Moral absolutists simply hold there are things you must never do when you have a choice.  While it is not a sin to sleep with somebody against your will if you are married, it is a sin to do it freely.  They will tell you you have a duty to return what you have stolen to its owner.  They will tell you that you have no duty to give that person half your loaf.  They talk of good deeds above and beyond the call of duty.  Superogation is the word.

Superogation is a major doctrine in the Roman Catholic faith. Unsurprisingly, the law is that money be donated to the Church and it is optional to look after the poor.

Every religion - except orthodox Protestantism – has the same doctrine that there are such things as works of superogation. In Buddhism, it is not your duty to become a monk and live out the teaching of the Buddha fully. The Hindus built beautiful temples at the expense of the poor. The Muslims build nice mosques and raise families instead of being where they can do the most good.

It was the doctrine of superogation that contributed to Martin Luther’s rejection of the Roman Catholic religion. He went to confession nearly every day because he realised that it was wrong and his hell ended when he decided that salvation was by faith and faith only and that sin did not keep the saved person out of Heaven.

It is a mortal sin, a sin that makes you an enemy of God in a big way, to encourage religious error or heresy by silence or other means according to the Catholic Church. All Catholics do this all the time for not all are in the mission fields and most are ashamed to talk about their faith. Catholics reply that not everybody is called to become a missionary in that sense. They are arguing then that God calls people to sin for what better work can there be to look after those who hunger for God? They should be consistent for a change and say that sins like adultery are right for God calls some to commit them. A vocation can only be decided on rational grounds for feelings are notoriously unreliable. Their reply denies this though they say they agree.

And this is the religion that boasts of putting faith before people. God is believed in and since the law is that he comes first and is to be your only love it is clear that death and suffering must be welcomed to protect and create faith.

The honest Catholic will have a mental breakdown and despairingly see salvation as impossible if one has to avoid mortal sin to get it. With the collapse of the doctrine of superogation, everybody is declared to be a mortal sinner and there is no good work that one can do that could not have been replaced with a superior one. So, good works are virtually all mortal sins. When we are mortal sinners all the time we cannot do good for sin make your devotion to God into a sham.

I testify that the Catholic Church nearly destroyed me because of her lies for I saw through the doctrine of superogation when I first heard it. The anger of being forced by a Catholic society to remain in her made me vile.

Superogation is a basic doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Here are the questions.

The doctrine of free will is basic to the Church.  It is more important than creation in practical terms.  The religion perhaps should be seen as the religion about God creating free agents more than as the religion about God just creating.  If you say that an all-perfect God can or, worse, does give us free will to do good then is that doctrine as important as superogation or not?  Does God give us free will to keep rules only and does he not care if we refuse to do good beyond what the rules ask for?

If I refuse to give a loaf to a starving person and they die of hunger over it, that is superogation.  I am guilty of murder by negligence if I refuse to do anything when I know what will happen.  If I hope not giving the loaf kills then that is murder by intention.

If a take a loaf from a starving person who is not in danger of death I am considered immoral.

This makes no sense.

What about God and how he alone matters?  What about the declaration that certain sinners must go to Hell for all eternity?  There are many doctrines that have the potential to harm such as the Koranic condemnation of other religions. And what about the Bible God who Jesus supposedly said was his God commanding murders?  If you want to teach such doctrines that are serious business you must earn the right to.  If you teach such things you cannot be going about saying that good deed x is a duty for you and good deed y is not.  Just like a prisoner has lost the right to pick and choose good, superogation is out of the question.  Superogation even if right is not applicable to everybody's moral universe.  Having the right to be good while you don't give money to the beggar outside is a conditional right. 

Religious superogation is worse and more toxic than any other kind.  It gives people more to disagree about on superogation for it has extra rules.  And religion has different reasons for working out duties.  For example, life is seen as a gift from God therefore abortion and mercy killing are wrong for God knows what he is doing.  So a secular and religious person may agree that x is a duty but differ totally on why.  And it sounds hypocritical to say that God gives you a loaf and will praise you if you refuse to share it when it is not your duty to share.  It is an insult to God and man.

God v. Superogation

If there is a God of love who made me out of generosity, I owe it to him to give my last loaf to his child even if I have had no contact with that child ever. This contradicts the notion of supererogation.


No Copyright