Willful Ignorance over the Pope's Remarks
#71
(11-21-2010, 07:15 PM)Jitpring Wrote:
(11-21-2010, 06:30 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: A condom is always a moral evil. There can be no justification or excuse under any circumstance whatsoever for all of eternity. A condom should not exist because it is by itself an intrinsic evil and its use always evil.

It is against the morals and teachings of the Catholic Church to suggest its existence and use.

Watch out, friend. The cognoscenti will accuse you of insufficient sophistication.

You are suggesting that a piece of rubber is a sinful object in and of itself?  I already responded to the OP's statement.  Any thoughts beyond sarcasm?
Reply
#72
(11-21-2010, 07:11 PM)ies0716 Wrote: Unfortunately, Joseph Ratzinger is a lifelong theologian and philosopher.  If you've read many of his books, you know that this very nuanced style of speaking is consistent throughout his theological writings.  In all of his books, he puts a disclaimer at the beginning that makes clear that any remarks in the book are to be taken as his opinions as a private theologian, not as official teachings of the Church.

I do agree with you to an extent; it is probably not the wisest idea for a Pope to write anything as a private theologian because the modern media lacks the sophistication to understand that everything he says isn't an Ex Cathedra.  On the other hand, you have to admit that there is a lot of malice on the media's part involved to intentionally distort the Pope's words.

Yes, this studied ambiguity - what you call nuance - is characteristic of all post-Vatican 2 popes, and of course of V2 itself. Joseph Ratzinger is quite in line with this most sophisticated little tradition.

This is the second time you've mentioned sophistication, by the way. It's obviously very important to you. Popes Gregory XVI and Pope St. Pius X must disappoint you? Along with Christ Himself? The Sadducees, for example - those supreme sophisticates - are more to your liking?
Reply
#73
(11-21-2010, 07:12 PM)Jitpring Wrote:
(11-21-2010, 06:31 PM)JayneK Wrote: By going ahead with the killing he shows that he has not yet made enough moral progress.  This does not mean that he has made no progress.

I was not raised Catholic.  In my teens I became a Protestant.  This was progress, but I had not yet found the fullness of truth taught by the Catholic Church.  Even when I first became Catholic, I was in a very liberal parish that taught me some things that were wrong.  It took me years to go through the process of developing a correct understanding of Christian doctrine.  Moral development often follows a similar process.  Sometimes these things take time.

Let's say that you were an atheist who enjoyed participating in ritual murder. Say you then became a theist and joined a protestant sect which practiced ritual murder. Progress?

Yes, that is progress.  A few years ago I travelled from Ontario to Prince Edward Island.  When I was in Quebec, I had made progress.  I had moved away from my starting point and was closer to the end point.  You seem to think that being in Quebec would not count as progress because I was not in PEI yet.
Reply
#74
(11-21-2010, 07:23 PM)Jitpring Wrote:
(11-21-2010, 07:11 PM)ies0716 Wrote: Unfortunately, Joseph Ratzinger is a lifelong theologian and philosopher.  If you've read many of his books, you know that this very nuanced style of speaking is consistent throughout his theological writings.  In all of his books, he puts a disclaimer at the beginning that makes clear that any remarks in the book are to be taken as his opinions as a private theologian, not as official teachings of the Church.

I do agree with you to an extent; it is probably not the wisest idea for a Pope to write anything as a private theologian because the modern media lacks the sophistication to understand that everything he says isn't an Ex Cathedra.  On the other hand, you have to admit that there is a lot of malice on the media's part involved to intentionally distort the Pope's words.

Yes, this studied ambiguity - what you call nuance - is characteristic of all post-Vatican 2 popes, and of course of V2 itself. Joseph Ratzinger is being quite consistent with this little tradition.

This is the second time you've mentioned sophistication, by the way. It's obviously very important to you. Popes Gregory XVI and Pope St. Pius X must disappoint you? Along with Christ Himself? The Sadducees, for example - those supreme sophisticates - are more to your liking?

You're arguing from emotion.  Truth is truth, and if truth involves nuance and sophistication, so be it.  A condom is sinful when it is used to prevent normal completion of an act of intercourse. It is morally neutral when used in homosexual acts, as very ineffective finger shields, or as water balloons.  Perhaps those who manufacture them are guilty of objective sin because they know the uses to which a condom can be put.

Are you arguing that a homosexual act is made more sinful if a condom is involved?
Reply
#75
(11-21-2010, 07:23 PM)Jitpring Wrote: Yes, this studied ambiguity - what you call nuance - is characteristic of all post-Vatican 2 popes, and of course of V2 itself. Joseph Ratzinger is quite in line with this most sophisticated little tradition.

This is the second time you've mentioned sophistication, by the way. It's obviously very important to you. Popes Gregory XVI and Pope St. Pius X must disappoint you? Along with Christ Himself? The Sadducees, for example - those supreme sophisticates - are more to your liking?

I'm wondering how much reading you have done of papal documents and of theological writing.  For example. have you read the Summa Theologica?  I did not see anything noteworthy in the level of complexity in the Pope's comments on condoms. 

And "nuance" is not at all the same thing as "ambiguity" especially not "studied ambiguity."  It is a mistake to conflate these concepts.
Reply
#76
I think the problem lies with mankind's general ignorance and stupidity, not with the Pope for making these statements.
Reply
#77
(11-21-2010, 07:28 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(11-21-2010, 07:12 PM)Jitpring Wrote:
(11-21-2010, 06:31 PM)JayneK Wrote: By going ahead with the killing he shows that he has not yet made enough moral progress.  This does not mean that he has made no progress.

I was not raised Catholic.  In my teens I became a Protestant.  This was progress, but I had not yet found the fullness of truth taught by the Catholic Church.  Even when I first became Catholic, I was in a very liberal parish that taught me some things that were wrong.  It took me years to go through the process of developing a correct understanding of Christian doctrine.  Moral development often follows a similar process.  Sometimes these things take time.

Let's say that you were an atheist who enjoyed participating in ritual murder. Say you then became a theist and joined a protestant sect which practiced ritual murder. Progress?

Yes, that is progress.  A few years ago I travelled from Ontario to Prince Edward Island.  When I was in Quebec, I had made progress.  I had moved away from my starting point and was closer to the end point.  You seem to think that being in Quebec would not count as progress because I was not in PEI yet.

Let's say that, while in Ontario, you start digging. Say hell is in the center of the earth. While digging, you start walking - very, very slowly - towards PEI . You're walking and digging at the same time. You end up longitudinally closer to PEI, yes. But you end up in hell.

You haven't made progress, because progress isn't about horizontal movement; it's not about left or right. Progress pertains to the vertical, the up or down. We're either cooperating with the supernatural, with grace, or we're not.

There's no cooperation with grace while one continues to commit murder. And there's no cooperation with grace while one continues to commit sodomy. While using a condom, though his goal be the reduction of AIDS, the sodomite is still digging his way to hell.

Yes, I know that all of this will be too black-and-white for the cognoscenti, far too little nuanced for the sophisticates. The teaching of Christ was also insufficiently nuanced for the Sadducees. Ask yourselves, sophisticates, if you're in good company.
Reply
#78
(11-21-2010, 07:41 PM)JayneK Wrote: I'm wondering how much reading you have done of papal documents and of theological writing.   For example. have you read the Summa Theologica

I'm sure it's impossible that I've done as much as you. You win.
Reply
#79
(11-21-2010, 05:51 PM)kirk.andrew Wrote: Doesn't this support jitpring's view that it would had been better not to give such interview?

No, I really don't think so.  I don't think the apostles would decline to speak publicly because their words might have been - and in fact were - used against them by those with ill motives.

Is it possible the pope should have somehow been more careful with his words, this particular interview, etc?  Of course!  Everyone has acknowledged that.  Although I don't think it's certain that he even made any real practical mistake.  (Especially because we don't even have the entire text of the interview!)

And that, as a practical matter, is a completely different thing from insinuations that he speaks heresy, is a complete buffoon, that the Church should wall Herself off from the world, etc.
Reply
#80
(11-21-2010, 07:47 PM)miss_fluffy Wrote: I think the problem lies with mankind's general ignorance and stupidity, not with the Pope for making these statements.

Yes. And that stupidity is sufficiently evidenced here by a few posters who can write but alas, not read.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)