|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Ideological Christianity is an illness which pushes people away: pope
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... 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
I'm not sure that these are the only two alternatives. Since the spouse is the sacramental minister, then the vow made to the other, is a vow made to Christ, who acts in the Sacrament.
In any event, I think that there is merit in reflecting on the covenantal nature of Marriage. The scriptural notion of covenant is that it has an enduring character. That is that the parties are bound to keep it, even if the other party does not: you shall be my people and I shall be your God, even if you go whoring after other God's.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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.
This is where you slot in your own confused ideology. First we have a vicious "argumentum ad hominem", indiscriminately attributing nastiness to those who follow their conscience just because others happen to suffer. Then you expose the self-contradiction inherent in your approach most clearly. For you insist on "doing what's best for others" contrary to "one's intellectual system". Well, how do you know then what's best for others, if not by whatever intellectual system you follow? Let's be clear, whatever criteria you use to evaluate the situation, those are nothing but your intellectual system. You cannot possibly escape having one, your decisions are made by your intellect. Even if your intellectual system happens to be "I just follow my emotions", then that still is an intellectual system. Because you cannot have actionable emotions without intellectual content. If you for example feel sorry for someone you must have understood that there is someone, and that their situation is not good. The one and only thing that can be discussed here is which intellectual system is the most appropriate. If you want to make a case for an intellectual system that closely follows every sentiment that pops in one's head, fine. Go ahead.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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.
These are not my doctrines, but God's. And they are not communicated by me, but by the Church. Where this is not true, it is not the fault of God or the Church, but mine alone. And I certainly follow the Golden Rule in my wishes on how doctrines shall be applied in practice. I hence see no threat in what you say there.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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.
This pope's strength is motivation, not precision, and he is good for rallying the crowds (and perhaps the mass media), but not for theological analysis. Take the speech in question, as reported by Radio Vatican. You may think that he's advocating a moral free-styling approach there. He sure sounds that way. Except that he then explicitly references the First Letter of John for support. And that letter sure as heck makes dire reading for your average moral free-styler. And then he goes on to talk about the necessity of prayer. So if we want to make some sense of this, then probably that the prayerful Christian through his closeness to God does not sin and hence passes muster according to 1 John, yet without rigidly taking away the key of knowledge according to the gospel. Fine. That's a great motivation for us all to pray more in order to achieve a better morality, aspirational inspiration. However, it's unfortunately also impractical bollocks as far as the reality of the Church as a governing body for Catholic lives is concerned. For the entire Catholic hoi polloi, yours truly included, is not suddenly going to turn into prayerful saints who can be flexible about their morality because they are so in tune with God that whichever way they flex will be good. This is, quite frankly, exactly the sort of talk I expect from a modern Jesuit. Basically, it's an idealism that explicitly rejects dealing with realities on account of an abstracted Jesus. It's ideological Christianity. And that's sweetly ironic...
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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.
First, while marriage vows are indeed to each other, with the Church acting merely as witness, that does not mean that they are not before God. The Lord Himself has declared what such vows are to mean between His followers, and therefore the baptised who access this sacrament precisely by promising to each other are also making a promise to God. Second, I am not aware that the marriage vows contain a "till death do us part, or you release me" escape clause. Your vows are what your vows are, not whatever you would like them to have said at some later time. You could introduce such an escape clause, of course, which at least would restore honesty to your vows. However, they would then not be appropriate sacramental vows expressing the command of the Lord any longer.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... 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.
...
Is that really Catholic teaching on ethics or is it the Ingobic version of it?
There are some moral questions that are straightforward. There's a simple choice between 'what I want to do' (he/she's attractive, my husband/wife is away on business and I feel neglected) and 'what the right thing is to do' ("Resist the devil and he will flee from you"). Most of the time, we don't need any debate about these. They are temptations.
But there are others that are more complex. Usually, none of the outcomes are right. 'Save the mother or the baby' is the classic example.
It may well help you to think through the moral implications of a complex situation to break it down into sections. But if you don't then put the sections back together and look at the issue as a whole - the overall consequences for example -, or if you think there's some ethical rule that will sort out the problem for you, you are ducking taking moral responsibility for your actions.
It becomes much the same as using corban as an ethical tool to let you off supporting your elderly parents.
[ 03. November 2013, 13:19: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is that really Catholic teaching on ethics or is it the Ingobic version of it?
It pretty much conforms to the Church's teaching as expressed in all the Magisterium of which I am aware.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Is that really Catholic teaching on ethics or is it the Ingobic version of it?
There are Roman Catholic moral theologians of practically every stripe, including consequentialists.
Though RC moral theology does posit that ethics is rational, which, it seems to me, is what is at stake here.
[ 03. November 2013, 13:28: 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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QBI'm not quite sure how one would use the BCP for contraception?
[/QB]
Birth Control Pill. Internet searches combined with a modicum of thought can save you from the ridiculous.
The point is that people disobey some of the rigid ideologies isn't it.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QBI'm not quite sure how one would use the BCP for contraception?
Birth Control Pill. Internet searches combined with a modicum of thought can save you from the ridiculous.
The point is that people disobey some of the rigid ideologies isn't it. [/QB]
I thought it "Book of Common Prayer" too. That's what happens when you hand around the Ship too much.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Is that really Catholic teaching on ethics or is it the Ingobic version of it?
There are Roman Catholic moral theologians of practically every stripe, including consequentialists.
Though RC moral theology does posit that ethics is rational, which, it seems to me, is what is at stake here.
The question wasn't "Are there Roman Catholic Moral Theologians who holhpd this view?", but "is that really Catholic teaching ..." The answer is that it is.
Consequentialism was identified as incompatible with the Church's teaching, along with proportionalism and several other positions in JPII's encyclical Veritatis Splendor.
Are you suggesting the classic Catholic de ontological Moral Theology isn't rational?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is where you slot in your own confused ideology. First we have a vicious "argumentum ad hominem", indiscriminately attributing nastiness to those who follow their conscience just because others happen to suffer.
Alleviating suffering is hardly a "just because." I hope your wording here is merely accidentally cruel and not intentionally so. Although given the way the RCC has set up its moral guidelines, it would seem rather true that alleviating suffering isn't nearly as high a priority as playing by a set of very nice and precise rules.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is where you slot in your own confused ideology. First we have a vicious "argumentum ad hominem", indiscriminately attributing nastiness to those who follow their conscience just because others happen to suffer.
Alleviating suffering is hardly a "just because." I hope your wording here is merely accidentally cruel and not intentionally so. Although given the way the RCC has set up its moral guidelines, it would seem rather true that alleviating suffering isn't nearly as high a priority as playing by a set of very nice and precise rules.
Mousethief, this is precisely the problem with a part of the RC represented on the Ship by the Catechism-wielding neoscholastic Pharisees ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Rest assured there are many RCs who feel as nauseated by that sort of argumentation as many others. A faith where Logical argument based on Doctrine reigns supreme, God help us (literally)!
These people are too enamoured with their own endless capacity for pseudo-intellectual (yes, pseudo, because they fail to see the limits of rationality and the root of Christianity's ideals) that they do not see how absurd they are.
I really regret having read this thread.
You Orthodox are so much saner in many respects...
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
With the deontological approach to ethics, how does one go about telling which is the primary act and which is the side effect ? If I say that you can't stop someone invading the country by shooting people, because shooting people is bad and one cannot do bad in order to achieve good, it sounds a bit similar to the mother and baby example. How do I work out that in the abortion case, the saving the mother's life is the side effect, but in the invasion case, the saving one's country is the primary act ?
Sorry if it should be obvious but I am a bit confused by it.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
With the deontological approach to ethics, how does one go about telling which is the primary act and which is the side effect ? If I say that you can't stop someone invading the country by shooting people, because shooting people is bad and one cannot do bad in order to achieve good, it sounds a bit similar to the mother and baby example. How do I work out that in the abortion case, the saving the mother's life is the side effect, but in the invasion case, the saving one's country is the primary act ?
Sorry if it should be obvious but I am a bit confused by it.
Being a lot more sensible. Abortion is preventable and is prevented by proper birth control and making it widely available and affordable. Canada has no abortion laws at all. It is all regulated within health only. Birth control is relatively available. Lower unwanted preg rates, lower abortion than our neighbour to the south. And young people don't have more sex when the birth control is more available.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Alleviating suffering is hardly a "just because." I hope your wording here is merely accidentally cruel and not intentionally so. Although given the way the RCC has set up its moral guidelines, it would seem rather true that alleviating suffering isn't nearly as high a priority as playing by a set of very nice and precise rules.
There was no cruelty, accidental or intentional, in my remark at all. I objected to Russ' characterisation, which did not allow for the possibility that somebody might be devastated by their "imposing suffering" because they are not in good conscience able to avoid that. Russ' based his potentially highly unfair characterisation on nothing else but that somebody ended up suffering, best I can tell. That's what my "just because" stood in reference to.
And yes, alleviating suffering is not the one and only consideration in Catholic morals. You can sneer at Catholic moral rules all you want, they are as valid an attempt to achieve the moral good as any that I have seen.
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Mousethief, this is precisely the problem with a part of the RC represented on the Ship by the Catechism-wielding neoscholastic Pharisees :brick wall:
I'm sure the world needs more Catechism-rejecting illogical and uneducated Cafeteria Catholics. I'm not sure for what precisely, but since the Lord is giving us so many, there must be some way of making good use of them...
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
You Orthodox are so much saner in many respects...
... there is an idea. We could send them all over to the Orthodox and thereby hasten exponentially the end of Eastern Orthodoxy in vaguely Protestant higgledy-piggledy. I like it!
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
With the deontological approach to ethics, how does one go about telling which is the primary act and which is the side effect ? If I say that you can't stop someone invading the country by shooting people, because shooting people is bad and one cannot do bad in order to achieve good, it sounds a bit similar to the mother and baby example. How do I work out that in the abortion case, the saving the mother's life is the side effect, but in the invasion case, the saving one's country is the primary act ? Sorry if it should be obvious but I am a bit confused by it.
Double effect is just about the least obvious piece of Catholic moral reasoning. I often find it quite hard to think through myself. However, your difficulties arise here because you didn't pay attention to the qualifier I added about "proper authority" kicking the moral case "up the ladder", so to speak. The reason why a soldier is justified shooting at an enemy combatant is not because of some kind of "just war" or perhaps "self-defence" argument about that action of shooting itself. The reason why a solider may shoot is because a legitimate authority has declared a just war, making the enemy combatant complicit with whatever crimes the just war is against, no matter how innocent he may be otherwise. Just war theory hence actually operates at the level of those public authorities. And thus the question becomes what they are in fact trying to do. That is simply the "primary act". If what they want to do is "to move troops into this part of our country, currently occupied by the enemy, in order to bring it back under our control and remove the occupiers from our territory", then that is as such not an immoral act. It is a good act, or at least a neutral one, for certainly someone who has authority over the country is morally allowed to do such things. It is true that one can foresee that the occupiers will put up a fight about this, that there will be war with all its evil. But is is not the intention to "kill as many occupiers as possible, whereby as side effect we may regain control", rather the intention is to regain control whereby as side effect some occupiers may get killed. And this distinction is not just a theoretical one, but can be expressed in concrete policy. For example, to give the enemy army an opportunity to lay down its arms and withdraw makes sense only for one of these intentions, whereas to throw a nuclear bomb on the enemy even if it renders the territory useless for thousands of years makes sense only for the other intention.
Obviously there is room there for false play with intentions. So one may well wonder whether the surgeon removing the part of a Fallopian tube containing a foetus really just intends to do remove a life-threatening piece of the mother's tissue (a good act), and the resulting killing of the foetus is just a "side effect". Or did that surgeon actually want to abort the foetus (an evil act), and taking out that part of the Fallopian tube is just the means? Perhaps even the surgeon cannot really tell, because these are so intricately linked procedurally. But the principle "in dubio pro reo" ("when in doubt, for the accused") holds. We can still reasonably hold that what is being done is morally licit, even though we certainly are at the very edge of that, and so we can assume that the "accused", the surgeon, is still protected by double effect. But barely. It is IMHO entirely justified to feel uneasy about this...
[ 03. November 2013, 19:20: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There was no cruelty, accidental or intentional, in my remark at all.
I would suggest that if it were accidental, you didn't see it when you wrote it and might not see it now. You are not the judge of how your remarks strike others, they are.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Mousethief, this is precisely the problem with a part of the RC represented on the Ship by the Catechism-wielding neoscholastic Pharisees :brick wall:
I'm sure the world needs more Catechism-rejecting illogical and uneducated Cafeteria Catholics. I'm not sure for what precisely, but since the Lord is giving us so many, there must be some way of making good use of them...
False dichotomize much? Don't answer. You do.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Obviously there is room there for false play with intentions. So one may well wonder whether the surgeon removing the part of a Fallopian tube containing a foetus really just intends to do remove a life-threatening piece of the mother's tissue (a good act), and the resulting killing of the foetus is just a "side effect". Or did that surgeon actually want to abort the foetus (an evil act), and taking out that part of the Fallopian tube is just the means? Perhaps even the surgeon cannot really tell, because these are so intricately linked procedurally. But the principle "in dubio pro reo" ("when in doubt, for the accused") holds. We can still reasonably hold that what is being done is morally licit, even though we certainly are at the very edge of that, and so we can assume that the "accused", the surgeon, is still protected by double effect. But barely. It is IMHO entirely justified to feel uneasy about this...
That's actually not the way it would work. The physician wouldn't get around to considering that the fetus is relevant. Because both mother and fetus will die if nothing is done. Remove it, mother lives, do nothing, both die.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Double effect is just about the least obvious piece of Catholic moral reasoning. I often find it quite hard to think through myself. However, your difficulties arise here because you didn't pay attention to the qualifier I added about "proper authority" kicking the moral case "up the ladder", so to speak. The reason why a soldier is justified shooting at an enemy combatant is not because of some kind of "just war" or perhaps "self-defence" argument about that action of shooting itself. The reason why a solider may shoot is because a legitimate authority has declared a just war, making the enemy combatant complicit with whatever crimes the just war is against, no matter how innocent he may be otherwise. Just war theory hence actually operates at the level of those public authorities. ...
So the reason why a soldier is entitled to kill is simply because he is obeying orders? And double effect is a moral command, not because it's in scripture or the Fathers, but because the Magisterium says it is. Presumably the same applies to deontologicalism.
Simple question. Can any of this be demonstrated as the one true, correct and binding approach to ethics from either scripture or the traditions of the Fathers? I'm familiar enough with the scriptures to pronounce that so far as the scriptures, the answer is No. I'm not familiar enough to answer this question vis à vis the Fathers. Is there any Shipmate with the knowledge to be able to oblige?
I can see that if you are a Catholic, and the Pope has said that is how you do it, you are obliged to follow this salami-slicing approach to ethics. But there doesn't seem to be any other reason for doing so - particularly not when it delivers conclusions which without that imprimatur, appear to Christian informed consciences to be self-evidently wrong.
--------------------
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
Desert Daughter. Sister catholic.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: But that is simply because everybody here is always asking about the very edge of accommodation.
Yes of course, that's what discussions like these are about. Discussion concentrates on where the tension is. Would you like to have a discussion about the Syrian government, where we talk about how its Ministry of Agriculture has really innovative procedures for funding allocation? Talking about the human rights abuses is so at the edge of accomodation...
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB: 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.
This is a bit like telling a child that he should be in bed by 7 o'clock, but it's up to him really if he wants to wear his green or his red pyjamas. I don't think that's going to work.
You can't really see this as 'taking the circumstances in account'. And the child won't see concentrating about the bed time instead of the pyjama colour as 'selection bias'.
It also reminds me of a scene in the Astérix comics, where the galley slaves have to row, but for a moment they get to decide what music is being drummed while they're rowing. When there is a strict rule, giving some freedom about some detail within this rule isn't 'taking the circumstances into account'.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Is that really Catholic teaching on ethics or is it the Ingobic version of it?
There are Roman Catholic moral theologians of practically every stripe, including consequentialists.
Though RC moral theology does posit that ethics is rational, which, it seems to me, is what is at stake here.
The question wasn't "Are there Roman Catholic Moral Theologians who holhpd this view?", but "is that really Catholic teaching ..." The answer is that it is.
Consequentialism was identified as incompatible with the Church's teaching, along with proportionalism and several other positions in JPII's encyclical Veritatis Splendor.
Are you suggesting the classic Catholic de ontological Moral Theology isn't rational?
I was commenting that the Roman Catholic Church's moral teaching is not officially deontological. It will, so far as I know, countenance any ethical system so long as it concludes matters according to its moral teaching. Aquinas' Summa hasn't been entered into the RC canon quite yet.
I have no idea how you worked it out that I was accusing RC moral teaching of being irrational. I was saying that it was, or at least tried to be. It seems to me that complaints about "ideology" are actually complaints about keeping moral reasoning rational, and above the vague feelings that most people base their moral reasoning on.
--------------------
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
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Obviously there is room there for false play with intentions. So one may well wonder whether the surgeon removing the part of a Fallopian tube containing a foetus really just intends to do remove a life-threatening piece of the mother's tissue (a good act), and the resulting killing of the foetus is just a "side effect". Or did that surgeon actually want to abort the foetus (an evil act), and taking out that part of the Fallopian tube is just the means? Perhaps even the surgeon cannot really tell, because these are so intricately linked procedurally. But the principle "in dubio pro reo" ("when in doubt, for the accused") holds. We can still reasonably hold that what is being done is morally licit, even though we certainly are at the very edge of that, and so we can assume that the "accused", the surgeon, is still protected by double effect. But barely. It is IMHO entirely justified to feel uneasy about this...
That's actually not the way it would work. The physician wouldn't get around to considering that the fetus is relevant. Because both mother and fetus will die if nothing is done. Remove it, mother lives, do nothing, both die.
Indeed. Though I agree with Ingo that it's justified to feel uneasy, or sad, about the knowledge that in removing the foetus in the tube, one is putting an end to its life--even though it will inevitably die, there is no chance for it in the tube, and the operation will save the mother.
That's why, when I had a ruptured fallopian tube due to an ectopic pregnancy, I was glad, in a way, that I hadn't known about the existence of the foetus in the tube beforehand and so there hadn't been the necessary decision to knowingly remove it.
But the justifiable uneasiness or sadness felt by surgeon, mother, or both should in no way cause them any hesitation to remove it, if the ectopic pregnancy is discovered before rupture!
Once the tube ruptures, as it inevitably will, the foetus dies.
And you have a life-threating situation for the mother, who can then only be saved, if she can be, by very swift intervention.
It would be immoral to delay the removal of an ectopic "pregnancy" once you know it is there.
Of course the removal is, as Ingo says, "morally licit."
(I wonder if it is perhaps misleading to call it "pregnancy," as there is no hope, no way, the foetus can grow beyond a certain tiny size in the tube? On the other hand, if it's a fertilized and growing zygote, then it may already have a soul....who knows.
And certainly has a life, though doomed to die very soon. Hence the sadness about knowingly removing it.)
I very nearly died when my fallopian tube ruptured, and would have, if not whisked swiftly off to hospital and operated on. I am very lucky to be here today, and to have had further children via the remaining opposite tube.
Of course if I'd known about the ectopic pregnancy beforehand I'd have agreed to have it removed as the only sensible and moral course--but would have felt sadness about hastening, even by a few days, the death of that small life, even though its implantation in the tube was a "mistake" of nature, and it never had a chance.
All that's a tangent, maybe, and skirting DH territory.
I just wanted to say that Ingo's "justifiable uneasiness" in this situation does make sense to me, not because one's on morally unsure ground--one isn't; but because it's sad to be in the position of having to hasten the--albeit inevitable-- death of this tiny spark of life.
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
I listened to a radio program recently - This American Life - that featured a Roman Catholic priest who has focused on addressing scrupulosity. That it, a psychological condition bordering on obsessive compulsive disorder, that causes people to become overly concerned that they are committing sins or breaking religious rules. The priest, Father Thomas Santa, has a blog for anyone interested in looking him up.
From my cursory Googling this condition seems to proportionately affect Roman Catholics and Mormons - both members of churches with more rigid views towards moral behavior. This is based on the fact that most of the results are from Catholic or LDS websites. I personally have never even heard of the disorder.
I wonder if we can think of this in the context of the impact of ideological Christianity.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
Oh yes--suffering to an exaggerated degree from scruples--I gather it was a common disease of many saints through the ages--sometimes recognised later by the saint as a disease, a lack of balance, and sometimes not. Common too in many nineteenth-century Christians, whether extremely Calvinistic or extremely Catholic/Anglo-Catholic. Whether worrying excessively about having read something for pleasure on a Sunday, or about whether they ought to self-flagellate (literally) again.
The young Christian Rossetti wrote an interesting story called Maude in which (IRRC) the eponymous protagonist felt deeply unworthy of receiving the Eucharist, had terrible scruples about doing so (of course one received less often in those days anyway), but was eventually persuaded by a loving friend that she should take advantage of this God-given gift to his followers. Which she was very glad to have done when she had an accident and afterwards faded away and died.
I may not have remembered the story right, but anyway it illustrates scruples taken to an extreme.
I'm not sure if the disease of scrupulosity comes from "ideology" per se; as I think has been proven on this thread, "ideology" can mean almost any set of strongly-held beliefs. Perhaps it's rather the result of a particular sort of Christian ideology--that which emphasises sinfulness far more intensely than it emphasises that each of us is beloved by God.
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
Over-scrupulousness in a person's faith and practice emerges often from an anthropomorphic and "linear-rationalistic" (Newtonian?) concept of God and from deep seated insecurities.
Ideologies are powerful because they remove (or rather, cover up) insecurity. Which is why so many converts tend to be on the stricter / more legalistic end of a particular faith's spectrum. It gives them an identity. In addition, there's the powerful drug of righteousness ("true defender of the Faith" discourse etc).
Sadly, this pushes people to focus too much on their ideological system/ the "purity" of doctrine etc, which is ultimately too inward-looking, and prevents the person from a dispassionate (as in neutral and open minded), disinterested, creative (!)and faithful engagement with the world. I think this is what the Pope meant.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
Yes, Desert Daughter. I think this is very well put, and in so many cases right. Extreme ideology (often; or always?) covers up insecurity and provides an identity.
An "anthropomorphic" concept of God. Food for thought here.
God as rigorous, stringent, judgmental, hard to please? Like a not very nice human being one knows all too well, rather than like the loving mysterious sustainer of the universe?
The rebuttal to that (I think) would be that God is the Perfect Good, and therefore naturally offended by sin...but that too, come to think of it, is anthropomorphic.
Hmmm.....
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Over-scrupulousness in a person's faith and practice emerges often from an anthropomorphic and "linear-rationalistic" (Newtonian?) concept of God and from deep seated insecurities.
Ideologies are powerful because they remove (or rather, cover up) insecurity. Which is why so many converts tend to be on the stricter / more legalistic end of a particular faith's spectrum. It gives them an identity. In addition, there's the powerful drug of righteousness ("true defender of the Faith" discourse etc).
From personal observation, the people I can think of who exhibit signs of scrupulosity are those raised within legalistic churches - not new converts, who as you point out can rely on the ideology as a means by which to measure their performance, as it were.
There may be something in the impact of certain ideologies relating to sin on children, that might lead to scrupulosity. If you come to Christ as an adult, you know you have been a sinner. If you are raised in the church, however, you may feel like you have been trained from birth not to sin, so therefore any sin committed much worse because of your knowledge of Christian moral standards.
I know two people raised in legalistic churches (not RCC) whose religious guilt literally led them into mental and emotional breakdown.
The Pope may actually be right to call some of these actions an illness! His quote below.
quote:
The faith becomes ideology and ideology frightens, ideology chases away the people, distances, distances the people and distances of the Church of the people. But it is a serious illness, this of ideological Christians. It is an illness, but it is not new, eh?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I'm glad to see other people posting about what I was working towards, only much better, and with a name for it. I would add that a further problem with scrupulosity and seeking the security of an ideology is that the person doing it will not feel truly safe unless everyone else is observant in the same way. (Or, if the person is a man, as well as men doing it in the same way, women were doing it in their gender specific way.)
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
oops! up above, as I'm sure everyone guessed, I meant
Christina Rossetti.
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Yes of course, that's what discussions like these are about. Discussion concentrates on where the tension is. Would you like to have a discussion about the Syrian government, where we talk about how its Ministry of Agriculture has really innovative procedures for funding allocation? Talking about the human rights abuses is so at the edge of accommodation…
Let's recall what we are discussing here, namely your statement: "However, the Roman Catholic Church always seems to choose Option A. And on the Ship, you have invariably been defending this option." So even if I accept for the sake of argument that the RCC can be compared to Syria, and her rules on remarriage to human rights abuse, and I to a Syrian shill, we would here be in the situation of you claiming "However, Syria always seems to be about abusing human rights. And on the Ship, you have invariably been defending these abusive policies." Whereupon it is entirely fair to point out that the only thing you ever want to discuss about Syria is how it treats factions violently opposed to the government, whereas you never care about for example its innovative agriculture policies. That's not evading anything. That's simply pointing out that the single-minded focus here is all yours, and however much you hate what you see in that focus, you cannot claim that there is nothing else if you never bother to look. And it is straight bollocks to then accuse the defender of being only engaged in defending human rights abuse, given that the defender is simply responding to incessant questioning about only this one topic. That was my point.
Now, I think your comparison to Syria and human rights abuses is terribly unfair; and while you can justify it here as "just making a point", this comparison is in my eyes telling in its inappropriateness. For the RCC is certainly not imposing her contentious policies in a bid to keep control over her assets or to reign in its citizens and disrupt opposition. It's just the opposite! Imposing these policies is just what threatens to tear the RCC apart, or at least bleed her dry slowly as the discontented simply leave. The idea that making rules against remarriage has been dreamt up by the RC hierarchy to keep more people in the Church is just preposterous. The RC hierarchy can on occasion be stupid, but they are hardly that stupid. The RCC is imposing all these contentious policies because she really thinks that she has to. That these are truths, that the Lord requires this. She may be mistaken about this, but it sure is a honest mistake, not some kind of political calculus.
Unless this is recognised, this discussion will always be unfair. The RCC really is nothing like Syria. Not even if one believes that her policies are (in part!) deeply damaging.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
This is a bit like telling a child that he should be in bed by 7 o'clock, but it's up to him really if he wants to wear his green or his red pyjamas. I don't think that's going to work. You can't really see this as 'taking the circumstances in account'. And the child won't see concentrating about the bed time instead of the pyjama colour as 'selection bias'.
Again, we are not discussing whether the RCC is accommodating remarriage. She is not going to. We are discussing whether the RCC ever takes circumstances into account. And the answer is that the RCC takes circumstances into account all the time, including concerning marriage. For example, my own marriage was invalid according to RC standards. It was a secular marriage,, and back then I was unbaptised and indeed Buddhist. By a process called "radical sanation" the RCC retroactively declared this to be a valid RC marriage when I became RC and asked them to do so. They did not ask me to marry again, this time properly, or anything like that. They simply accepted what I had done back then as sufficient for the sacrament. Is that not taking circumstances into account, is that not accommodating people in their concrete situation? I sure think so. Likewise I gave an extended example in the previous post about all the many legitimate ways in which one can avoid attending Sunday mass. Again, is that not taking circumstances into account? But this is not infinite. It is not just any arbitrary excuse that will get you out of attending Sunday mass, and it is true that the Church will not accommodate remarriages as valid. And if you zero in on exactly these issues, immediately and exclusively, then indeed you will encounter an entirely unbending Church. But this simply is not a fair characterisation of the Church dealing with her faithful in general. To claim that is indeed exactly like a child declaring its parents to be tyrants because they did not allow it to stay up past seven o'clock, in spite of all other sorts of freedoms that child enjoyed during the day. It is a childish view of things.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: So even if I accept for the sake of argument that the RCC can be compared to Syria, and her rules on remarriage to human rights abuse, and I to a Syrian shill, we would here be in the situation of you claiming "However, Syria always seems to be about abusing human rights. And on the Ship, you have invariably been defending these abusive policies."
You're taking the comparison too far. Admittedly the Syria comparison is over the top, but I was only trying to illustrate why people discuss 'on the edge of accomodation'.
quote:
IngoB: To claim that is indeed exactly like a child declaring its parents to be tyrants because they did not allow it to stay up past seven o'clock, in spite of all other sorts of freedoms that child enjoyed during the day. It is a childish view of things.
What I was trying to say that granting small things while prohibiting big things isn't 'taking the circumstances into account'.
I'm going to leave this discussion for a while; it's a bit tiring when I have to make comparisons to illustrate a point, and the other person attacks aspects of the comparison that aren't very relevant to the point I'm making.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... For example, my own marriage was invalid according to RC standards. It was a secular marriage, and back then I was unbaptised and indeed Buddhist. By a process called "radical sanation" the RCC retroactively declared this to be a valid RC marriage when I became RC and asked them to do so. ...
Presumably your wife also had to agree to being sanated?
--------------------
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
Of course! Jesus demands it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... For example, my own marriage was invalid according to RC standards. It was a secular marriage, and back then I was unbaptised and indeed Buddhist. By a process called "radical sanation" the RCC retroactively declared this to be a valid RC marriage when I became RC and asked them to do so. ...
Presumably your wife also had to agree to being sanated?
Fun fact: non-Catholics can be sanated without even knowing about it!
--------------------
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
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
Gosh Ingo, one learns every day. Despite having grown up in the RCC and still having many family members in it, I'd never heard of radical sanation.
One of said family members, who had married in the C of E ,of which her husband was nominally a member, became more committed to her childhood faith, and wanted her marriage to become valid in the eyes of the Catholic church; so she and her husband, after a course of study I think, had a little ceremony --not sure if a full marriage service, but anyway making their marriage into a valid Catholic one.
I'd never heard of radical sanation, but having looked it up, I see that it can apply just to the one spouse, if the other spouse is unwilling to contract a Catholic marriage. And if the other spouse is very hostile, you don't even have to tell them you've done it. (I guess this is what Zach's referring to). But I guess this doesn't "do" anything to the unaware spouse, it's just that from the Catholic spouse's point of view, the marriage is now considered by the church to be kosher (so to speak).
Thanks for the opportunity to learn something new!
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I think marriages contracted between non-Catholics are considered valid so long as occult rites are not used. The most common ground for invalidity, in that direction, would be if one or both were lapsed Catholics and a dispensation to marry according to non-Roman Catholic rites was not obtained.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm glad to see other people posting about what I was working towards, only much better, and with a name for it. I would add that a further problem with scrupulosity and seeking the security of an ideology is that the person doing it will not feel truly safe unless everyone else is observant in the same way. (Or, if the person is a man, as well as men doing it in the same way, women were doing it in their gender specific way.)
I think scrupulosity is a very good term. It reminds me of a sermon I read by the poet G. M. Hopkins, in which he said that the ploughman in his daily work should be thinking of God at every moment. I thought this was kind of insane really. And I felt sorry for Hopkins, really, as it would probably lead to intense self-torture at failing to comply, if he put himself under such strictures. So much guilt, alas.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think scrupulosity is a very good term. It reminds me of a sermon I read by the poet G. M. Hopkins, in which he said that the ploughman in his daily work should be thinking of God at every moment. I thought this was kind of insane really. And I felt sorry for Hopkins, really, as it would probably lead to intense self-torture at failing to comply, if he put himself under such strictures. So much guilt, alas.
Since there's interest in the topic, I link to the radio program mentioned on scrupulosity.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/507/confessions - under "Prologue."
He's also written a book.
[ 04. November 2013, 14:54: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
On this All Hallow's tide, I find myself remarking on how many saints would be written off as ideologues. From Athanasius, to Martin Luther, to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, to Desmond Tutu, the Church has been saved again and again by saints who believe they are right and the whole world is wrong.
--------------------
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
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
On this All Hallow's tide, I find myself remarking on how many saints would be written off as ideologues. From Athanasius, to Martin Luther, to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, to Desmond Tutu, the Church has been saved again and again by saints who believe they are right and the whole world is wrong.
I think there's a difference between an apostle or prophetic leader, like some of those you've mentioned above (I don't know all of them, apologies), and the faith of a standard Christian. Some people will struggle their entire lives to overcome sin; to compare them to a saint and say "hey, you should be doing a lot better, look at Martin Luther!" seems to be exactly the type of behavior that causes scrupulosity or any other insecurity in one's salvation.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Presumably your wife also had to agree to being sanated?
Just briefly tuning in to end all further speculation on that matter: my wife was fully involved in this, and indeed we had a very short and simple ceremony together in Church with a priest (who the day before had baptised and confirmed me, as well as giving me first Holy Communion). I actually have no idea to what extent the Church would have considered it formally necessary that my wife was informed. But I sure considered it necessary.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I think there's a difference between an apostle or prophetic leader, like some of those you've mentioned above (I don't know all of them, apologies), and the faith of a standard Christian. Some people will struggle their entire lives to overcome sin; to compare them to a saint and say "hey, you should be doing a lot better, look at Martin Luther!" seems to be exactly the type of behavior that causes scrupulosity or any other insecurity in one's salvation.
Oh, what rubbish. We all ought to strive for greater holiness and greater conviction in the truth of the Christian faith. Being a Christian should be the foremost concern of all souls.
--------------------
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
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh, what rubbish. We all ought to strive for greater holiness and greater conviction in the truth of the Christian faith. Being a Christian should be the foremost concern of all souls.
Goodness, no need to be so mean about it.
It is an issue for some people, if not for you.
The best Christian I can be is not the best Christian you can be, if that makes sense. We all start at different places; through faith we end up in the same place. The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard - I'm sure you've read that one.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I think there's a difference between an apostle or prophetic leader, like some of those you've mentioned above (I don't know all of them, apologies), and the faith of a standard Christian. Some people will struggle their entire lives to overcome sin; to compare them to a saint and say "hey, you should be doing a lot better, look at Martin Luther!" seems to be exactly the type of behavior that causes scrupulosity or any other insecurity in one's salvation.
I agree strongly and disagree strongly with this! Agree - it's unhelpful to say things like 'hey, you should be doing a lot better, look at Martin Luther!' That can just load people up with guilt, and discipleship is, ISTM, about become more fully the person we can be, not the person Martin Luther was.
But I also disagree - don't all Christians struggle their entire lives to overcome sin; whether they are a famous leader or an unknown, unacknowledged saint? I'd hesitate to draw dividing lines between those Christians who have achieved fame and recognition in one form or other, and the rest of us humble foot-soldiers.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
(I'm sometimes astonished by how easy it is to recruit the likes of Dietrich Bonnhoefer or Desmond Tutu for one's side of the argument, no matter which side of the argument it is.)
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(I'm sometimes astonished by how easy it is to recruit the likes of Dietrich Bonnhoefer or Desmond Tutu for one's side of the argument, no matter which side of the argument it is.)
Unless you are able to explain how these theologians' thinking is incompatible with what they are cited to support, your astonishment is more of an indictment, really.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
If the Irish edition of the Sunday Times is accurate, +++Francis will appoint an Irishwoman as a cardinal at a forthcoming consistory. Interesting times ahead.
--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But I also disagree - don't all Christians struggle their entire lives to overcome sin; whether they are a famous leader or an unknown, unacknowledged saint? I'd hesitate to draw dividing lines between those Christians who have achieved fame and recognition in one form or other, and the rest of us humble foot-soldiers.
I do see your point. I guess my view is that for some people the struggle to overcome sin is going to be the main focus of their Christian life, as it were. Whereas others struggle with sin but can also speak prophetically or strengthen the faith of others through their teachings.
I'm unconvinced by Zach82's point, that if these great Christian leaders were ideologues and achieved positive change, that means we should all behave in exactly the same way. Even if we did most of us would not achieve the same results; and for some the feeling of inferiority caused by trying to live up to such an ideal becomes crippling, achieving something very far away from a feeling of God's love and grace.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(I'm sometimes astonished by how easy it is to recruit the likes of Dietrich Bonnhoefer or Desmond Tutu for one's side of the argument, no matter which side of the argument it is.)
Unless you are able to explain how these theologians' thinking is incompatible with what they are cited to support, your astonishment is more of an indictment, really.
This shows exactly how easy it is. Just mention their names in a post as if they are supporting your side of the argument, and then it's up to the others to show that they're incompatible.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Presumably your wife also had to agree to being sanated?
Just briefly tuning in to end all further speculation on that matter: my wife was fully involved in this, and indeed we had a very short and simple ceremony together in Church with a priest (who the day before had baptised and confirmed me, as well as giving me first Holy Communion). I actually have no idea to what extent the Church would have considered it formally necessary that my wife was informed. But I sure considered it necessary.
Ah, ok, that clears things up! And this sounds like the same sort of ceremony as my family member had; I just didn't know the official name of the procedure.
It does seem to me it would be a strange marriage where one didn't inform the other party about the radical sanation, but that scenario was mentioned in the one place where I quickly read about it--catholic answers website.
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
If the Irish edition of the Sunday Times is accurate, +++Francis will appoint an Irishwoman as a cardinal at a forthcoming consistory. Interesting times ahead.
Don't cardinals have to be priests?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
