FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Willful Ignorance over the Pope's Remarks
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(11-21-2010, 05:05 PM)Jitpring Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-21-2010, 04:54 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-21-2010, 04:49 PM)Jitpring Wrote: [ -> ]He said, in effect, that evil may be done that good may come of it.

I saw nothing like that in his words.  What specifically makes you think he is saying that? 

By suggesting that using a condom as a hired sex man could lead to "moralization" rather than hell.

If I were to tell you that a bank robber who regularly shoots people in the course of the robbery is making a step in the right direction when he stops shooting people, would you conclude that I approve of robbing banks?

When people are deeply involved in sin, sometimes conversion comes in stages.  They recognize one area of sinfulness that requires change.  After addressing that, they then move on to another area that needs change.  And so on.  Acknowledging that something is a step in the right direction, in no way implies that the other sins are ok. 

All that "moralization" means is there can be a process in developing one's moral sense.
(11-21-2010, 05:19 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]If I were to tell you that a bank robber who regularly shoots people in the course of the robbery is making a step in the right direction when he stops shooting people, would you conclude that I approve of robbing banks?

When people are deeply involved in sin, sometimes conversion comes in stages.  They recognize one area of sinfulness that requires change.  After addressing that, they then move on to another area that needs change.  And so on.   Acknowledging that something is a step in the right direction, in no way implies that the other sins are ok. 

All that "moralization" means is there can be a process in developing one's moral sense.

A killer plans to torture his victim to death. At the last minute he decides to kill him quickly and painlessly by forcing him to drink cyanide. He's taken a step towards morality? No. To do so would require that he didn't kill him at all. The prostitute is a killer of souls, of both his own and his client's - whether he uses a condom or not. To step towards morality demands quitting prostitution, not making it safer. "Sin no more," said He, not "If you must sin, sin more safely." The Vicar of Christ thus should have unequivocally affirmed Church teaching on contraception, and then spoken of how those who use contraception are in danger of hell. The impertinent male prostitute example should have been entirely avoided.

It's not just a matter of momentary imprudence. He surely had a long time after the interview to ask the publisher to redact that portion of the interview which is causing so much confusion, confusion flowing from the top so typical of the wretched Council.

Even better, as I've said, he shouldn't have given the interview at all.
(11-21-2010, 05:19 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]When people are deeply involved in sin, sometimes conversion comes in stages.  They recognize one area of sinfulness that requires change.  After addressing that, they then move on to another area that needs change.  And so on.   Acknowledging that something is a step in the right direction, in no way implies that the other sins are ok. 

All that "moralization" means is there can be a process in developing one's moral sense.

Yes, this.  I don't know why his comments (in context) have continued to cause confusion.  It seems pretty clear to me.  

I gave a link from a Catholic news source to an atheist friend of my husband's who had mentioned that "the pope said prostitutes can use condoms."  Even with the context and the half of the remark the mainstream media left out, his response was "Right, so the pope said prostitutes can use condoms because it will make them good people."  GAH!!   :realmad:
(11-21-2010, 05:11 PM)Jitpring Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-21-2010, 05:06 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]they are convinced these teachings "contradict" what they're actually clarifying.

Yes, the world's reaction to his words strongly indicates that he's clarified the matter. Silly me!

Yes, the world (meaning the mainstream media), both understands Catholic moral teaching very well and is very friendly to the Church and to this pontiff, so we should certainly assume they've gotten it right.
(11-21-2010, 05:46 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-21-2010, 05:11 PM)Jitpring Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-21-2010, 05:06 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]they are convinced these teachings "contradict" what they're actually clarifying.

Yes, the world's reaction to his words strongly indicates that he's clarified the matter. Silly me!

Yes, the world (meaning the mainstream media), both understands Catholic moral teaching very well and is very friendly to the Church and to this pontiff, so we should certainly assume they've gotten it right.

Would it be a story at all if he had been perfectly clear?
(11-21-2010, 05:46 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-21-2010, 05:11 PM)Jitpring Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-21-2010, 05:06 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]they are convinced these teachings "contradict" what they're actually clarifying.

Yes, the world's reaction to his words strongly indicates that he's clarified the matter. Silly me!

Yes, the world (meaning the mainstream media), both understands Catholic moral teaching very well and is very friendly to the Church and to this pontiff, so we should certainly assume they've gotten it right.

Doesn't this support jitpring's view that it would had been better not to give such interview?
(11-21-2010, 05:31 PM)Jitpring Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-21-2010, 05:19 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]If I were to tell you that a bank robber who regularly shoots people in the course of the robbery is making a step in the right direction when he stops shooting people, would you conclude that I approve of robbing banks?

When people are deeply involved in sin, sometimes conversion comes in stages.  They recognize one area of sinfulness that requires change.  After addressing that, they then move on to another area that needs change.  And so on.   Acknowledging that something is a step in the right direction, in no way implies that the other sins are ok. 

All that "moralization" means is there can be a process in developing one's moral sense.

A killer plans to torture his victim to death. At the last minute he decides to kill him quickly and painlessly by forcing him to drink cyanide. He's taken a step towards morality? No. To do so would require that he didn't kill him at all.

You do not seem to understand the concept.  In this hypothetical case, the murderer has in fact taken a step toward morality by recognizing the wrongness of torture.  He is not yet behaving in a moral way, but he has grasped an important moral principle.  If he continues to keep on learning moral principles, he may eventually be able to behave in a moral way.

(11-21-2010, 05:31 PM)Jitpring Wrote: [ -> ]The prostitute is a killer of souls, of both his own and his client's - whether he uses a condom or not. To step towards morality demands quitting prostitution, not making it safer. "Sin no more," said He, not "If you must sin, sin more safely." The Vicar of Christ thus should have unequivocally affirmed Church teaching on contraception, and then spoken of how those who use contraception are in danger of hell. The impertinent male prostitute example should have been entirely avoided.

The Pope has been a pastor of souls for longer than you have been alive.  He understands that moral development might come in stages rather than be an overnight change.  He described a hypothetical situation in which the use of a condom represents a first stage of moral development because it "might be their first act of responsibility to redevelop their consciousness of the fact that not everything is permitted and that one cannot do everything one wants."  He was correct.  He also affirmed the Church  teaching because he did say that using condoms is not moral.

(11-21-2010, 05:31 PM)Jitpring Wrote: [ -> ]It's not just a matter of momentary imprudence. He surely had a long time after the interview to ask the publisher to redact that portion of the interview which is causing so much confusion, confusion flowing from the top so typical of the wretched Council.

Even better, as I've said, he shouldn't have given the interview at all.

He was not being imprudent.  He was teaching Catholic truth.  That is part of his job.  There is not reason why he should not have used this interview do so.
(11-21-2010, 05:49 PM)Jitpring Wrote: [ -> ]Would it be a story at all if he had been perfectly clear?

It was perfectly clear so the answer to your question is yes.
No. By going ahead with the killing he proved that in fact he had made no moral progress. You don't seem to be able to grasp this.
(11-21-2010, 06:00 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-21-2010, 05:49 PM)Jitpring Wrote: [ -> ]Would it be a story at all if he had been perfectly clear?

It was perfectly clear so the answer to your question is yes.

The fact is that even something made perfectly clear can be twisted in order to sell news.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13