Search results

Extreme cases don’t overturn God’s Law; they show why Christian moral theology distinguishes between the moral object of the act and the culpability of the person involved. The direct killing of the innocent is intrinsically evil, but the culpability of a traumatized child is shaped by fear...

Questions about the atomic bomb involve how the principles of Christian moral theology apply to a complex historical event — not a disagreement about the principles themselves. The core moral truths remain the same: the direct killing of the innocent is intrinsically evil, and we cannot “do evil...

Christian moral theology ultimately comes from God, because it’s grounded in revelation and natural law. When I refer to “Christian moral theology,” I mean that shared framework: the way Christians have understood moral object, intention, and acts that are intrinsically evil across the historic...

The principle I’m referring to is the one used in Christian moral theology: the moral object of an act determines whether it is intrinsically evil. Abortion is the direct killing of an innocent, which is always forbidden. But stopping an unjust aggressor has a different moral object — the...

I agree that civil law can and should forbid the act. But Christian moral theology still requires us to understand why people commit the act, because God judges both the act and the heart. Making abortion illegal addresses the external reality, but it doesn’t replace the interior discernment...

The Christian moral theology against aborting a child conceived through rape—even the rape of a minor—rests on the principle that the direct killing of an innocent human being is intrinsically evil and cannot be justified by any circumstance, however tragic. The child conceived is morally...

When Christians talk about “the heart” in relation to abortion — or any other immoral act — we’re talking about the interior reality that God judges — the intentions, fears, pressures, wounds, and moral responsibility that shape the act. Abortion is objectively evil, but the interior involvement...

I understand the concerns, but that’s exactly why I keep returning to Christian moral theology rather than partisan outrage. Christians have to evaluate every issue — including abortion and every other moral question — through God’s Law and the interior reality of charity, responsibility, and...

I agree — whenever Christians speak about abortion, we have to hold together both the truth of the act and the interior reality of forgiveness, mercy, and responsibility. Calling abortion an objective evil is only one part of Christian moral theology; the other part is the charity that limits...

Christian moral theology tells me that abortion is an objective moral evil, and therefore civil law should not protect it. But that conclusion comes after the theological reasoning — not instead of it. The act is evil, and God judges the interior intent behind it. And that fits exactly with what...

I agree — Christian moral reasoning has never been only about God’s Law in isolation. God’s Law tells us the objective truth about the act, but the Christian example expresses the interior reality of charity, responsibility, and the willingness to care for the life we say is worth protecting...

Right — and that’s exactly why Christians must discern why they vote yes or no. The reason a Christian chooses yes or no cannot be separated from God’s Law or God’s judgment. The law may limit external choices, but Christian moral theology governs the interior reasoning behind those choices.

And God will surely continue to provide for you in this endeavor, if it is His will. God bless you for your good will. May we see a renewed rise in charity toward our neighbor — including those who oppose us — and a deeper practice of restraint through abstinence until one is married and...

Have you been able to adopt?

Right — the ballot itself is yes or no, but the reason a Christian chooses yes or no cannot be separated from God’s Law or God’s judgment. Civil law gives us a binary choice; Christian moral theology tells us how to make that choice.

You’re right that you’re not using Johannine categories — and that’s actually the core issue. I’m not saying your tripartite model is wrong in a broader theological sense; I’m saying that John does not use that model, and therefore John 3 cannot be interpreted through it. Inspiration doesn’t...

The connection between “flesh” and “water” in John 3:5-6 isn’t a component‑based connection and it isn’t a repentance‑based connection. John isn’t pairing “flesh = natural birth” with “water = repentance.” He’s pairing two different origins. “Born of flesh” = the life that comes from natural...

Whether one's reaction is emotional or not, Christians judge the act as objectively evil, but only God judges the interior reality. Civil law deals with the external act; Christian moral theology deals with both the act and the heart. We cannot collapse those categories.

Right — and that’s exactly why Christians have to consider both the external act and the interior reality when we talk about law. Civil law can restrain evil, but only God’s judgment reaches the heart.

You’re addressing your readers, but you still haven’t addressed the actual arguments I made. You keep repeating that the Apostles’ “source” was only the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but you have not explained how that claim fits with Luke’s own inspired statement in Luke 1:1-4 that he...