What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

There are 2 things at play here:

1. Moral objectivity

2. Personal culpability

An act may be objectively immoral as the act in and of itself. But the person's culpability for commiting that act, is subjective.

For example, an insane person can go into psychotics and commit mass murder. Yes, the ACT they have committed is an objectively immoral act.

But considering the person's state of mind, their culpability is lessened. That person's culpability is less than that of a a person who committed the same act but did so fully conscientiously. The insane person is held at a lower standard and should thus receive less severe punishment, if any at all.  

That is moral relativity.

No, it is not. The distinction between objective morality and personal culpability is something the Church teaches, and we definitely don't believe in moral relativity. You can say we believe in "culpable relativity" if you must, but the objective morality of actions are written in stone and are unchanging.

---

Randy molested kids?

Randy gave financial support to the Church even after he discovered they were sheltering molesters, and even as they fought a rearguard legal action to seal their records about the molesters.

He supported them materially.

I give money to the Church too, I guess that means I am guilty of materially supporting child molesters...