|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Trisagion and the Catholic Bishops - accessories to murder
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
That's just ridiculous. No-one's asking for a "blank cheque" for employers to decide what to cover. The Catholic bishops are asking for a single exception to be made - by the legitimate authorities, not by the employer on an ad hoc, autonomous basis - on the grounds of conscience.
You know full well how legal precedence works.
Zach
[ 17. February 2012, 15:23: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nice how you've declared what the solution isn't. Now please declare what the solution IS. Having created a hypothetical situation where grabbing is a problem, I'd be fascinated to see how you deal with it without purposefully restricting the grabbing. Or will you just throw your appendages up in the air and say "there's nothing we can do, grabbing just happens"?
It's more, "Since grabbing is the original and primary use of hands, you mustn't do anything that prohibits the possibility of grabbing."
I think that's an excellent extension of their argument. Problem is I regularly did things to my toddler's hands that precluded her being able to grab. For instance, I would hold them still and try to calm her down, or when it was very cold, I put mittens and socks on her hands to keep them warm. By the Catholic thinking, that must have been sinful.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
That's just ridiculous. No-one's asking for a "blank cheque" for employers to decide what to cover. The Catholic bishops are asking for a single exception to be made - by the legitimate authorities, not by the employer on an ad hoc, autonomous basis - on the grounds of conscience.
You know full well how legal precedence works.
Zach
Yes - on a case-by-case basis, decided by the courts.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
First off, the kind of preferential government treatment you describe as "a single exception" isn't really consistent with American ideas about the law being equally applicable to everyone. If the Roman Catholic Church (or even just employers who are adherents of the faith) gets to provide substandard health coverage to their employees, why not others?
Why not others, indeed? I'm asking for coverage of the contraceptive and abortifacient elements not to be mandatory for anyone who objects on conscience grounds, not just Catholics. Let employers opt-in if they want to cover them, or let employers who object opt out.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Second, your claim that "No-one's asking for a "blank cheque" for employers to decide what to cover" is directly contradicted by your assertion that certain oral contraceptive prescriptions would be allowed by the Church, but not others.
What? That's not a request for a blank cheque - that's a request for a particular, fixed, pre-specified sum. After that, any further amendments and concessions or exemptions would have to be argued for afresh.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Yes - on a case-by-case basis, decided by the courts.
And you don't see a troublesome precedent in ceding to employers the right to decide what healthcare concerns they will or will not pay for?
Zach
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
That's just ridiculous. No-one's asking for a "blank cheque" for employers to decide what to cover. The Catholic bishops are asking for a single exception to be made - by the legitimate authorities, not by the employer on an ad hoc, autonomous basis - on the grounds of conscience.
You know full well how legal precedence works.
Zach
Yes - on a case-by-case basis, decided by the courts.
So just because racially segregrated schools are a violation of the U.S. Constitution in Topeka, Kansas (to use a well known example) that doesn't necessarily mean that racially segregated schools in Little Rock, Arkansas are also unconstitutional? That's a fairly . . . unique idea of legal precedence.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) The courts judge which cases are covered by the precedent.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The courts judge which cases are covered by the precedent.
Then how do you feel about the principle of ceding to employers the right to decide what they will and will not pay for?
--------------------
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
Kind of as an aside, how is a woman who has had a hysterectomy (say to save her life) having sex "open to conception" but a woman taking the pill not? A lot more of the latter have gotten pregnant than of the former.
(And don't say "the woman on the pill is TRYING not to get pregnant" because so is a woman practicing Vatican Roulette.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The courts judge which cases are covered by the precedent.
Then how do you feel about the principle of ceding to employers the right to decide what they will and will not pay for?
This: why not let there be a mandatory core health-care package which all employers must provide, but let that not include contraceptive and abortive treatment. Let those elements be optional. Don't "cede to employers the right to decide" everything. Make a fair and conscience-sensitive healthcare law in the first place, and there won't need to be special exemptions. No exemptions, no precedent.
[ 17. February 2012, 16:20: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
This: why not let there be a mandatory core health-care package which all employers must provide, but let that not include contraceptive and abortive treatment. Let those elements be optional. Don't "cede to employers the right to decide" everything. Make a fair and conscience-sensitive healthcare law in the first place, and there won't need to be special exemptions. No exemptions, no precedent.
That is, however, an arbitrary exemption. It is only demanding "fair and conscience-sensitive healthcare law" that is acceptable to Roman Catholics. Why not exemptions based on Christian Science sensibilities? Why not an exemption for cancer treatment when Wal-Mart decides that chemotherapy is against its religious sensibilities?
Zach
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The courts judge which cases are covered by the precedent.
Then how do you feel about the principle of ceding to employers the right to decide what they will and will not pay for?
This: why not let there be a mandatory core health-care package which all employers must provide, but let that not include contraceptive and abortive treatment. Let those elements be optional. Don't "cede to employers the right to decide" everything. Make a fair and conscience-sensitive healthcare law in the first place, and there won't need to be special exemptions. No exemptions, no precedent.
And let the basic plan not include blood transfusions or organ donations, which Jehovah's Witnesses may object to. And let it not include any medications or treatments that were developed through the use of animal experimentation, which Jainists may object to. And let it not include any psychotropic medications or psychiatric treatments, which Scientologists may object to. And let it not include any allopathic treatments whatsoever, which Christian Scientists may object to. And let it not include any treatments provided by a male to a female, or vice-versa, which Muslims may object to. Let all those elements be optional.
That is precisely what your precedent (and it IS a precedent) would create.
The result of such a system would be to deny nearly everyone comprehensive medical insurance.
If Jehovah's Witnesses prefer not to receive blood transfusions, that is their right. But in this country, people of one faith do NOT have the right to impose the limits of their faith on people of other faiths.
And that is exactly what your proposal, and the bishops of your church, are trying to do. There may be countries where that's allowed. Not here.
[ 17. February 2012, 16:39: Message edited by: Josephine ]
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
This: why not let there be a mandatory core health-care package which all employers must provide, but let that not include contraceptive and abortive treatment. Let those elements be optional. Don't "cede to employers the right to decide" everything. Make a fair and conscience-sensitive healthcare law in the first place, and there won't need to be special exemptions. No exemptions, no precedent.
This translates as "if the health care standards make an exception for my preferred exception, it's not really an exception". You still haven't explained why your particular exceptions are so exceptional that they deserve a special legal carve-out while a Jehovah's Witness' objection to paying for their employee's blood transfusions, for example, isn't. Bear in mind that "my religion is right but they're a bunch of infidels and heretics" isn't considered a valid argument in the U.S. legal system.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Another problem with the Catholic Church's whole "we shouldn't have to pay for something we think is wrong" argument is that paying health insurance premiums for employees is part of employee compensation. They shouldn't have the right to tell employees what parts of health care they will and will not cover any more than they should have the right to tell employees how to spend their paychecks.
The Catholic Church in the US is morally bankrupt on a couple of fronts, and the staunch Catholics on this thread know it. I'm sure it's actually a greater source of pain to them than it is to someone like me. The American Catholic bishops would do better to get their own house in order rather than try to re-assert power to which they have no moral or political right.
{Edit because this typo wasn't terribly amusing.}
[ 17. February 2012, 16:56: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Another problem with the Catholic Church's whole "we shouldn't have to pay for something we think is wrong" argument is that paying health insurance premiums for employees is part of employee compensation. They shouldn't have the right to tell employees what parts of health care they will and will not cover any more than they should have the right to tell employees how to spend their paychecks.
Of course, they're not really paying for it. Any health insurance plan that's priced at all actuarially realistically that excludes contraceptives but includes prenatal care, birth, and minor dependents will cost a lot more than a similar plan that also includes contraceptive coverage. The objection, despite the way it's deceptively phrased, isn't that Catholic employers have to pay for contraceptives, the objection is that no one should have access to something as evil as contraceptives in the first place.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
I think a heartless attitude against victims of violence is always beyond the pale.
However, if there are grounds for thinking that the original story is not entirely as presented, then i can understand the grounds for skepticism. And despite my ethical disagreements with certain significant pronouncements of the capital-C Catholic Church, i thank you for taking the time to present a response with a thought-out response addressing the issue at hand that you obviously put thouight into.
I don't dabble much in Hell because it is mostly venting. Not that there's anything wrong with venting. I think it's a clever idea of SoF to have an area specifically for venting. And sometimes I read Hell threads for their entertainment value. But if i really care about a subject, i'd rather try to engage it seriously, which is why i prefer to do my debating in Purgatory. And the discipline of trying to keep the argument focused on the issue rather than the individual is a good thing.
Also, I like communicating by writing because, being somewhat ADD and being overly literal, venting ends up what i do when trying to make an argument orally. The results are not pretty.
I did actually start a Hell thread one time because a poster had made a comment that someone was going to burn in the fires of (the original) Hell because the person had expressed a beautiful metaphorical interpretation of what Genesis 1 and 2 meant by the creation story(ies), rather than in a literal 6-day creation. What pulled my chain was the gleeful relish with which the poster expressed this view. (Said poster seems to have disappeared, whether or not my thread had anything to do with it.)
When I saw this thread title for the 1st time I said, "hoo boy this will probably generate some fireworks." I had no intention of even contributing to this thread because, as I say, I'd prefer to have a real issues-centred debate in Purgatory. I still think there are some profoundly serious ethical issues in re the capital-C Catholic Church, and they hurt because this is the specific portion of God's church that I was brought up in, and I still feel essentially the same catholic I've always been. I feel like I've been pushed out by what I consider ethical or moral issues. But this is not the place to get into all that. I've expressed my views in Purg.
.What caused me to respond here was what I felt was the heartlessness of the 2 quotes i cited from your previous post. I'm willing to accept the interpretation in the response -- that you obviously spent time in composing -- was not intending to be gratuitously heartless..
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Really, I haven't the time to maintain this thread - I've already spent too much time on it. A short answer to the last few posts before I disappear for the weekend then.
First on the abortifacients, I think a pretty good case can be made for saying that nothing should be mandatorily covered that conflicts with the Hippocratic oath (not, the last time I checked, a specifically Catholic document).
On contraception, it is more difficult because there are non-contraceptive therapeutic uses of the pill which I think should be covered as we have already discussed.
But in the absence of such reasons for use, it does seem to me that artifical contraception is a personal "how I want to live my life" issue rather than a strictly medical one - even though using them or not will have medical consequences. They are not in the same category as blood-transfusions, organ-transplants and the like because they are not (in themselves) life-saving and no-one's health impaired merely by not having access to them. They are also the kind of thing that can be cheaply bought without help, or easily available free (because of their cheapness) by PP-type organisations - again, unlike blood-transfusions and organ transplants.
Ok, that is all I've got for now. I fully confess that I haven't the time to devote to this that a proper purgatorial discussion would need, and that I'm not the best candidate to tackle it even if I did. Have at it.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
That's all nice, Chester, but now you've lapsed into explaining why, in your opinion, contraception isn't a valid healthcare concern, and the whole debate is about who has a right to dictate such matters.
Zach
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
On contraception, it is more difficult because there are non-contraceptive therapeutic uses of the pill which I think should be covered as we have already discussed.
But in the absence of such reasons for use, it does seem to me that artifical contraception is a personal "how I want to live my life" issue rather than a strictly medical one - even though using them or not will have medical consequences. They are not in the same category as blood-transfusions, organ-transplants and the like because they are not (in themselves) life-saving and no-one's health impaired merely by not having access to them.
Relatedly:
quote:
Doubling of maternal deaths in U.S. 'scandalous,' rights group says
March 12, 2010 | From Stephanie Smith, CNN
Deaths from pregnancy and childbirth in the United States have doubled in the past 20 years, a development that a human rights group called "scandalous and disgraceful" Friday.
In addition, the rights group said, about 1.7 million women a year, one-third of pregnant women in the United States, suffer from pregnancy-related complications.
An uncharitable person might note that someone like Chesterbelloc who, judging by his internet handle, seems unlikely to be at risk of dying of maternal hæmorrhage or similar complications of pregnancy or childbirth, is rather blithe about classifying such risks as a lifestyle choice rather than a real, legitimate health issue. And I have never felt particularly charitable towards those willing to put other people's lives and health into the hazard for the sake of their own intellectual purity.
Anyway, given your position that so-called reproductive health isn't really a medical issue but a lifestyle choice, does that mean that in your estimation things like prenatal care or childbirth could be left uncovered by employers claiming religious objections to such?
[ 17. February 2012, 17:49: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
.... But in the absence of such reasons for use, it does seem to me that artifical contraception is a personal "how I want to live my life" issue rather than a strictly medical one - even though using them or not will have medical consequences. ...
In my estimation, after driving a car, getting pregnant is the single most dangerous thing a woman can do in her life, even in the modern western world. There's a reason why Ob-Gyns pay the highest insurance premiums. Avoiding pregnancy is just as important as wearing a seatbelt. Anyone who claimed to care about women's health should support the availability of contraception. But of course, we know it's not about the contraception, it's about the sex. Oh, sorry, the "lifestyle". OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
In my estimation, after driving a car, getting pregnant is the single most dangerous thing a woman can do in her life, even in the modern western world.
Third most dangerous if she's a smoker, but the main point stands.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Sorry, I obviously mean avoiding pregnancy unless a woman actually *wants* to get pregnant.
Also, some contraceptive methods provide some protection against sexually transmitted diseases. As they're available without a prescription, they're outside this discussion, but we know the bishops are against them anyway. What's their responsibility for e.g. the ravages of AIDS in Africa? All those deaths, destroyed families and villages, orphaned children, etc. are "God's will" and come from being "open to procreation" but condoms are evil? To quote our Shipmate Penny, expletive that. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Vatican Roulette
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
That one's logged away for future use!
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
This has to be one of the silliest threads ever seen.
So let me see if I can contribute to the general tenor of what I seem to be reading, incredulously.
The pope may be Roman catholic, but he and his church are not often catholic in the sense of universal, nor necessarily Christian. But they are Roman in the sense of being in Rome and pretending to be the inheritors of the defunct empire. I know a fair number of nice catholic people, though never had sex with any of them. Most of them don't talk about sex much, probably because they get enough, unlike, apparently the old geysers running the administration of their denomination.
A bunch of men sitting around in dresses talking about sex they are not supposed to have is supposed to advise others on the right ways to do and not do it? Really?
Anyone who really believes human sex is about procreation has no notion of evolution, evolutionary nor comparative psychology. Stick the clouds theologians if you don't any biology. Sex is primarily about the human pair bond, deflection of aggression (sublimation). With babies as a more or less side light. Sex is not primarily about reproduction for wolves or bonobos either. It is for amoebas and other single cell organisms, but these usually reproduce by fission, which I suppose the RC old men are also not in favour of, given that this sort of sexuality is akin to masturbation (only one individual is involved).
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
It is for amoebas and other single cell organisms, but these usually reproduce by fission, which I suppose the RC old men are also not in favour of, given that this sort of sexuality is akin to masturbation (only one individual is involved).
I think an organism undergoing reproduction by fission is more properly called a "dividual".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Thanks, IngoB, for your reply but as with others on this thread it can only be marked down as 'one for the theologicans' rather than anything that is actually applicable to the ordinary people who actually have to live with the reality of how life is.
I'm afraid your reply kind of confirms that the RCC seems not to have noticed the advance of medicine, human biology and physiology in the past 2000 years or so. At least not where married sex is concerned.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[Prescription contraceptives] are also the kind of thing that can be cheaply bought without help, or easily available free (because of their cheapness) by PP-type organisations - again, unlike blood-transfusions and organ transplants.
These various "the pill is cheap" arguments seem a bit vague. At what price level does an employer micromanaging his employees' medical treatment become overly intrusive? Is there a specific dollar per year value, or is it more along the lines of a percentage of salary thing?
And what about interference without a monetary cost? Take, for example, an employer who believes God forbids receiving medical care from a doctor of the opposite gender. Should that employer have the right of conscience to make his employees switch doctors? How about someone who believed medical care can only be properly dispensed by adherents of his own religion? There's no differential cost involved since seeing one (in-plan) doctor usually costs the same co-pay as any other (in-plan) doctor.
I look forward to CB's answer when he returns, though if anyone else wants to jump in, feel free.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
In my estimation, after driving a car, getting pregnant is the single most dangerous thing a woman can do in her life, even in the modern western world. There's a reason why Ob-Gyns pay the highest insurance premiums. Avoiding pregnancy is just as important as wearing a seatbelt. Anyone who claimed to care about women's health should support the availability of contraception. But of course, we know it's not about the contraception, it's about the sex. Oh, sorry, the "lifestyle". OliviaG
That isn't actually, I believe, the reason Ob-Gyns pay the highest insurance premiums. It's that babies are small and easy to damage especially when they are being born. And a mistake has massive consequences that could last the rest of the unfortunate baby's life. Damages need to cover future costs - so damaging a baby means there are serious and expensive long term costs.
Having a baby is less dangerous than being born. Which pushes it down into third place...
That said, back to Chesterbelloc's disingenuousness.
First if you believe this has a damn thing to do with religious liberty rather than the Roman Catholic Church trying to flex its muscles, then if the RCC doesn't need to provide contraception, then any organisations dedicated to the Church of Christ, Scientist should be allowed to cut their own insurance policy. But IIRC you've admitted that this shouldn't be so.
Also the Roman Catholic Church isn't worried about what its dollars are being used to do. Insurance companies that do the maths are more than happy to throw in contraception for free. It prevents so many problems and expenses. In fact the insurance companies should charge less if they include contraception. Is the RCC prepared to pay to deny its workers benefits?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
It is for amoebas and other single cell organisms, but these usually reproduce by fission, which I suppose the RC old men are also not in favour of, given that this sort of sexuality is akin to masturbation (only one individual is involved).
I think an organism undergoing reproduction by fission is more properly called a "dividual".
Nice!
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's more, "Since grabbing is the original and primary use of hands, you mustn't do anything that prohibits the possibility of grabbing." I would like to see some argument for why couples must always allow for the possibility for the original and primary use of sex, given that it has other uses which are admitted to be legitimate.
Why must we be slaves to our bodies in this one area? We have evolved (or if reality isn't your bag, gifted with) the ability to use sex for other purposes. What does the original reason for the evolution (design) of sex have to do with prohibiting its use, now that it has other uses? Especially since this "open to the possibility" wording is so Jesuitical on the face of it. This doesn't prove it's wrong, but surely asking for an explanation of how it makes sense and why it's insisted on is hardly blameworthy.
That's exactly correct, mousethief! I cannot personally provide a "natural moral law" argument that tells me why all this is deemed so morally important. The best I can do there is to do some handwaving about how reproduction clearly is biologically important for the continuation of humanity, or perhaps point to the psychological and social importance we all in fact attach to sex. But I do not know of a conclusive argument for the particular importance of "getting sex right" that I could defend from sound "first principles". Perhaps it exists, but I have not heard it and I cannot think of one myself.
Personally, I take this importance on faith. In my case mostly faith in the Church, but I also think that one can draw up a fairly clear argument from scripture that God is actually rather hung about us "getting sex right". What I personally use "natural moral law" reasoning for in this case is to then check whether the regulations of the RCC are defensible. So I can give a proper argument (I think) why it makes sense to allow NFP but not contraceptives. But I cannot properly argue why all this is such "grave matter" without reference to the Church, scripture, etc.
That said, I think Christians at least should be rather careful about assuming that the Zeitgeist on sex is the Holy Spirit speaking. The Christian consensus on all this used to be very strong for a very long time. It's not like the RCC always has been the odd one out here. But I do not see much of a theological or philosophical argument why Christian tradition has been so consistently wrong. Mostly I see a kind of dismissal by association with social change, i.e., since society back then was structured in a way we thinks is wrong (in particular, it was "patriarchal"), it must also have gotten sex wrong. I think that is rather weak.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Thanks, IngoB, for your reply but as with others on this thread it can only be marked down as 'one for the theologicans' rather than anything that is actually applicable to the ordinary people who actually have to live with the reality of how life is.
I'm afraid your reply kind of confirms that the RCC seems not to have noticed the advance of medicine, human biology and physiology in the past 2000 years or so. At least not where married sex is concerned.
This amounts to: "The result is wrong, therefore somehow the argument must be wrong / irrelevant, and since I have no idea in what way, I'll just dismiss it by pretending that this is obvious."
I agree that marriage and sex are one for the theologians, because God is hardly silent on the subject and so we better understand what He is trying to tell us. Understanding God is what theology about. And of course, your actual complaint is that what they come up with is so very "applicable to the ordinary people who actually have to live with the reality of how life is". If theology would come up with some abstract theorizing, you would be just fine with it. Instead it has come up with a bunch of statements that very concretely tell you how to live your life. And that's what you can't abide. You want to get the theologians out of your bed and back into their ivory tower.
Now, the RCC position is totally compatible with all advances of "medicine, human biology and physiology in the past 2000 years or so". And I'm quite confident that I can trash your arguments concerning that, if you would ever choose to present any. In particular, the RCC has tightened up its regulations concerning abortion precisely because of improved knowledge about human developmental biology. (Epi-)genetically, there exists an identifiably individual human being from the moment that an egg gets fertilized. It is in response to this scientific increase of knowledge (beyond Aristotelian ideas) that the Church has become more draconian about early abortions.
In all this, there is a serious argument to be had. It is an argument about what God want us to do about sex and marriage, a theological argument. And that is not decided by what the 21stC Zeitgeist considers obvious.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
(Epi-)genetically, there exists an identifiably individual human being from the moment that an egg gets fertilized.
How does this square with the existence of monozygotic twins? It would seem peculiar to insist such a fertilized egg is an individual human being.
Identifiably dividual human being? (Croesos!)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
How does this square with the existence of monozygotic twins? It would seem peculiar to insist such a fertilized egg is an individual human being. Identifiably dividual human being? (Croesos!)
Easily, note the "epi" that I have included. Near instantly, the two separated parts will start biologically distinguishable development. In particular, chemical gradients will be disrupted by the separation, making formerly proximate cells experience a different environment and hence development. Not that this sophisticated view is actually needed, since we can of course distinguish the twins just as later in life: simply by their spatial separation. Prior to the separation, there is one individual human being, posterior there are two human individual beings. There's no particular problem with that. Twining is just a different biological mechanism for creating new human beings. (Before you ask: I do not know whether the individual that exists before the separation survives as one of the "parts". Perhaps yes, perhaps no - it matters greatly to that individual, of course, but not at all to our discussion.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
This
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The best I can do there is to do some handwaving about how reproduction clearly is biologically important for the continuation of humanity,
is where the teaching of the RCC (and several other religious traditions) and I part company.
Obviously, sexual reproduction has been crucial to humanity's continuation. Coincidentally, perhaps, human reproduction has also played a crucial role in increasing adherents to various faiths. Judaism and Islam have at times prevailed over hostile populations by simply out-reproducing them.
With world population now standing at, what? Seven billion people? Any threats to human continuity appear now to stem largely from increasingly dangerous and nuclear-armed competition for increasingly scarce resources to support ever-reproducing humanity.
Any huge and politically-powerful global institution which emphasizes the need for human over-production runs the risk of exacerbating the problem above. The institution under discussion bases its teachings, moreover, on an ancient text which, while instructing humans to "be fruitful and multiply," (Gen. 1:28) also instructs humanity in its duty to "fill" and "subdue" the earth, something which, arguably, has been accomplished for some time.
It seems to me that gospel writers (most notably, perhaps, Luke) contain teachings about wise stewardship.
When will the finely-honed legal minds of the Church begin to turn equivalent attention to the inevitable clash of its teaching on reproduction and contraception with its apparent reluctance to pronounce upon the devastation which burgeoning human numbers are wreaking upon the waters, soils and atmosphere which are also necessary to human continuity? People are already dying in large numbers from lack of food and water, as well as from human competition over oil and land.
When do pew-sitters start getting advised about exercising wise stewardship by limiting their offspring?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This amounts to: "The result is wrong, therefore somehow the argument must be wrong / irrelevant, and since I have no idea in what way, I'll just dismiss it by pretending that this is obvious."
Don't give up the day-job, IngoB. You're obviously not going to make it as a mind-reader .
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneviève
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You might want to consider, too, that not every employing individual/group in a church actually FOLLOWS that church's teaching and/or policies in employment matters. It's entirely possible that a pompous supervising jackass or three might have demanded such a thing of her, even though the RC church itself would not.
I doubt that very, very much. The climate of litigation within which US dioceses have to operate, especially in areas of employment, make the chances of anyone in any authority making the kind of threat, implicit or explicit, suggested by Genevieve's post vanishingly small.
Frankly, I don't care a tinker's dam whether you think my post was pompous, Genevieve. If you dont want your anecdotes subjected to scrutiny, youve come to the wrong board. I think your example is so hopelessly incomplete as to be entirely worthless. Either you don't know or aren't telling us the whole story. If the former then you're a jackass for attempting to use the example to make a point: if the latter, clearly a lack of integrity is far from uncommon in the circles within which you move.
My point is that the RC hierarchy in some parts of the US acts with complete jackassery. I stand by my point.
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
Holy hell. I thought when I used my analogy to Chesterbelloc a few pages ago of toothpaste being an abortifacient I was being ridiculous. But apparently some people who are kept ignorant of and away from genuine contraception do use toothpaste as contraception.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's exactly correct, mousethief! I cannot personally provide a "natural moral law" argument that tells me why all this is deemed so morally important. The best I can do there is to do some handwaving about how reproduction clearly is biologically important for the continuation of humanity, or perhaps point to the psychological and social importance we all in fact attach to sex. But I do not know of a conclusive argument for the particular importance of "getting sex right" that I could defend from sound "first principles". Perhaps it exists, but I have not heard it and I cannot think of one myself.
And this is arguably the worst part of the Roman Catholic approach to contraception. I despise both groups of extremists in the abortion debate - neither side cares about quite literally condemning people to death. (Ban it entirely and you kill women, and the extreme pro-choicers explicitely do not care whether they kill babies). However both at least have moral principles they can fall back on - "Thou shalt not kill" and "No human shall enslave another". And neither principle is that easy to argue against.
However even by your own admission, there is no fundamental principle underlying the Roman Catholic opposition to contraception. Merely that some people once thought it was a good idea, they gained power, and weren't successfully challenged. It's a pure fabrication. Evil out of thin air.
The Roman Catholic stance on contraception is not a principled stance. Because, as you have just admitted, there are no underlying principles. It is merely wrong, harmful, and brings serious injury and death to many, both born and unborn.
How many lives are worth a principle you take on faith and have no way to justify?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
None of these simple minded ideas have much connection to actual biological science. No biologist me, but do have some background. Perhaps someone who is can further clarify.
The initial embryo is a collection of undifferentiated cells, which later become specialised but are definitely not at initial stages post fertilization. Somehow God must enjoy races among 2 or 400 million sperms, most of which will go up eggless fallopian tubes and die, one which may on odd occasions find an egg, win the race as it's hundreds of millions of companions also die. And many fertilized eggs fail to implant for reasons unconnected to fertilization or genetic errors, though God does apparently like trisomy-21 (3 copies of that chromosome are often viable and produce a Down's syndrome child) and trisomy 8, though dislikes trisomies 22, 18. 16 and 13 more, God having decided to kill these children either prior to birth or shortly after.
God also has curious ideas apparently about what an individual is, what gender is, given that in a jelly fish, individual polyps agglomerate together with some individual beings developing into tentacles, some parts of the bell, others stinging cells. Colony? Individual? We could talk of some insects and parasites also. If we got into the plant and fungal worlds, all bets are off.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
How does this square with the existence of monozygotic twins? It would seem peculiar to insist such a fertilized egg is an individual human being. Identifiably dividual human being? (Croesos!)
(Before you ask: I do not know whether the individual that exists before the separation survives as one of the "parts". Perhaps yes, perhaps no - it matters greatly to that individual, of course, but not at all to our discussion.)
It really seems like the sort of thing a well-developed theory of human individuality should have worked out already.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This amounts to: "The result is wrong, therefore somehow the argument must be wrong / irrelevant, and since I have no idea in what way, I'll just dismiss it by pretending that this is obvious."
That might hold water if you had a fucking argument. You do not. You yourself just admitted that there was no underlying moral principle. The result you end up with is wrong and the argument is non-existent.
However the principles that say that contraception is a good thing are really realy obvious. Public health. Prevention of abortion. Prevention of serious bodily harm to a woman (pregnancy being incredibly dangerous). Self-determination. And you oppose it despite not having an argument.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nice how you've declared what the solution isn't. Now please declare what the solution IS. Having created a hypothetical situation where grabbing is a problem, I'd be fascinated to see how you deal with it without purposefully restricting the grabbing. Or will you just throw your appendages up in the air and say "there's nothing we can do, grabbing just happens"?
It's more, "Since grabbing is the original and primary use of hands, you mustn't do anything that prohibits the possibility of grabbing."
I think that's an excellent extension of their argument. Problem is I regularly did things to my toddler's hands that precluded her being able to grab. For instance, I would hold them still and try to calm her down, or when it was very cold, I put mittens and socks on her hands to keep them warm. By the Catholic thinking, that must have been sinful.
Would you have tied her hands? Or handcuffed her? I wouldn't have bound or cuffed my children for convenience or safety's sake (and I doubt you would either). We stick to using methods of restraint that feel loving and natural, even if they are less than perfect at preventing grabbing.
That said, fortunately for parents there are lots of items of baby equipment that have restraint built in for safety reasons (high chairs, pushchairs, car seats) so there is always somewhere safe to put your toddler with the beneficial side effect of restraint.
So I think my analogising has got me to this position:
To me, something feels wrong about restraining a natural instinct/process.
However, if restraint is a handy side effect of some other intention, that's ok with me.
Moreover, there are times when I had to resort to restraining a natural process myself, so I haven't got a leg to stand on suggesting someone else shouldn't.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
However even by your own admission, there is no fundamental principle underlying the Roman Catholic opposition to contraception. Merely that some people once thought it was a good idea, they gained power, and weren't successfully challenged. It's a pure fabrication. Evil out of thin air.
You are confused. I actually believe that the Roman Catholic Church has been put on earth to spread God's word. And that therefore she is infallible in matters of faith and morals, where she speaks definitely (and to be obeyed by faithful assent where she speaks merely strongly). That's my fundamental principle in this matter. Of course, it helps that I can argue much of RC morality from nature by reason, and that I can show that none of it is contrary to nature or reason. But I have no problem with admitting that my position on sexuality is fundamentally religious, not philosophical.
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
None of these simple minded ideas have much connection to actual biological science. No biologist me, but do have some background.
You talk about features of human biology that nobody has used in argument or otherwise discussed, which are essentially irrelevant to this debate. We are not talking about what God may or may not do, but about what we may or may not do. God lets over a hundred thousand people die every day, many of them innocent, yet you may not kill any innocent person. And you are talking about the individuality of jelly fish, but we are not talking about the morality of jelly fish.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
It really seems like the sort of thing a well-developed theory of human individuality should have worked out already.
How? Short of Divine revelation, I see no way of tackling this question. I also see no particular reason why to worry about this. Unless somebody is trying to induce twining... I'm not aware that anyone is trying to do that currently.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
However the principles that say that contraception is a good thing are really realy obvious. Public health. Prevention of abortion. Prevention of serious bodily harm to a woman (pregnancy being incredibly dangerous). Self-determination. And you oppose it despite not having an argument.
But I do have an argument, just not one which you would accept. I can argue what "natural" sex is like. I can, under the assumption of "natural moral law", argue that this is what sex should be like. But I cannot argue you into considering "natural moral law" as your standard of choice. And even if you agree to that standard, I cannot argue conclusively about precisely how wrong "non-natural" sex is. (Though there may be such an argument, and I just don't know it.) In the end, the evaluation scale of morals cannot really be anchored in argument.
All this applies to your standards as well. Given your examples, we can make a fair guess that you have essentially utilitarian morals and believe that there is some kind of human right to "free sexual expression". But you cannot really argue me into that either. Moral argument runs out of steam once one comes to the foundations, and I do not believe in yours.
--------------------
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
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Thank goodness the argument continues to rage on.
I was afraid people would not be able to come up with any more obscure points there for a minute.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
O ye of little faith. I myself had no doubts on that score. Especially since IngoB hasn't got his Minecraft project up and running yet. Once that's taking up more of his time and attention, someone will have to write an IngoBot program to fill the void.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
However even by your own admission, there is no fundamental principle underlying the Roman Catholic opposition to contraception. Merely that some people once thought it was a good idea, they gained power, and weren't successfully challenged. It's a pure fabrication. Evil out of thin air.
You are confused. I actually believe that the Roman Catholic Church has been put on earth to spread God's word. And that therefore she is infallible in matters of faith and morals, where she speaks definitely (and to be obeyed by faithful assent where she speaks merely strongly). That's my fundamental principle in this matter. Of course, it helps that I can argue much of RC morality from nature by reason, and that I can show that none of it is contrary to nature or reason. But I have no problem with admitting that my position on sexuality is fundamentally religious, not philosophical.
Then perhaps you could have a little word in the Church's ear and point out, as Apocalypso has so nicely done, that the earth's current population is at a point where 'go forth and multiply' might no longer be QUITE so relevant that it needs to be a first order law?
That's what annoys me the most, probably. Context is important when spreading God's word. What God said when there were 2 people on Earth ought not to be blindly extrapolated into something that the Church claims God is continuing to say when there are 7 billion of us.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Come to think of it, Ingo, the 'therefore' doesn't remotely follow. Okay, fine, so the church has been put on earth to spread God's word? How the hell does that lead to an implication that the church has perfect hearing and never makes a mistake while passing on the message?
You can well have a policy of 'I'm going to follow the church's official teachings, that's the best policy and will most likely mean I have things right'. That's fine. But that is very different from saying 'I'm going to follow the church because the church's teaching is perfect'.
With the best will in the world, no. God is perfect. God's teaching is perfect. It does not follow that the church's transmission of God's teaching is perfect. To pick the first example that leaps to mind, the church did eventually apologise to Galileo for being wrong, even if it took several centuries. They took passages of scripture and interpreted them in a particular way to put the Earth at the centre of the cosmos, and eventually they had to admit that the interpretation had been wrong. If the church's teaching was perfect, they never would have been in a position where they needed to apologise.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes, yes, orfeo, but IngoB is a human being under authority, isn't he? As are all Catholics.
A stroppy nonco like me looks at these moral choices through dissenting protestant eyes. But I can hardly expect a good practising Catholic to do the same.
Because IngoB is very bright, I do expect him to follow Thomas Moore as far as he can, and serve God "wittily, in the tangle of his mind". Which from reading his stuff I reckon he does. But it would be immoral of me to expect him to ditch Catholic docrine when it doesn't suit my moral perceptions. I would be expecting him to disobey his calling, surely, if I expected that.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You might want to consider, too, that not every employing individual/group in a church actually FOLLOWS that church's teaching and/or policies in employment matters. It's entirely possible that a pompous supervising jackass or three might have demanded such a thing of her, even though the RC church itself would not.
I doubt that very, very much. The climate of litigation within which US dioceses have to operate, especially in areas of employment, make the chances of anyone in any authority making the kind of threat, implicit or explicit, suggested by Genevieve's post vanishingly small.
I'm afraid your naivete is showing. The denomination of which I am a part has the same climate of litigation, and has had for years, and that never put off two management twats (in different church agencies) from blatantly illegal and unchristian behavior contrary to the laws of the land and the practice of the Church. And that was in reference to me, a single ordinary person. If it's happened to me twice (and to others I've spoken with), I conclude that assholery is a) quite common b) tends to blithely ignore the dangers of its own misconduct, including possible litigation. Which is virtually the definition of assholery, isn't it?
The alternative is, I suppose, that I am an asshole attractor* and that such things never happen to anyone else. Or that assholes in your church body are litigation conscious while those in mine are not.
Frankly, I find that kind of asshole self-sorting unlikely in the extreme.
* Yes, I have wondered about this occasionally
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The alternative is, I suppose, that I am an asshole attractor* and that such things never happen to anyone else. Or that assholes in your church body are litigation conscious while those in mine are not.
Frankly, I find that kind of asshole self-sorting unlikely in the extreme.
* Yes, I have wondered about this occasionally
I would not use that term anywhere from my experience of you on the Ship. Quite the opposite. Plain speaking should not be mistaken for something on that level. Ever. Someone who is direct may find themselves confronted with misbehaviour and say something, while others who've attracted the same behaviour do nothing.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yes, yes, orfeo, but IngoB is a human being under authority, isn't he? As are all Catholics.
A stroppy nonco like me looks at these moral choices through dissenting protestant eyes. But I can hardly expect a good practising Catholic to do the same.
Because IngoB is very bright, I do expect him to follow Thomas Moore as far as he can, and serve God "wittily, in the tangle of his mind". Which from reading his stuff I reckon he does. But it would be immoral of me to expect him to ditch Catholic docrine when it doesn't suit my moral perceptions. I would be expecting him to disobey his calling, surely, if I expected that.
I didn't take issue just now with following the church's teaching - in fact I said the exact opposite. I took issue with declaring that the church's teaching is perfect.
Probably because declaring it perfect implies that all us non-Catholics ought to be following it as well, not because of lines of authority but because it is intrinsically correct.
[ 19. February 2012, 00:17: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
