homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Ideological Christianity is an illness which pushes people away: pope (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Ideological Christianity is an illness which pushes people away: pope
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
While I appreciate that you all are being very careful to avoid calling other people names, the tone of the conversation is heating up fast...

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Is the pope an empathizer rather than a systemizer? I don't know really.
Is God an empathizer rather than a systemizer? (I don't have an answer to this one, just trying to provoke here [Biased] )

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Surely God is a loving yet dialectical mathematician?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Sonny-boy should to be in bed by seven o'clock but today we'll make an exception.

This is applying the actual core principle "Sonny-boy should get enough sleep to stay healthy" and/or an over-ruling by an even more important principle "Sonny-boy should grow by experience, like viewing tonight's firework" - or indeed simply whim. If it is simply whim, then we are likely looking at some bad parenting here, and the seven o'clock rule will soon de facto disappear.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Little Lily wasn't supposed to play with felt-tip pens yet, but she made a beautiful drawing! Maybe we should revise this rule.

Indeed. The principle here is something like "children shouldn't be given extra opportunities to make a mess that is very hard to clean up". Little Lily has (perhaps...) demonstrated that the rule against her using felt-tip pens is not supported by this principle any longer, and so that rule now needs revision or becomes arbitrary. On the other hand, if that rule was based on the principle of keeping Little Lily healthy, given her extreme allergy to the chemicals in felt-tip pens, then a revision of rule enforcement is in order to minimise the risk of further exposure.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Real life has countless examples where rules aren't as rigid as they seemed. That doesn't mean that there are no rules at all.

Real life has an extensive hierarchy of principles and consequently rules. And indeed life has aspects where arbitrary rules dictated by whim and fashion are entirely appropriate. Calvinball sounds fun in a comic strip, but it is football which is the most popular game on the planet.

You tried your hardest to find silly examples, ridiculing serious applications with cutesy ones, which is yet another example of cheap rhetoric. Even that failed, since actually people do behave similarly even where the stakes are not very high. Yet concerning marriage the stakes are very high indeed, and while an "argument from too cute to take serious" is a rather original fallacy, it remains a fallacy.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Fucking Ada, I need a drink after that.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
IngoB: This is applying the actual core principle "Sonny-boy should get enough sleep to stay healthy" and/or an over-ruling by an even more important principle "Sonny-boy should grow by experience, like viewing tonight's firework"
How do you decide the balance between these two?

quote:
IngoB: The principle here is something like "children shouldn't be given extra opportunities to make a mess that is very hard to clean up".
But sometimes children should make a mess that is very hard to clean up. It's part of being a child. How do you strike the balance between not having to clean up after your children all the time, and giving them the chance to discover things, even while making mistakes sometimes? Can you give a clear rule that tells me where this balance is?

quote:
IngoB: Real life has an extensive hierarchy of principles and consequently rules.
Where is this clear and extensive hierarchy in the examples we discussed above? I don't see it.

Getting enough sleep to stay healthy is important for a child. Staying up a bit later sometimes in order to have a new experience is important too. Where is the clear hierarchy between those things? How do you decide on every single moment which is more important?

quote:
IngoB: And indeed life has aspects where arbitrary rules dictated by him and fashion are entirely appropriate. Calvinball sounds fun in a comic strip, but it is football which is the most popular game on the planet.
And those are the only two games that exist to you: either it's the clear rules of football or it's the chaos of Calvinball. (BTW If you'd look any further, you'd see that the rules in football aren't nearly as rigid as you thought, but that's an aside.)

quote:
IngoB: You tried your hardest to find silly examples, ridiculing serious applications with cutesy ones, which is yet another example of cheap rhetoric.
My examples came from every single day in the life of someone who raises children. Ask any parent on the Ship.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's a perfectly fine comparison. I did not say that (some of) my beliefs are facts, I said that they are functionally equivalent to facts to me. Or as St Paul says "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Heb 11:1). My point was not that I can prove the indissolubility of marriage in the same way that I can prove the existence of Australia. ...

Yebbut. Your reason for saying indissolubility is the functional equivalent of a fact, is that it is Catholic teaching. You can't then say with any consistency of the Pope that if he changed Catholic teaching in a way which you didn't agree with, you
quote:
would turn sedevacantist faster than you can spell 'infallible' backwards.
That would be to use your own private judgement to evaluate the Pope, and so Catholic teaching.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sometimes we use our intuition, don't we? We see that the kids have made a mess, but something tells us that sometimes they need to do that. But is that intuition based on rules? I'm not sure, maybe a dialectical ability to use the opposite to a rule.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Fucking Ada, I need a drink after that.

Necrophilia is hard work... [Razz]

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
How do you decide the balance between these two?

Ultimately by the predicted overall effect on the child's future well-being and development. Not that one would usually work through some formal prediction scheme, or anything like that. But that is what conscientious parents "keep in mind".

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But sometimes children should make a mess that is very hard to clean up. It's part of being a child. How do you strike the balance between not having to clean up after your children all the time, and giving them the chance to discover things, even while making mistakes sometimes?

I think you will find that I sneaked in a rather important qualifier, based on parental experience: "extra".

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Can you give a clear rule that tells me where this balance is?

No, I cannot tell you with precision how much mess would be good for your child. But I can tell you that your argumentation was once more based on principle, namely that children need a "chance to discover things, even while making mistakes sometimes," in your own words. And in turn, the balance that you wish to find aims at another principle, the one already mentioned above, namely that we wish well-being and good development for a child's future.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Getting enough sleep to stay healthy is important for a child. Staying up a bit later sometimes in order to have a new experience is important too. Where is the clear hierarchy between those things? How do you decide on every single moment which is more important?

There is no clear hierarchy between these two, other than provided by the situation. If your child is severely sleep deprived, then the firework is less important. If your child has been resting well, then the firework is more important. But you cannot make these situational judgements without appealing to a higher principle (if subconsciously), namely that one should supply an environment conducive to healthy (brain) development. Both a sleep and stimulation will be needed for that, and so you will be favouring one principle over the other based on your prudent evaluation using a higher principle.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
And those are the only two games that exist to you: either it's the clear rules of football or it's the chaos of Calvinball. (BTW If you'd look any further, you'd see that the rules in football aren't nearly as rigid as you thought, but that's an aside.)

What sort of stupid question is that? Well, I guess my example was confusing. I was proposing football as an example that rules based on whim and fashion can be entirely appropriate! For of course there is no obvious principle that determines football, it is simply a historical product of whim and fashion. Whereas I was mentioning Calvinball as an example of a game with a clear principle. Admittedly, this was confusing because the principle in question is the absolute rule of Calvin's (and Hobbes') whim. But anyway, my point was that rules based on whim and fashion are essential to many aspects of human life, like games, art, table manners, ... I'm not at all saying that everything must be ruled by principle.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
My examples came from every single day in the life of someone who raises children. Ask any parent on the Ship.

I am a parent of a - so far - healthy and happy eight year old.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"Sonny boy should get healthy amounts of sleep" isn't a rule it's a principle. Turning principles, which are values-based guidelines, into inviolable rules is certainly ingrained in human nature in these dark days, but I wonder if it's accurate to project it onto God as part of his m.o.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
IngoB: Ultimately by the predicted overall effect on the child's future well-being and development.
I find that rather vague. I don't think that parents can predict that, even imperfectly, or that there is even a measure for that. I'm not convinced that this rule would help to resolve this situation, even if the parents had access to perfect information about the effects of their actions.

Also, what if it would have an overall positive effect on a person's well-being and development if they would be allowed to remarry? I know some examples in which this very clearly seems to be the case.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Sonny boy should get healthy amounts of sleep" isn't a rule it's a principle. Turning principles, which are values-based guidelines, into inviolable rules is certainly ingrained in human nature in these dark days, but I wonder if it's accurate to project it onto God as part of his m.o.

Thanks for that helpful clarification. I noted that my children did what we asked until their ages reached double digits. We then went through the issues of reasoning, bossing, discipline, and learned rather clearly as parents that they did developmentally better, i.e., had better relationships with us and others, and better self esteem, if we allowed freedom to make choices within sensible bounds. Who decides on sensible bounds? It is best if the individual does. But then we've been influenced a bit by aboriginal ideas, where the white person takes the child off the table they are starting to climb on, and the First Nations person helps the child up and spots them in case of a fall. This sort of approach gets interesting when your child go through their teens and 20s.

Would God want us to take the toddler off the table or spot them?

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
a consistent and clear doctrine about marriage and coherent ethical principles.. ..would, of course, be thoroughly ideological.

On the other hand, if such an approach was not based on some substantive principle, then it would indeed be non-ideological, and that would be a bad thing.

I think we have two related but different meanings of "ideology" here.

One meaning is something like "governed by a system of ideas" and is thus close to "principled". One might even conjugate an irregular verb:
- I have principles
- You are intellectually consistent
- He is ideological.

But on that meaning, ISTM that anyone who is religious (rather than merely spiritual) is ideological - they approach the meaningful questions of life through a system of religious ideas. In which case to denigrate "ideological Christianity", as the Pope has, is to denigrate all Christianity; this is probably not his intended meaning.

The other meaning seems to me to describe someone acting from commitment to an idea, a commitment grown cancerous, unconstrained by common sense or evidence or by any concern for the welfare of others.

If as a child your aunt gives you castor oil because you're showing symptoms of an illness for which castor oil is a remedy, then that's an appropriate response which is consistent with a concern for your welfare. If she gives you castor oil every day because she believes in people taking it as a matter of principle, even if it makes you vomit and brings you out in a rash, then that's ideological. And it doesn't make her a reasonable person with whom one can debate the matter; quite the opposite.

Best wishes,

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Your reason for saying indissolubility is the functional equivalent of a fact, is that it is Catholic teaching. You can't then say with any consistency of the Pope that if he changed Catholic teaching in a way which you didn't agree with, you
quote:
would turn sedevacantist faster than you can spell 'infallible' backwards.
That would be to use your own private judgement to evaluate the Pope, and so Catholic teaching.
Of course we all have to live by our private judgement. By what else? Ultimately I have only access to my own judgement, even living according to the judgement of others is my judgement call.

To understand the role of the pope, it is perhaps best to compare the magisterium to a communal attempt to paint a mural of Christ. The popes are then like (hopefully...) particularly artistic people, whom we trust more than others to take a brush and add a stroke here or there, perhaps even sketching out an entirely new section of the painting. Most of us are instead busy colouring in some spot of the mural assigned to us. But as the painting takes shape more and more through everybody's efforts, in particular also through the efforts of the most artistic people, this starts to limit what still can be done without destroying the picture that is taking shape. If now some supposedly highly artistic "pope" starts to paint big, ugly lines right across the face of Jesus, where lots of effort have gone in before to render a wonderful countenance, then one does not have to be a highly artistic "pope" oneself to tell him to stop. It is sufficient that one has some appreciation of the art, that one's eyes are open to what has been painted already.

In this analogy then, the mistake of Protestants is not to call some crazy "pope" artist to order, if he has started messing up the mural big time. That's fair enough. The mistake is to say: "To avoid having to deal with the lead artists going off the rails, the best is if each one of us just paints their own mural, based on this early sketch called "bible" which has been handed out by lead artists long ago. After all, everybody is equally - or at least sufficiently - talented to paint a picture of Christ based on that. There really is no need for having just one painting, and this way we avoid attaching so much significance to lead artists like those unreliable "popes" to guide the community in their efforts."

The Catholic view would be that while you will get some nice works that way, you will frankly also get a lot of horrible paintings. But perhaps more importantly, there was actually a point to doing this communally. In fact, in some sense that was more the point than even how beautiful the mural would look in the end...

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Sonny boy should get healthy amounts of sleep" isn't a rule it's a principle. Turning principles, which are values-based guidelines, into inviolable rules is certainly ingrained in human nature in these dark days, but I wonder if it's accurate to project it onto God as part of his m.o.

It seems to me that you are equivocating on the word "guideline" there. Anyway, let us know when you are done wondering.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I find that rather vague. I don't think that parents can predict that, even imperfectly, or that there is even a measure for that. I'm not convinced that this rule would help to resolve this situation, even if the parents had access to perfect information about the effects of their actions.

If I were to force my child to never sleep more than two hours a day, you would presumably call the authorities on me for child abuse. On what grounds then, if one cannot predict the future well-being and development of a child, even imperfectly? And if even perfect information about this would not allow you to decide between ordering your child to sleep or letting it stay up to watch the fireworks, then on what grounds are you making the decision? Whim, perhaps? How would that then be a counter-example to what I have said?

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Also, what if it would have an overall positive effect on a person's well-being and development if they would be allowed to remarry? I know some examples in which this very clearly seems to be the case.

I did not propose a general principle for all people and matters, but one high level principle for child-rearing. That said, burning in hell for eternity as adulterer is not conducive to a person's well-being and development, and so the risk of that should be avoided. The nature of marriage is justified by a very simple principle: God said so, therefore it is so. If you have ever wondered why people call Him Lord, now you know.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If as a child your aunt gives you castor oil because you're showing symptoms of an illness for which castor oil is a remedy, then that's an appropriate response which is consistent with a concern for your welfare. If she gives you castor oil every day because she believes in people taking it as a matter of principle, even if it makes you vomit and brings you out in a rash, then that's ideological. And it doesn't make her a reasonable person with whom one can debate the matter; quite the opposite.

So far, so trivial. Now comes the interesting bit: how do we tell whether it is the former or the latter kind of ideology, if the symptoms are nowhere as obvious, indeed fundamentally unobservable (because this plays out in the afterlife)?

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Sonny boy should get healthy amounts of sleep" isn't a rule it's a principle. Turning principles, which are values-based guidelines, into inviolable rules is certainly ingrained in human nature in these dark days, but I wonder if it's accurate to project it onto God as part of his m.o.

It seems to me that you are equivocating on the word "guideline" there. Anyway, let us know when you are done wondering.

I know English isn't your native language so I'll explain. I'm not wondering at all. I know it's not accurate to project our personality quirks on God.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
IngoB: If I were to force my child to never sleep more than two hours a day, you would presumably call the authorities on me for child abuse. On what grounds then, if one cannot predict the future well-being and development of a child, even imperfectly? And if even perfect information about this would not allow you to decide between ordering your child to sleep or letting it stay up to watch the fireworks, then on what grounds are you making the decision? Whim, perhaps?
You know what, I agree with you on one point. The well-being of the child should be the most important factor in making decisions for our children. I don't think that this will get you there in terms of a criterium though.

Let's go back to our example. It's New Years Eve, the rule is that your child should be in bed by 8, but he asks if he can stay up late to see the fireworks. Do you allow him, or don't you? Both options bring potential good and potential bad to the well-being of the child. I don't think believe there even is an objective measure by which we could weigh them. I don't think that well-being is some scalar (or even vectorial) entity which we could measure if we just had enough information.

But what I find most interesting about your argument is this. It seems to me that as a parent, you broadly have two options in this situation.

Option A: a rule is a rule is a rule. Your child knows that it should be in bed by eight, so this it is.

Option B: you have the well-being of your child in mind, and based on your experience with the child you try to make an educated guess on whether it would be better for his well-being to make an exception to the rule on this occasion.

In your previous posts, you seemed to prefer Option B. Am I right? Because I'd agree with you that this would be the best option.

However, the Roman Catholic Church always seems to choose Option A. And on the Ship, you have invariably been defending this option.

[ 01. November 2013, 22:11: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, for the days when being principled was considered a positive trait.

Edit: I can say for a fact that Roman Catholic moral teaching does not propose arbitrary enforcement of ethical principles in situations when it is genuinely harmful. Circumstances is one of the central aspect of a moral action, after all.

When you, Le Roc, are doing is differing on what constituted harm. Roman Catholic moral teaching considers hindering natural reproductive functioning in sex harm, in that it subverts the proper ends of sexuality.

[ 02. November 2013, 00:41: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Edit: I can say for a fact that Roman Catholic moral teaching does not propose arbitrary enforcement of ethical principles in situations when it is genuinely harmful. Circumstances is one of the central aspect of a moral action, after all.

Sure.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Do you not believe, MT, that there are certain sorts of actions which cannot be ordered to good?

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Zach82: Oh, for the days when being principled was considered a positive trait.
Like I said, my issue here isn't with being principled, it's with the idea that the only alternative to a 'principled' approach is chaos.

quote:
Zach82: Edit: I can say for a fact that Roman Catholic moral teaching does not propose arbitrary enforcement of ethical principles in situations when it is genuinely harmful. Circumstances is one of the central aspect of a moral action, after all.
I don't see IngoB giving much room to circumstances, for example in the rule about not being able to remarry.

quote:
Zach82: When you, Le Roc, are doing is differing on what constituted harm. Roman Catholic moral teaching considers hindering natural reproductive functioning in sex harm, in that it subverts the proper ends of sexuality.
I'm not really trying to discuss the content of the RC rules here, but the way these rules are treated.

[ 02. November 2013, 01:18: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And I was pointing out, LeRoc, that Roman Catholic moral teaching does not propose that universal ethical norms ought to be applied without concern to circumstances.

Indeed, applying ethical principles properly according to the circumstances of a situation is the whole purpose of conscience.

[ 02. November 2013, 01:18: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Do you not believe, MT, that there are certain sorts of actions which cannot be ordered to good?

Letting a woman die because her anacephalic baby absolutely must not be aborted falls into that category, if anything does.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Zach82: And I was pointing out, LeRoc, that Roman Catholic moral teaching does not propose that universal ethical norms ought to be applied without concern to circumstances.
(We have a strange cross-post-editing thing going on here, so I'll answer again.)

I haven't seen any concern to circumstances in IngoB about the rules about remarrying, abortion, gay relationships...

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I won't argue with you, MT, since I have to make space for Abraham obeying God's command to sacrifice his son in my ethics. I am sure the Roman Catholics can argue the point better than I.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Zach82: And I was pointing out, LeRoc, that Roman Catholic moral teaching does not propose that universal ethical norms ought to be applied without concern to circumstances.
(We have a strange cross-post-editing thing going on here, so I'll answer again.)

I haven't seen any concern to circumstances in IngoB about the rules about remarrying, abortion, gay relationships...

You haven't proposed any ethical norms that trump the sanctity of marriage. IngoB has, though, in his talk about the grounds for annullments.

[ 02. November 2013, 01:23: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Zach82: You haven't proposed any ethical norms that trump the sanctity of marriage.
I haven't even discussed the sanctity of marriage.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Zach82: You haven't proposed any ethical norms that trump the sanctity of marriage.
I haven't even discussed the sanctity of marriage.
Fair enough, sorry for thinking this followed from the happenings of the thread. In that case, you are simply wrong to accuse Roman Catholic moral teaching of applying ethical principles without regard to circumstances.

But it DOES believe that conscience is the proper application of ethical principles, and not some vague feeling of rightness or wrongness in one's heart, as the concept is commonly understood.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Zach82: In that case, you are simply wrong to accuse Roman Catholic moral teaching of applying ethical principles without regard to circumstances.
Until you give me an example of where official Roman Catholic moral teaching regarded circumstances when applying ethical principles, your accusation is moot.

quote:
Zach82: But it DOES believe that conscience is the proper application of ethical principles, and not some vague feeling of rightness or wrongness in one's heart, as the concept is commonly understood.
There's that false dichotomy again.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not wondering at all. I know it's not accurate to project our personality quirks on God.

The "personality quirk" in question is the application of inviolable rules, apparently. So, I take it then that you believe God occasionally supports idolatry? Now and then, you think, God smiles on the exploitation of orphans and widows? According to you, God sometimes applauds religious hypocrisy? Or maybe it is rather the other way around? Maybe God is all holy, without stain, but we are not? Maybe the "personality quirk" we are projecting is the accommodation, the "good enough", the live and let live? Maybe what we are, as we are, at our best already requires God's mercy, and we are busy negotiating God down from fifty good things in us, to forty-five, to forty, to thirty, to twenty, to ten? Maybe becoming perfect as God is perfect, as perfectly impossible as it is, at least requires us to say 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!', and, well, mean it.

quote:
Originally posted by Le Roc:
In your previous posts, you seemed to prefer Option B. Am I right? Because I'd agree with you that this would be the best option. However, the Roman Catholic Church always seems to choose Option A. And on the Ship, you have invariably been defending this option.

But that is simply because everybody here is always asking about the very edge of accommodation. It's the child asking to stay up late for tenth night in a row. It's the child asking to experience playing with razor blades. It's the child insisting that it can well and truly know for itself whether taking heroin is good. There is no infinite give, there comes a point where the answer is 'no'. And people here invariably probe and probe and probe until they get their 'no'. Again, a lot like a child. Let's say you ask me whether you have to go to mass on Sunday. Sure, I will say. But what if you are sick? Well, stay at home and get well I will say. But what if I missed mass accidentally? Well, that's regrettable but not to worry I respond. But what if you have to mind the kids? Well, that's OK then, please the Lord that way I will say. But what about that urgent piece of work I need to do? Well, I will answer, if it is really that urgent, you can be excused but perhaps try to keep the Sunday free in future. But what if I just don't feel like going? No, I say, that's not good enough. You should worship God, and the Church has declared that going to Sunday mass is a necessary part of that. This really is a duty, if it is not a joy. Aha! There we go. Horrible rules, merciless Church, spiritual slave drivers.

This is not a naive place. Rarely does anybody here ask of me whether one will burn in hell just for feeling an attraction to someone of the same sex. Most people already know that I will answer "of course not". The give that can be given is taken for granted, we must immediately proceed to discussing having gay sex. And again, do I get asked whether that can be forgiven? Of course not, people here know that I will say "of course it can be forgiven". No, we will proceed to whether gay sex can be affirmed as good. And so it is also with marriage. Except that quite frankly what the Church means by marriage is by now so far removed from what people think about marriage that it is hard to even communicate about what the boundaries are that the Church is being pushed against. How much longer until even educated adults have to look up the meaning of "fornication" in a dictionary?

Anyway, I rarely have a chance here to be "nice". The thing I mostly get to do is to beat the boundaries. Fine. I think there are boundaries. And if you push against them, I will push back. That is not, in fact, the be all and end all of my faith, but if it is the be all and end all of what you want to know about my faith, then I will oblige.

quote:
Originally posted by Le Roc:
I don't see IngoB giving much room to circumstances, for example in the rule about not being able to remarry.

True. But why don't you ask me about what prayers you should say? Or about how you should teach faith to your child? Or about how often you should have sex with your wife? There's plenty of stuff where I will say "that's up to you, really" and at most point resources the Church can offer to you or to my own experiences, if you want them. You simply ask with a strong selection bias.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Letting a woman die because her anacephalic baby absolutely must not be aborted falls into that category, if anything does.

Once more the same radically selective approach: let's find the most extreme case that we can, and let's pretend that what the Church has to say about that is the only thing she ever has to say about anything...

One cannot commit evil to achieve good. Abortion is murder, the unjustified killing of an innocent human person. Therefore it is morally illicit to commit abortion intentionally. If there is no escape route via double effect (i.e., unintentional abortion), then one's hands are tied.

But this does not tell us at all that RC moral law ignores circumstance in general.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Letting a woman die because her anacephalic baby absolutely must not be aborted falls into that category, if anything does.

Once more the same radically selective approach: let's find the most extreme case that we can, and let's pretend that what the Church has to say about that is the only thing she ever has to say about anything...

One cannot commit evil to achieve good. Abortion is murder, the unjustified killing of an innocent human person. Therefore it is morally illicit to commit abortion intentionally. If there is no escape route via double effect (i.e., unintentional abortion), then one's hands are tied.

But surely, if one makes the choice resulting in the death of a woman in bearing and delivering a baby who will itself inevitably die, one has an inverted double effect, and has effectively murdered the mother. Unless it is not murder because it is a justified killing of a non-innocent human person. Which may not be how it appears to the woman.

If we are to follow God's demands, however difficult, however painful, however apparently cruel, surely it should be in a better cause than our own perfecting? Such as the good of others? At the risk of being accused of picking the bits of scripture which I like the sound of again, did not Jesus speak of people being judged by the way they have done good to those who needed good done to them, without, on that occasion, mentioning adherence to rules about other matters?

Going back to the title of the thread, an apparent insistence on imposing suffering as a vital part of Christianity is not calculated to draw people in, is it? Which might be what the Pope is alluding to.

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Once more the same radically selective approach: let's find the most extreme case that we can, and let's pretend that what the Church has to say about that is the only thing she ever has to say about anything...

How foolish of me to find an example of Catholic moral intransigence causing a woman's death to use as an example in an argument about the relative merits of having an intransigent moral code. What was I thinking?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On re-marriage:

Suppose I believe that total, irrevocable, commitment to my partner is a very romantic thing, and I like the idea. I want to promise her: "I will be your husband for life, no matter what, even if it makes me miserable, even if you break every promise you ever make to me. I will never, ever have any romantic or sexual relationship with any other human being while you live, because from this moment all that part of my life is given completely to you".

I can see an argument for saying that such a commitment is rather reckless. I can see an argument for saying that it is wrong (at least in this society) to insist that such total commitment is the only form of marriage we should allow. But is it at least possible for someone who positively wants to make that promise to do so and be morally bound by it?

Because that's what it seems to me that Catholic marriage is. If you marry in the Catholic church, with a full understanding of Catholic doctrine and full consent to it, that's the commitment that you are choosing to make. And because Catholicism is ideological, it is actually quite easy to understand that this is what you are choosing to do. It would be a major problem (and a gross injustice) if the Catholic clergy let people sign up to this sort of commitment without making sure they understood it, but on the assumption that the promise was freely made, are the people criticising the Catholic position on remarriage asserting that it is always a devil's bargain that would be worse to keep than to break?

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966

 - Posted      Profile for Cara     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
On re-marriage:

Suppose I believe that total, irrevocable, commitment to my partner is a very romantic thing, and I like the idea. I want to promise her: "I will be your husband for life, no matter what, even if it makes me miserable, even if you break every promise you ever make to me. I will never, ever have any romantic or sexual relationship with any other human being while you live, because from this moment all that part of my life is given completely to you".

I can see an argument for saying that such a commitment is rather reckless. I can see an argument for saying that it is wrong (at least in this society) to insist that such total commitment is the only form of marriage we should allow. But is it at least possible for someone who positively wants to make that promise to do so and be morally bound by it?

Because that's what it seems to me that Catholic marriage is. If you marry in the Catholic church, with a full understanding of Catholic doctrine and full consent to it, that's the commitment that you are choosing to make. And because Catholicism is ideological, it is actually quite easy to understand that this is what you are choosing to do. It would be a major problem (and a gross injustice) if the Catholic clergy let people sign up to this sort of commitment without making sure they understood it, but on the assumption that the promise was freely made, are the people criticising the Catholic position on remarriage asserting that it is always a devil's bargain that would be worse to keep than to break?

I will dip a toe into this fray again, somewhat tentatively....

This is beautifully put, Eliab. I think most of those criticising the Catholic position on remarriage would nonetheless agree that this kind of committment is the Christian ideal of marriage. This is the spirit in which marriage should indeed be entered into.

But. We cannot tell the future. So the wife (in this example) could break promises and do many terrible things and render their marriage a hellish place and require, after much effort to salvage things, separation for the good of everyone especially the children....so far, so permissible in the Catholic church. But then, time passes, the husband, who made his vows in all sincerity, becomes lonelier and lonelier...longing for another chance to build a loving relationship and use the God-given gift of sexual love in a healthy way....and he meets someone else and falls in love with her....he is a sincere Catholic who wants nothing more than to live rightly in the eyes of God....

those who assert that the Catholic Church is too rigid on the remarriage rule would say, shouldn't this man be forgiven the breaking of his original vow? given that the wife broke the relationship first, given that it is irredeemable, given that he is not called to celibacy--well, Ingo might say he is, now; but it would be an enforced celibacy, rather than the chosen celibacy of a priest or nun whose primary relationship is with God....this man never chose the celibate path but rather the path of marriage. Not his fault it all went wrong. Surely the merciful thing is to say, well, it is less than ideal to remarry, but you may do so and not be considered a sinner because you have tried your very best and the circumstances have changed beyond your imagining.

On the other hand: if a Catholic, in full knowledge of what Catholic marriage means, makes this vow (which he/she does in a Catholic marriage), then I suppose it was a free choice. And no-one is forcing them to have a Catholic marriage.

So, if the church isn't going to change, perhaps we can simply say, well a Catholic who doesn't think they would be able to stick to the vow come hell and high water should not get married in the Catholic church. They'd have to make the difficult decision to leave.

Then they could marry as most of the rest of us do--"I fully intend to be your husband/wife for life, whatever happens, in sickness and in health," etc. But accepting that, in the terrible and regrettable event that this ideal cannot be adhered to, after exhaustive attempts in good faith, a remarriage would not make one a sinner.

But if they leave the church, they are, as Ingo reminded me above, seen by the church as being in even greater spiritual danger, as ex-RCs, than someone who was never an RC.

(This reminder made something inside me want to shrivel up and die. And repelled me even more from my cradle church. An example of the sort of ideology the Pope meant? And yet, in Catholic terms, it makes sense--if you were taught The One True Faith and then reject it, you are knowingly turning away from The Truth.....)

So a Catholic is in a very difficult position if he/she wants to obey all the rules and remain in the faith and make vows in all sincerity that may be impossible or too cruelly difficult to adhere to.

And yet. I think most of us respect the Catholic viewpoint on the sacredness of things. The sanctity of life. The sanctity of marriage. The fact that a sexual relationship is "becoming one flesh" and should ideally be for life. The seriousness of vows.

Also, while I agree the acceptance of ambivalence and shades of grey is part of growing older, I do wonder if we are completely losing any sense of principle.

Martyrs died because they refused to give a pinch of incense to the emperor. Today, perhaps we'd say, ah, go ahead, God knows you don't really mean it, he wouldn't want you to die for that. That's an evil regime, you aren't obliged to be honest towards it.

We need to be reminded that a vow should be a vow. That integrity means acting out what we believe.

But there must be a middle way between a) sticking to an unwanted and miserable celibacy after a marriage has irretrievably broken down, and b) a chaos of promiscuity, which I think no-one here is advocating.

For me, the problem is in the Catholic Church's always being so sure that it is right and that it alone has the True Faith. That it alone knows more fully than any other Christian group what is The Will of God. That it can, God-like, pronounce on the dangerous state of one's immortal soul.

If, as Ingo says, the Pope is actually powerless to change any of these fundamental doctrinal issues, because that would be to deface the portrait of Christ that the church has built up over centuries (though who knows if this portrait is actually "true"--made by humans after all)--then his words about ideology being an illness can't have much of a practical result for living a Catholic life. They make the church seem more human and more appealing, though.

--------------------
Pondering.

Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cara

That's also nicely written. I was struck by your comment about losing any sense of principle. That seems harsh to me. I've spent a long time working with people going through divorce, and they didn't strike me as unprincipled people. Of course, most of them weren't Christian, let alone Catholic.

The 'of course' is just referring to a British context, by the way!

I suppose IngoB would say that they are all on a fast track to hell. Well, I don't know that either, but most of them wanted love, as far as I can say, and didn't want a life without it.

Certainly, a lot of people like this are not interested in Christianity, and I couldn't really blame them.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966

 - Posted      Profile for Cara     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Cara

That's also nicely written. I was struck by your comment about losing any sense of principle. That seems harsh to me. I've spent a long time working with people going through divorce, and they didn't strike me as unprincipled people. Of course, most of them weren't Christian, let alone Catholic.

The 'of course' is just referring to a British context, by the way!

I suppose IngoB would say that they are all on a fast track to hell. Well, I don't know that either, but most of them wanted love, as far as I can say, and didn't want a life without it.

Certainly, a lot of people like this are not interested in Christianity, and I couldn't really blame them.

Thank you, quetzalcoatl. I guess "losing any sense of principle" was harsh, and I didn't mean it specifically re people going through a divorce, with all the agony that usually entails.

I meant that we don't--do we?-- have the strong sense that existed in the past about vows that cannot be broken; about an ideal worth dying for; about refusing to compromise one's principles; about really firmly believing in anything.

I'm as much a product of this Zeitgeist as anyone, and I do agree with the more modern view that compassion, leniency, taking circumstances into account, etc etc ...I'm just wondering if something has been lost.

What has appealed in the past about Christianity has been the sort of chivalry of it. The quest, the ideal, the aim to live up to the impossible, the high standards....

[ 02. November 2013, 10:06: Message edited by: Cara ]

--------------------
Pondering.

Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
But surely, if one makes the choice resulting in the death of a woman in bearing and delivering a baby who will itself inevitably die, one has an inverted double effect, and has effectively murdered the mother. Unless it is not murder because it is a justified killing of a non-innocent human person. Which may not be how it appears to the woman.

Nobody has murdered that woman. Or perhaps God has, if you insist. At any rate, we are responsible for what we intend, and what we do, not for the often terrible state of the world. Nobody intended to have this woman die, everybody would have loved if she lived. (Assuming that she did die as predicted, this was a only a possible outcome in the future.) More importantly, nobody could do anything for her. And that is the point. The action "abort her foetus" is simply not available, because that is murder, and one cannot do evil to achieve good. It does not matter that we can predict her death (with some likelihood) unless we do evil. We are responsible for what we do, not for the overall state of the world.

If you think about it, this is actually a very humane view of morality. It does not put on your shoulders the duty to fix all ills of the world. It simply says to you "do good, avoid evil", in a local, personal sense. That this woman (perhaps) had to die is a tragedy, but just because you are involved in that tragedy does not mean that you are responsible for it. You are responsible for what you intend and do.

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Going back to the title of the thread, an apparent insistence on imposing suffering as a vital part of Christianity is not calculated to draw people in, is it? Which might be what the Pope is alluding to.

Well, I would hope that the pope did not intend to ditch the cross there to increase the appeal of Christianity.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How foolish of me to find an example of Catholic moral intransigence causing a woman's death to use as an example in an argument about the relative merits of having an intransigent moral code. What was I thinking?

There's nothing wrong with exploring the extremes of any system of thought. There is everything wrong with only considering the extremes and pretending that they characterise the whole. Zach82 correctly stated that the consideration of circumstances is an integral part of Catholic moral calculus. You dismissed that with a "Sure" linking to an extreme case where according to Catholic morals the circumstances cannot change the fundamental moral consideration. I don't know what you were thinking, but it certainly was not a particularly fair response.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
But. We cannot tell the future.

That, however, is the very point! We do not make vows because we can predict their fulfilment: I have foreseen that I will stick with you to the end, so I might as well say so now. That's not a vow, that's soothsaying. A vow is nothing but a declaration of war on the unpredictability of the future. It says: the future may be unpredictable - but I am not. Come what may, this is what I will do. You can rely on nothing in this world, usually, but extraordinarily the part of the world that is me will become utterly reliable to you by the force of my will. For I say to you that this is what I will do, I am putting myself forward against all else. Here you go, this will be true because I say so here and now. Bank on it. That is a vow. Anything else is not a vow. Anything else is perhaps a pleasing declaration of intentions, or soothsaying, or whatever. But not a vow. Hence if you vow "till death", then it is "till death". If you feel that you cannot set your face against the future that far ahead, well, then do not vow it. But since you can determine your life till death, you can vow till death. And if you do, then that is that. Till death.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
So a Catholic is in a very difficult position if he/she wants to obey all the rules and remain in the faith and make vows in all sincerity that may be impossible or too cruelly difficult to adhere to.

Is it really impossible or too cruelly difficult to be single? I'm not saying that being single cannot be a severe hardship, if one does not want to be single. I lived a few years of desperate loneliness, so frankly I know what I'm talking about there... But I do not think that it is insufferable even then. A total marriage breakdown forces one to be single. That's not nice. Total marriage breakdowns are not nice. But it is not the end of the world, and it is not really comparable even to actual martyrdom. It is a heavy, but bearable cross. It is the risk one runs.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
If, as Ingo says, the Pope is actually powerless to change any of these fundamental doctrinal issues, because that would be to deface the portrait of Christ that the church has built up over centuries (though who knows if this portrait is actually "true"--made by humans after all)--then his words about ideology being an illness can't have much of a practical result for living a Catholic life. They make the church seem more human and more appealing, though.

Indeed. Personally however, I do not think that the Church should advertise herself that way. In my opinion there is no greater virtue in presenting a life of faith than brutal honesty. No hidden clauses, no hidden agenda.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I've spent a long time working with people going through divorce, and they didn't strike me as unprincipled people. … I suppose IngoB would say that they are all on a fast track to hell.

First, it is remarriage, not divorce, which is fundamentally problematic. It is entirely possible that one is an outstanding Catholic with a failed marriage. Second, I've not said anything about "fast track to hell". Just how bad a remarriage is is for God to judge, not for me. What I can say is that remarriage has a specific problem, simply because it is an ongoing matter. One cannot properly repent of something one intends to maintain.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
She was sacrificed for unchristian principles.

God has NOTHING to do with it.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
One cannot properly repent of something one intends to maintain.

Like condoms and the BCP which are used by 70% of RCs in my province? Educated people see some of these rule and ideas for what they are.

This calls to the attention, the imperfection of humans and the world. Do we commit an evil or allow an evil to exist for the sake of preventing another evil.

Departing from marriage for a minute, and I'm not wanting this to bed derailed to a dead horse topic. Consider the abortion that must be performed or the mother will die. Even RCs will allow this to occur, except perhaps in some unusual ideological contexts such as Ireland's Savita Halappanavar. But psychological well being is not very important, particularly when historically it is women who suffer the most.

I suspect the RCs will eventually change some of their doctrine and ideas. They have before. it just takes them a long long time. Maybe this pope will begin a push, a few more old fogey cardinals will die off, some better ones will be appointed, and they'll update themselves again. It must always be realized that the giant debating society of the college of cardinals is made of people. People who probably want to do good, but also have motivations common to everyone else: status, reputation, money, sex, control.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think in the case of the woman who died, the Catholic position is dishonest. It's not that we had a choice between an evil, killing the foetus, and a good, letting it live. We had a choice between two evils, killing the foetus, or letting the mother die. Those are both an evil. The idea that committing murder by omission is better than committing murder by commission is certainly not an obvious one. Sometimes you don't get to choose between an evil and a good. Sometimes both choices are evil. The Catholic Church's position denies this, and that's fantasy.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555

 - Posted      Profile for agingjb   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24532694

A woman jailed for having a miscarriage. Little remains to be said.

--------------------
Refraction Villanelles

Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Martyrs died because they refused to give a pinch of incense to the emperor. Today, perhaps we'd say, ah, go ahead, God knows you don't really mean it, he wouldn't want you to die for that. That's an evil regime, you aren't obliged to be honest towards it.

Equivocation. Hey, it worked during the English Reformation, right?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This troubles me greatly I must admit. It appears that Christ through John, John primus inter pares at least in proclaiming the love of the God of love, Love, said that it was, is better to be butchered by Domitian, watch one's children butchered before ones eyes by implication, for not being pragmatic about him. Even Rob Bell agrees. Or did.

We are NOT to compromise with Domitian. Because once we start with a pinch of incense we assent to our sons performing his drone strikes. Where does rendering unto Caesar or taking the mark, or the number or the number of the name of the Beast begin and end?

My lurid awfulization is NOT likely to happen and wasn't a majority Christian experience I realize. Revelation 2-3 doesn't cover it and 13 implies it's better to be an outcast, to join the underclass, to starve with ones children rather than sell out to theo-capitalism. Although there were obscene persecutions by the state starting with Saul a generation before Nero, which involved the vilest of Holocaust scenes, involving Christians and their children.

So working this out in my drunkard's walk here, I'm less troubled, but it will return.

Because I'm troubled continuously in part by Christians bringing martyrdom upon themselves in the Islamic world, for example (or India or China), not for being ... martyrs - witnesses - of the way of Jesus. Christians shot back in Maaloula.

If there is any uncomfortable ideology, it is the incontrovertible one of passive resistance to all other ideology. Especially in the body of Christ.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258

 - Posted      Profile for art dunce     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
One cannot commit evil to achieve good.
What about "just war"?

--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.

Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's an Anglican commentator in the Guardian who seriously suggested that Catholics who want to be part of a less ideological church could simply join the CofE. But this option is only available in England, presumably.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2013/mar/12/liberal-catholic-could-be-anglican

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There's an Anglican commentator in the Guardian who seriously suggested that Catholics who want to be part of a less ideological church could simply join the CofE. But this option is only available in England, presumably.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2013/mar/12/liberal-catholic-could-be-anglican

I, personally, am getting sick of the "Catholic-lite" account of Anglicanism. God forbid people join an Anglican Church because they believe it is heir to the promises Jesus made to his Church.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As far as England is concerned, what should be the key decider for them shouldn't be romanticism or any of the other things in the article but whether they believe in papal authority. On every other basis, The Church, for all it's faults which are many, the one that is lineally descended from those who first brought the faith to these islands, is us. It rejected papal authority in the C16 and the Roman Catholics were those who said papal authority was so fundamental to the faith that it was a denial of that faith not to submit.

On that basis, in England, rather than, say, France or Spain, it's a bit illogical to be a questioning Catholic. [Confused] [Ultra confused]


In practice of course, what decides for most of us which door we go through on a Sunday, if we go through one at all, is what door our parents and grandparents went through.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is no such thing, art dunce, not in Jesus. It is a complete oxymoron. The finest and most deluded we have ever come up with.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
She was sacrificed for unchristian principles. God has NOTHING to do with it.

… in your personal opinion, which has no particular authority.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Like condoms and the BCP which are used by 70% of RCs in my province?

I'm not quite sure how one would use the BCP for contraception? For use as a barrier method it seems a bit … voluminous. I do not know how to fold paper condoms from its pages, and those would be rather painful to use. Perhaps as a kind of symbolic chastity belt, strategically placed over the genitals? Or maybe I'm over-thinking this, would you just wilt the partner's desires by reciting from its pages?

At any rate, I doubt 70% of RCs use the BCP in some kind of official liturgical function, where that could be an issue. If they want to use the BCP as inspiration for private prayer, then I would consider that as a somewhat odd choice but not usually a sinful one. As for the use of condoms, it is hardly news that sex is the most common occasion for sin. One can however stop using condoms, so there's no particular issue there as far as repenting goes. If you want a relatively close analogy to remarriage in the field of contraception, consider vasectomy. Can one repent of the snip without attempting to reverse it?

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Consider the abortion that must be performed or the mother will die.

That does not render the abortion morally licit as direct means. One must not do evil to achieve good. In some cases one can argue that the abortions occurs as unintended, though foreseen, side effect of the treatment that saves the mother. Then it is licit by virtue of 'double effect'. It is a fine line to tread, but an important one nevertheless.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I suspect the RCs will eventually change some of their doctrine and ideas. They have before.

They have not, at least not in the sense that you hope for.

quote:
Originally posted by no mousethief:
I think in the case of the woman who died, the Catholic position is dishonest. It's not that we had a choice between an evil, killing the foetus, and a good, letting it live. We had a choice between two evils, killing the foetus, or letting the mother die. Those are both an evil. The idea that committing murder by omission is better than committing murder by commission is certainly not an obvious one. Sometimes you don't get to choose between an evil and a good. Sometimes both choices are evil. The Catholic Church's position denies this, and that's fantasy.

The RCC does not deny in the slightest that all outcomes here are evil. The RCC denies that you can do something about those evils, without committing evil yourself. The RCC does not subscribe to your consequentialist account of morals, which tries to compute the best or least bad outcome of all available actions and then hails this as the moral choice. It has a deontological approach, which considers the morality of each action by and in itself, based on natural moral and Divine moral law. Of course, also in such a system a choice for the lesser evil can arise, if what we do (or fail to do) is neutral but the outcome is (more or less) evil. However, this is simply not the case here. Purportedly, the only way to save the mother is to murder the foetus. Murder is not an allowed action, it is intrinsically - by and in itself - evil. This ends the deontological moral calculus. There is nothing left to do, as much as we would like to do something. Sometimes people get sick and die, that we could cure one dying person by killing another does not mean that we ought to do so. Or at least that's the position of the RCC, and I agree with it.

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24532694 A woman jailed for having a miscarriage. Little remains to be said.

Really? I assume a lot would remain to be said, until such injustice is ended. Meanwhile, politics and law do not suddenly become identical with morals and religion, just because that fits your rhetorical purposes for once.

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
quote:
One cannot commit evil to achieve good.
What about "just war"?
The usual conditions for "just war" are basically a spelling out of "double effect" for this case. Key is the "just cause", which basically requires a "wrong received". It is the defence against this wrong that is the direct aim of the war effort, the evil done to the enemy is the (foreseen) side effect. Consequently, "kill the enemy" is not a just war command, whereas "throw the invaders out of our country, even if it means killing some of them" is. An important qualifier in this context is that political authority is considered as establishing a real moral hierarchy before God. That is to say, just war is not a matter of every soldier justifying every shot fired. It is a matter of those in power making a just (or unjust) decision to go to war.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:


quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If as a child your aunt gives you castor oil because you're showing symptoms of an illness for which castor oil is a remedy, then that's an appropriate response which is consistent with a concern for your welfare. If she gives you castor oil every day because she believes in people taking it as a matter of principle, even if it makes you vomit and brings you out in a rash, then that's ideological. And it doesn't make her a reasonable person with whom one can debate the matter; quite the opposite.

So far, so trivial. Now comes the interesting bit: how do we tell whether it is the former or the latter kind of ideology, if the symptoms are nowhere as obvious, indeed fundamentally unobservable (because this plays out in the afterlife)?
Granting your point that the aspect of whether a belief is contrary to evidence & experience is harder to apply in matters religious.

There remains the aspect of imposing suffering on others for the sake of the warm glow of being true to one's own doctrines - the ideological approach. Rather than the more other-oriented approach of doing what's best for others and enduring the pain of knowing that this is not what one's intellectual system says is supposed to be the way it goes.

And if you think "caring for others" means caring that they follow your doctrines in every detail so that nothing Really Bad happens to them in the next life, then I can wish you the joy of having others treat you that way. Including aunts with castor oil.

If you think I'm wrong about what is meant by "ideological Christianity" and why it's a Bad Thing then feel free to put forward your own interpretation of what the Pope meant.

As to marriage, I think you're confusing a vow made to the spouse, with God and the community as witnesses, with a vow made to God. If the vow is to the spouse, the spouse is the one that can release them from that vow. If the vow is to God, then it's a question for the professional intermediaries between God and man to interpret God's will in the matter.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools