Thus, they weren't ignorant. They disobeyed a direct command of God.
If they didnt know of good and evil...how were they supposed to know disobedience was bad?
I don't disagree, but it is related to unnaive ignorance. A priest can hear Confessions about murder and still be unable to understand how one can murder another human being.
Well, I agree too. I think we're arguing over semantics here. I was only ever talking about naive innocence. You realize some of these men have never seen television or the internet and have all sorts of exaggerated "boogeyman" stories about the evils of them from, apparently, overbearing and overprotective mothers. Some of them seem to believe that even talking to a woman is bad, or that if you let people go to the store alone they'll start to smoke and drink. It's all very Eddy-Gein-creepy.
So, Adam became like God by knowing in the sense of sinning? Or by knowing good and evil in the sense of knowledge? Does God sin? Obviously not. They knew evil because they became aware of it.
Hmm. There must be more to it to that, because I still find it odd to say that they were able to commit evil while as yet not being aware of it. Full knowledge is a requirement of culpability.
Do you really think the guys who are behind the screens hearing the worst aspects of human behavior are "childishly naive"? They probably know more about the "ways of the world" than anyone.
Except the seminarians now
havent heard confessions yet, though a few of the ones I'm talking about will in a year or two. And honestly I cant imagine confessing to any of them or their reaction when they hear stuff. They're in for a shock.
You say that, but I have never seen it. The Jesuits were supressed, for example. They didn't draw swords and march on Rome.
No, but they did disobediently continue in Eastern Europe, for example. They also meddled in the affairs of various royal courts and such, and not always for the good of the Church...but always for the good of the Order.
However, what is being "emulated" is not the 1950's but the rules of the various orders dating back to the 1550s.
I'm not talking about the rules, though. I'm talking about the interpersonal atmosphere. I could easily imagine a place where everyTHING was the same, where the rules and daily schedule and practices were all the same, but where everyONE was different, was a different type of person.That's what frustrates me. There seems nothing essential about that life that requires that sort of person, though I understand why they would be attracted to it. But a self-selected homogeneity is not good, and is self-perpetuating because they will drive others away even though it is a historical accident that the distribution of personalities turned out that way.
The seminaries were filled with liberals a few decades ago. You wouldnt say being liberal was essential to the priesthood. It was just an accident. Well, same thing here. There is nothing essential about being like these strange young men to the priesthood...but they've established themselves demographically, and so it now seems very hard to get a wedge in to make the environment tolerable to any other type of person except very gradually.
The Congregation for Consecrated Life in the Vatican released a document
But there are some motives which are questionable, such as sameness of tastes or of mentality. In this situation it is easy for a community to close in on itself and come to the point of choosing its own members, and brothers or sisters sent by the superiors may or may not be accepted. This is contrary to the very nature of religious community and to its function as sign. Optional homogeneity, besides weakening apostolic mobility, weakens the pneumatic strength of a community and robs the spiritual reality which rules the community of its power as witness.
And I know what they're talking about. I've seen just the dynamic described here.
How is it absurd that the army protects us from other armies? If they were protecting us from fluffy bunny rabbits, that would be absurd. Their function is to protect the nation-state against those who would attack it.
It's absurd because the world wouldnt need armies if the world didnt have armies. Military is the self-perpetuating cause of military.
Police dont cause the need for police (at least, not usually). It's criminals who cause the need for police. But we only need armies BECAUSE of armies! It's ridiculous. It's makes it seem as if warring is an end in itself.
One of the requirements of being a priest is to be free of physical defect. If they wanted to clean up the gene pool wouldn't they put the ones with birth defects in the clergy and leave the normal ones out there to spawn?
Because the defects being removed are psychological, not physical. But also...it's not just about removing defects. It's about several things including preventing a dynasty, preventing a woman shortage, population control, etc. Having a class of men without children...serves a variety of sociological purposes. The Chinese emperor knew it. You will find a voluntary or involuntary "eunuch class" in pretty much every society. Do we really want our priests to be just our culture's equivalent of the court eunuchs?