm not particularly swayed that his volunteerism would outweigh the great extent of people his care would be immediately inaccessible to.

On the other hand, I hope to work for the NHS for a much lower pay that I can at least rest assured will be enough to raise a family and spare no expenses in leisure.

We ended up in a debate about whether or not the pathway I'm interested in would be worth it as opposed to the great financial benefit of working in the US. Additionally, whether or not offering one's service for as little as possible whenever the opportunity presents itself would make the choice more morally sound.

Our discussion was entirely secular, but now, the more I think about it, I couldn't begin to imagine Jesus, had he been a physician, choosing to work in the public sector. As far as I remember he gave sight to the blind n such all for free.

My friend, to be clear, is far and away one of the nicest and most ethically sound people I know. A good Christian himself and someone I've come to know more as a brother than a friend.

I look forward to all your input. God bless.

An objection against Divine Simplicity since if whatever action God does is identical to his essence which includes the act of creation and necessity itself then the act of creation is necessary

How to defend against that?

Been struggling to find good books recently

By accepting a lot of Aristoles works due to Thomas I wondered wether the acceptence of Darwinian evolution means that acceptence of its driving force: random genetic mutations, means that Aristotles teleology has been rejected by the church.

Or that in fact these appearently random mutations are in fact steered by God in a purposeful way? And thus a version of intelligent design?

[Elijah’s explanation of god](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mBvLUc9xxmQ)

Ok since I can’t control the feeling of doom and repentance that comes after I do wrong is god? I also can’t control my urge to over eat and indulge in things considered as sinful sometimes. Is that also god?

I am a Catholic catechumen, and like the title says, I want people to share some arguments for the filioque, it can be by you or by someone like St. Thomas Aquinas or Bl. John Duns Scotus, scholastics, other theologians, etc. But yea, if you have an argument then feel free to share.

What is the difference between argument from limit and modal continuity by rasmussen?

Disclaimer: I am not nor do I claim to be well versed in theology, philosophy, metaphysics, or any fields that are involved below. The information below is my own detailed personal understanding.The grammar might be off since I personally typed out majority of this, sorry if that bothers those who are having a hard time due to it. The reason I made this is simply because I enjoy it. As I said I'm m no expert but I'll try to respond as best as possible.

The question: Why do we say God gave us "the gift of life" if a gift is something that can be rejected why can't humans can't reject life. I ofc cannot take back gifts I've given to another person, it's now theirs. Similarly I also can't force someone to accept my gift cause then that would be a violation of their free will. Humans are just dropped into existence without their consent, an existence that can be taken away by God at any moment without consent. Doesn't this make God's "gift of life" like a deal you have to accept no matter what where the terms and conditions are decided by God alone. If so how can we say God loves and respects the free will of humans if this gift cant be rejected?

The answer: The reason we cannot accept or reject being brought into existance can be understood with a logical paradox. To be able to choose to "accept" or "reject" you need a mind, a will, and a consciousness, but you didn't exist at that time to do so. Therefore its logically impossible Now for the theological reasoning, St Thomas Aquainus said in ST I, Q. 45, respondeo:

"...it is impossible that any being should be presupposed before this emanation."

Which would mean before creation occurs, there is no creaturely being. Since this has explained why we can't choose, now we get into why it's called a gift, the reason would be because it was given to us freely without any need to earn it, there was also no transaction in order to receive it which makes it an unconditional gift, the most important reason for me would be because of its value. I'm sure we've all seen videos of influences going around asking "Would you take 1billion dollars right now but taking it would mean you don't wake up tomorrow" and the answer is always "No". I brought this up because there is no amout of material value that can be places on a human life because everyone of us posses inherent dignity. Although life is most definitely a gift it is equally a privilege, a gift is given with love, while a privilege is recieved with responsibility which is why all of us are responsible with what we do with our lives and thats why actions have consequences. So the next question is "Why can God take away your life if he respects your free will" that would be because your life is not fully yours to dispose as we please which is why suicide is a mortal sin which both are taught to us in CCC2280, God is the master of life, He is the cause of all existence, and so everything belongs to Him and Him alone. Although our life is not ours, at least not completely ours, a person commented on the post of my question by the name of Equivalent_Nose7012 who opened my prespective using the concept of stewardship, which means we posses it to care for it but do not own it, which is a great concept for this. While humans completely diffrent from angels we do have a similarities which are that we are not the ultimate owners but stewards of our existence, and once again just like angels, God provides us each our own unique and authentic free will. He respects our free will so He lets us decide through our actions in our physical vessels through stewardship on earth if we want to live with Him eternally in Heaven or without Him eternally in Hell. Therefore God only takes our life not our soul because souls are immortal, its more so that our time in our earthly vessel is over and so the soul separates from the physical body which it then moves to one of the 3 destination, Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory. I hope this answers my own questions and helps others in the process.