Friday, October 30, 2020

“Pastoral” and other weasel words

If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.  If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.

Analects of Confucius, Book XIII

But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’  For whatever is more than these is from the evil one. 

Matthew 5:37

“Weasel words,” as that expression is usually understood, are words that are deliberately used in a vague or ambiguous way so as to allow the speaker to avoid saying what he really thinks.  The phrase is inspired by the way a weasel can suck out the contents of an egg in a manner that leaves the shell largely intact.  A weasel word is like a hollowed-out egg, one that seems on the surface to have content but which is in fact empty.

In The Fatal Conceit, F. A. Hayek discusses how weasel words are often put to ideological purposes, in a way that can not only hide the true implications of the speaker’s views but even make them seem the opposite of what they really are, given the normal meanings of the terms he abuses.  Hayek’s Exhibit A is the adjective “social,” as used in phrases like “social justice.”  Naturally, the word “justice” is unobjectionable, and the word “social” by itself tends to connote the agreeable idea of attention to others and their needs.  But the phrase “social justice” is, in the mouths of left-wingers, often used as a fig leaf for ideas and programs that are by no means innocuous.  Hayek was writing at a time before the obnoxious “Social Justice Warrior” phenomenon, but it vividly illustrates his point, SJW “cancel culture” being the very opposite of either just or social.  Yet many people fall for it, because the label “social justice” sounds like the sort of thing that must be OK.

In other words, the use of a weasel word doesn’t always merely involve evacuating it of its original meaning.  Sometimes it also involves inserting into the hollowed out shell a new and opposite meaning.  But the positive connotations associated with the original meaning facilitate the listener’s acquiescing to the sleight of hand.

Weasel words have become an ecclesiastical lingua franca in Catholic circles in recent decades.  Words like “pastoral,” “dialogue,” “accompaniment,” and “discernment” would be examples.  They are, first of all, both vague and touchy-feely in a way that says little but generates pleasant associations, and thus are calculated to cause no offense – indeed, to reassure. 

They are, that is to say, soft words.  The comedian George Carlin had some choice remarks about soft language, and even the soft names that so many people prefer to give their children these days.  (Non-soft language warning for those who click on those links.)  Carlin opines that “soft names make soft people.”  Whatever one thinks of that thesis, soft words certainly make for soft minds, minds that cannot think clearly and logically and cannot abide firm judgments and plain speaking.  The great churchmen of the past used hard words like “sin,” “penance,” “conversion,” “damnation,” “heresy,” “orthodoxy”– the language of scripture, of the Fathers, of the saints.  Too many modern churchmen talk like kindergarten teachers.

But it’s worse than just being bland and inoffensive.  For the effect of these words is not merely to be silent about orthodoxy.  In some cases they are used in a way that implies the opposite of orthodoxy.  Consider one common use the word “pastoral.”  On the one hand, its original connotations are entirely positive.  It conjures up images of Christ as the Good Shepherd, or of a kindly priest gently advising a penitent or comforting someone in grief.  A pastor is someone who guides us to safety.  Hence the listener is halfway ready to accept anything to which the “pastoral” label is affixed.

Yet it is often affixed to actions and policies that involve the precise opposite of leading the faithful to safety.  Consider, for example, the way some churchmen have commented on Pope Francis’s recently reported remarks about same-sex civil unions, or on his apparent approval of giving Holy Communion to some couples living in adultery – both of which seem at odds with Catholic doctrine.  Some churchmen have tried to reassure Catholics that the pope was not in fact contradicting doctrine, but merely being “pastoral.”

But in a Catholic context, being truly “pastoral” would entail encouraging and helping the faithful (however gently) to live more perfectly in accordance with Church doctrine.  And the problem with the pope’s remarks is that they give the appearance of excusing or even facilitating not living in accordance with it.  Suppose a literal shepherd saw one of his sheep wandering over to where the wolves are and refrained from stopping it, or even gave it a little reassuring wink to indicate that all was well.  To characterize such action as “pastoral” would, to say the least, be a very odd use of the term.

In short, the word “pastoral” has become a weasel word in the sense Hayek warned of – the original meaning has been hollowed out, and a nearly opposite meaning has been insinuated in its place, while the kindly associations the word generates have lulled many into accepting this shift.

Or consider “discernment.”  A “discerning” person is someone who can make sound judgments in complex circumstances, who finds clarity in what is murky.  Naturally, no one can object to that.  But in defending the policy of allowing those living in adultery to receive Holy Communion, some have not only emptied the term of any clear meaning but even insinuated an opposite meaning – of finding murkiness where there has always been clarity.  The Church has always taught that a validly married couple can never divorce and remarry, that adulterous sexual acts are always gravely immoral, that those with no intention of refraining from them cannot receive absolution or take Holy Communion, and so on.  Some churchmen have been tying themselves in logical knots trying to find ways to justify exceptions to these clear and binding principles – all in the name of “discernment.”

Then there is “dialogue.”  The term connotes free and frank discussion with the aim of mutual understanding.  Once again, no one can object to that.  But in practice, “dialogue” in Catholic contexts is rarely frank and leads to obfuscation rather than understanding.  For example, a truly frank discussion between Christians and adherents of other religions, or between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians, would very quickly reveal that while they all have important things in common, there are also very deep and irreconcilable differences.  As a matter of basic logic, they simply cannot all be right about the matters that set them apart.  Hence, if you are a Catholic, you cannot avoid the judgment that the distinctive positions of non-Catholics are simply in error.

This is, of course, why in practice “dialogue” never leads anywhere.  A truly honest dialogue would soon result in the parties saying to one another: “Sorry, but you’re wrong, and you need to convert,” or at least “We’ll just have to agree to disagree.”  But neither of these is touchy-feely enough for your standard dialoguer.  So the “dialogue” is never actually free, much less frank or likely to result in understanding.  Anything that might result in clear, firm, and final judgments of incompatibility is kept off the table.

Of the weasel words referred to, “accompaniment” is the most vacuous.  Like other Catholic weasel words, it sounds good.  It connotes togetherness, or keeping someone from being lonely on a journey.  But a journey where?  Vague as they are, “pastoral,” “discernment,” and “dialogue” all connote some end state, at least in a very general way – safety in the first case, clarity in the second, mutual understanding in the third.  “Accompaniment” lacks even that.  Being vaguely agreeable in its connotations but extremely unspecific in its implications, talk of “accompaniment” is, by itself, even less likely to raise suspicions than the other words.

In practice, though, those we’re told to “accompany” always seem to be intent on going in a direction opposite to the one Catholic moral teaching commands.  And that can only lead to one place.  It is bad enough when a pastor refrains from warning those headed for ruin.  But a pastor who recommends “accompanying” them is like the shepherd who sends other sheep off in the same direction as the one wandering toward the wolves.

Related posts:

Against candy-ass Christianity

Nudge nudge, wink wink

Some varieties of bullsh*t

124 comments:

  1. "Suppose a literal shepherd saw one of his sheep wandering over to where the wolves are and refrained from stopping it, or even gave it a little reassuring wink to indicate that all was well."

    That made me laugh out loud.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent article.

      But I would add, the "discerning" "pastor" who "accompanies" the erring, perhaps "dialoguing" with him as they travel, to hell, is not merely sending other sheep along to the wolves. This is actually a false pastor, a wolf in sheep's clothing, and he's devouring the sheep himself.

      As St. Thomas observes, the apostate seeks to sever others from the flock, just as he has severed himself. It's a perverse instinct, observable always.

      Delete
  2. Ugh, my name is Kyle and now I'm self-conscious about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kyle - Variant form of Hebrew Kelila, meaning "crown" or "laurel." Accept your crown of thorns and be stronger for it.

      Delete
    2. Wow what a great comment. This would make me feel cool and strong but alas, I'm dressed like Woody from Toy Story to placate my children.

      Delete
  3. When people talk about "dialogue" as if it were inherently and self-evidently good, I like to remind them that it was through dialogue that Satan first induced Eve to sin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point, I am stealing your insight the next time someone torments me with the word dialogue. Thanks.

      Delete
    2. I have decided that anyone who wants dialogue - dia + logos, a thorough reasoning out - wants anything BUT dialogue.

      Delete
  4. Loved reading this. I have a hard time being optimistic about the future, especially spiritually. I'm trying to find a church and these recent events are making me irrationally biased against RC. I don't know what to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do yourself a favour and just do not join any of them. Or if you really must, try the Unitarians.

      Delete
    2. The Unitarians don't believe in much of anything at all, so I wouldn't recommend that. More seriously, I would recommend First Anonymous to look for a more traditionally-minded community. These latest kerfuffles are bad, yes, but the promise Christ made still holds, and the Church will emerge from this as it has emerged from every other crisis and scandal in its history. Also, it's worth mentioning that a fair amount (though not all) of the hysteria over these sort of things is generated by either misinformation or misunderstandings, amplified by social media and the internet in general. For instance, nobody who's read Pope Francis' full-throated denunciations of gay "marriage" over the years would be likely to think that the comments in the recent interview were proof that he secretly wants to give the OK to homosexual sex, but most people who hear about these things (even most Catholics) don't know about the things he's said in the past.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, to be clear, I meant "look for a more traditionally-minded Catholic community". Moving may not be feasible (esp. in Covid World), but it's possible to look online for the companionship of like-minded souls (though this obviously isn't ideal). And if you look hard enough, it's usually possible to find some smaller sub-organisation that will help you grow spiritually (say, a local chapter of the Legion of Mary).

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous: Do not "join" the RC Church unless you believe that what it teaches is true. If you do believe that what it teaches is true, then of course you cannot stay out of it.

      Delete
  5. As far as I know the CDF (which had condemned the acceptance of civil unions by in the past) is not infallible, though it holds very high authority. Catholics can disagree with it if they believe they have sufficiently strong reasons to do so, although prudence is always advised especially when teaching. And if anyone can legitimately disagree, the pope sure can.

    I see nothing wrong with the pope defending State recognition of civil unions as a compromise that provides legal coverage to homosexual couples while still maintaining "marriage" proper as that between men and women. Literally just a civil union. Disagree with the pope if you will, but what he said is nothing absurd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've got it backwards.
      If the Pope is going to go against what the Church has officially been teaching since Moses, he better be able to invoke his infallibility to avoid scandal and weasel words for the sake of every soul now living and yet to live.

      Delete
    2. Atno,

      That doesn't fly. It's not that the CDF's declaration is infallible, it's that it's true.
      Francis said that people with same sex attraction have a positive right to civil unions (and therefore homosexual acts), because they "have a right to a family". What about pedophiles? Don't they have a "right to a family"? If homosexual acts are "gravely disordered", no one has a positive right to them.

      The "right to a family" does not give a blanket justification for any behavior that purports to accomplish this right.

      Delete
    3. Anyone who's interested in this issue should read this blog post for more information:

      https://www.brianniemeier.com/2020/10/cds.html?m=1

      While I'm not a huge fan of Pope Francis, he's not even a shadow as bad as he's portrayed sometimes.

      Delete
    4. I don't think support for civil union rights contradicts any true, infallible teaching. It seems very sensible to me, in fact.

      Also, one would not want to appeal to Moses here.

      Delete
    5. TN,

      You are aware that the comment about "having the right to a family" was clearly made in the context of having the right not to *be thrown out of their birth families*, right? Here's the full quote (which is actually from an interview from last year):

      “I was asked a question on a flight - after it made me mad, made me mad for how one news outlet transmitted it - about the familial integration of people with homosexual orientation, and I said, homosexual people have a right to be in the family, people with homosexual orientation have a right to be in the family and parents have the right to recognize that son as homosexual, that daughter as homosexual. Nobody should be thrown out of the family, or be made miserable because of it.”

      Delete
    6. T N,

      When he spoke of the "right to have a family" I believe the context was families who were disowning homosexual family members simply because of their homosexuality, etc. The pope was rightly speaking against prejudiced exclusion.

      And in any case, it need not have anything to do with that.

      The pope did not say they have a "positive right (...) to homosexual acts". This is bad logic. People can have a right to entering into "civil unions" and therefore receiving the legal coverage that they need for practical matters. A homosexual couple/romantic partnership involves many practical matters and effects that would justify certain legal protections and rights. It would surely not involve bringing forth new life, as it happens in marriage, which is why marriage should be especially protected by the State. But it does involve many psychological effects; legal and economic matters; effects on their professional lives; etc. These things, which justify legal protection in the case of marriage, are also present in long-term homosexual couples. They should have the right to make medical decisions for their special other; to more easily settle matters of inheritance; of shared property; and a host of other issues that can all be contemplated under a "civil union".

      And it is what it is. A civil union. Not a marriage, but a civil union that could provide legal coverage for those who freely choose to engage in such relationships and have to deal with numerous practical and legal matters.

      The pedophile comparison is ridiculous and goes beyond due limits for laws, so I'll just ignore that.

      This position could provide legal coverage for those who want it and are struggling, mainly people who don't give a damn about our own morality or religious belief and just want to live their lives in peace with their partner, make their lives a little more bearable, while still maintaining the uniqueness of marriage as that between a man and a woman.

      So yeah, I think the CDF was wrong and it overlooked that. The pope might think the same. And you are free to disagree with me and the pope, but the point is that there's nothing absurd or outrageous in such a position.

      I also think that if the Church had adopted this view, results would have been far better overall. We might not have had "gay marriage" in many countries, we could have had a distinct category of civil unions while still preserving the meaning of marriage. It wouldn't work in every country of course, and we all know the LGBTQXYZUIOPSW+ movement is radical, but it could have worked in some places. It could have preserved marriage in many cases. And it could have spared a lot of slander and animosity against the church on an issue that strikes many people as unjust (and it may very well be unjust, denying legal coverage to consenting adults who just wanna build their lives with their partners and already have had to face lots of prejudice in the past).

      Delete
    7. I must state at this point that I have a mild disagreement with Atno - I don't think it was prudent for the Pope to express such sentiments given the scandal and appearance of contradiction it would inevitably cause (though in fairness, it would probably be very hard for Pope Francis to give any interviews at all without people manipulating his words and misquoting him). I do think that TN has a point. While it's not absolutely impossible for a Catholic to maybe countenance civil unions as a solution, at least in some circumstances, it would lead to confusion and lead some people into thinking that the teaching had changed, so I don't think they should in fact. Admittedly, though, some of that confusion results from the extreme crassness of our culture - we already degrade marriage to being essentially nothing more than a civil contract between two people, and having thrown out all the rich realities of marriage, it comes to seem scarcely any different from a civil union.

      Delete
    8. Cantus, Atno:

      Francis: "You can't kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this," he said. "What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered."

      We need a "civil union law" to protect people with same-sex attraction from being kicked out of their birth family? Please explain.


      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-same-sex-civil-unions-interview-bombshell-comments/

      Delete
    9. The second line was spliced, edited in from a totally different interview by the filmmaker. See here:

      https://www.brianniemeier.com/2020/10/cds.html?m=1

      Delete
    10. Cantus, Atno:

      I believe . . . The pope was rightly speaking against prejudiced exclusion.

      You believe.

      That is the problem, isn't it. Anyone can believe anything they want from any of Francis' comments. Thus the OP on weasel words.

      I'll respond further tomorrow when time allows.

      Delete
    11. It is true that the Pope's comments on civil unions were taken out of context. But not by a lot, more by connotation than by clear undoing. I go into it in considerable detail, here:

      http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2020/10/defending_pope_francis_from_ci.html

      Atno, a pope can in fact overturn what the CDF has taught ... if the CDF has been teaching something as its own teaching, on its own authority. But in 2003 the CDF was teaching what had already been definitive in the Church for many centuries (about not cooperating with evil, and about the centrality of marriage to the civil order and the common good).

      The present Considerations do not contain new doctrinal elements; they seek rather to reiterate the essential points on this question and provide arguments drawn from reason…Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.

      A pope cannot undo a doctrine like that just by an off-the-cuff comment in an interview. If he wanted to take it on head-on in an encyclical and not only repudiate it, but show how it is incompatible with more basic Catholic doctrine that all must believe, that would be something, but Francis is no more likely to do that than pigs to sprout wings or fire turn into ice. The Catholic does not allow a pope's off-the-cuff comment outweigh a many-centuries-old, developed, integrated, and coherent structure of doctrine embraced by many Popes, bishops, and Doctors.

      Delete
    12. The argument in the CDF document is stupid because it is based on a false dichotomy - either the rights are to be granted due to the possibility of bringing forth new life (marriage), or not at all.

      It failed to appreciate the case for how recognition of civil unions (not marriage, but civil union or contract) could be legitimate in light of providing legal coverage to people in homosexual unions who want to be able to make medical decisions for their partner; have their finances tied up together; their property; etc., a bunch of facts that also occur in marriage and which justify legal protection.

      You can definitely argue against "gay marriage" based on natural law and the understanding of marriage. The argument against civil unions, however, was poor.

      To be clear here: I am not simply saying that the pope was misrepresented or anything. Maybe he was. I am saying that it'd be fine for the pope to defend civil unions and in fact contradict the previous CDF direction against defending civil unions. And the consequences of that CDF document were overall terrible for society and the Church.

      Delete
    13. @Tony,

      You mentioned in your article that Francis may have meant the whole thing in an orthodox manner if we consider his other statements on the issue - but that the statement itself is ambiguous.

      But even if that were the case, the fact is that Pope Francis' statements must be understood in context as well, including context from a couple of years ago. We can't just consider one single imprecise statement of his that has unclear implications and hermetically seal it off from his other statements on the same issue that might clarify his own opinion. And if that context clarifies his actual position on the civil union issue and how it is to be understood, then this should be a light to help us read other, less-definite statements of his.

      Another thing related to your analysis I'd like to mention is that Francis need not be actually supporting co-operation with evil even if his statements do have problematic consequences / implications. For example, it's possible Francis is just entertaining two ultimately contradictory ideas for different reasons (say, wanting to be kind to gay people as much as sound Catholic morality will allow but not really having thought things through) without being fully aware of the contradiction between them and that his position is inconsistent, so he could just be unintentionally mistaken as well.

      Delete
    14. Atno, surely singly out non-married unions as worthy of civil recognition is dubious according to Church teaching, even with the considerations you mention? Aren't these unions a very real temptation to sin by their very nature? And we all know that they are seen as sexual units by society. How can the Church support this? It might be one thing ifyou meant generic agreements for things like legal coverage for anyone who wishes to have them, but you seem to be saying the Church is right to recognize specifically homosexual unions, predicated on romantic and sexual relationships, yet condemn their consequences.

      Delete
    15. This conversation is quickly becoming unwieldy.

      Regardless of all else (translations, context, whatever), Francis jumbled together a number of concepts with the intent to confuse them all. Talking about having a “right to a family” and then throwing “civil unions” in the mix is deliberate and disingenuous. The intent is to conflate marriage with civil unions, and that is what he accomplished.

      Atno took the bait: he argues that you can distinguish between marriage and civil unions in the theoretical realm (my paraphrase), but not in concrete ways. Marriage (i.e. that relationship that creates the next generation) has different rights (legal and otherwise) because it is a different thing. It is not morally permissible (as the CDF declaration says) to conflate the two in every way except in some theoretical realm.

      Delete
    16. @T N,

      The idea of a positive intent to confuse them and others is extraneous to this - you can easily come up with more charitable reasons for why he made a mistake.

      One basically has to appeal to other controversies - assuming they too are proven to have malicious intent of course - in order to just sip up and snap down that Francis is intentionally undermining doctrine in this particular case.

      Delete
    17. Joe,

      Francis does this literally all the time. How many examples are required?

      Delete
    18. So bottom line:

      Is the sexual relationship that perpetuates the species indistinguishable from other sexual relationships except in theory? If they are concretely differnt things, why should they be treated as if they are not except in theory only?

      Delete
    19. Except that is not what I'm arguing.

      The point is simply this:

      Marriage involves a lot more, not just theoretically, but concretely, than just any kind of civil union, and in particular than any kind of homosexual union. This justifies special protection and the like; marriage and a homosexual union are different both concretely as well as in theory.

      We can grant all that.

      One very important way in which marriage is special and concretely distinct from a homosexual union is that it can bring forth new life, and this brings a special set of responsibilities on the part of the State and society in protecting marriage.

      However, marriage also involves the following facts: economic and professional intertwining between husband and wife; deep psychological effects and connections between both partners; shared property and shared living; and the like. These facts have a very significant practical weight for the lives of the couple as well as those around us. So the State also has reason to provide legal protections to marriages BECAUSE of those facts, even IF the "bringing forth of new life" didn't even get into the picture.

      And as it stands, a homosexual union also involves these same facts. It doesn't have everything in common with marriage - far from it, as I said. But it does have a great deal in common with it, and what it does have in common with it can be deserving of legal protection. These are adults in a romantic relationship who are building a life together, will be deeply connected both psychologically as well as economically and professionally, will share property, and so on. Therefore there is some justification for the State to provide legal coverage to such unions - Civil Unions - given their practical effects on these people's lives and those around them. Some of the same kind of practical effects that occur in marriage and justify legal protection.

      The CDF document failed to consider this. That's why its argument is bad. Marriage and civil unions are distinct both theoretically and concretely, but they can still share enough things in common that are relevant for justifying legal protection and recognition by the State.

      Agree or disagree with me (and pope Francis, if this was his point), but it's not absurd or outrageous. What the CDF taught is not infallible and we may have reason to question its argumentation, reason sufficiently strong so as to overpower a presumption of authority and assent (and if anyone is more free to call such things into question, it is the pope).

      Delete
    20. "mainly people who don't give a damn about our own morality or religious belief"

      People who don't give a damn about religious belief and morality are also unlikely to give a damn about maintaining any distinction between civil partnerships and marriage.

      I've seen two examples of civil partnerships later leading to the introduction of gay marriage, quickly in the UK and, a much stronger civil partnership system in France lasted longer but was also superseded. I doubt introducing them makes the introduction of gay marriage in any way less likely.

      Delete
    21. I myself said that the LGBTQIAHSOSBALE+ movement is radical and unlikely to settle for anything less than "marriage", and that it is likely that "gay marriage" would still follow in many countries. But it could be prevented in others. With civil unions, defenders of traditional marriage have a much stronger argument, since there can no longer be any discussions of how gay couples are being deprived of rights and recognition for their unions; the only thing left discussing would be marriage itself and its traditional meaning for allowing for bringing forth new life. Romantic homosexual unions would already be recognized and granted certain legal rights; then it's a matter of whether or not we should also call it "marriage" and whether children can be involved. The "equality" argument becomes a lot weaker and the traditional position becomes a lot stronger. So I think overall it would be good.

      The other consequence I pointed to was how the opposition to civil unions further fueled animosity towards the Church, accusations of backwardness, insensitivity, prejudice, etc. It has soured the relationship between Church and society; diminished the influence of the Church as well as the authority of religion for many ordinary people. All in all quite a terrible move. Reminds me of all the authoritarian, confused ultramontanist/anti-democratic blunders by the Church in the 19th and very early 20th century which greatly contributed to the loss of influence and credibility of religion, and fostered secularism and anti-clericalism in Europe (and we're still dealing with the consequences today).

      Delete
    22. Atno,

      Yeah, and you are merely arguing that the difference is accidental, not essential.

      What the Church would be doing (and what your argument does) by recognizing “civil unions”, is acting as if “civil unions” are de facto marriages that just happen to be infertile. They are not. They are different by nature and not merely accidental differences in human interactions.

      Economic intertwining, psychological connections, shared property, etc. can also apply to business partners, siblings, and any social group. We don’t call them “marriages” or some purported equivalent. Why? Because they are essentially different (i.e. different by nature).

      You (and the Church) can say that people ought to be able to grant power of attorney to whomever they wish. You and the Church can affirm that you can love anyone you want. But to implicitly claim that homosexual unions are essentially the same with some accidental differences is false.

      Delete
    23. I'm not saying they are essentially the same, "only with some accidental differences". You're reading this into my argument. I don't know how much more simple I can make it. My argument doesn't have to presuppose any of it. The point is simply that a homosexual union involves practical facts X, and X are such that they make it reasonable for the state to provide certain legal rights for people in these unions that involve X.

      "Economic intertwining, psychological connections, shared property, etc. can also apply to business partners, siblings, and any social group. We don’t call them “marriages” or some purported equivalent. Why? Because they are essentially different (i.e. different by nature)."

      1- when did I say we should call them marriages? The point is precisely that it's not marriage. It is just a civil union;

      2- if there are any other relationships that involve X in the same way long-term romantic relationships do, then it may also be reasonable for the State to provide legal coverage for those cases under a "civil union". I disagree with you, however, that "siblings", "business partners", etc. involve X to the same degree long-term, committed romantic unions do. I don't think you are doing justice to it.

      Delete
    24. Let's not forget that Francis isn't even necessarily endorsing the existence of civil unions a priori - he is likely endorsing legal protections for people who ALREADY HAPPEN TO BE in such unions.

      An analogy would be endorsing legal protections for Catholics in irregular second marriages, or basically acquiescing in civil unions between them. It's not approval of the situation as such, but a prudential judgment of how to deal with them since they exist or are inevitable in concrete circumstances.

      Delete
    25. If there is political pressure within a country to introduce civil unions specifically for homosexual couples (i.e. different to the civil solidarity pact in France, where siblings, life long friends etc. could enter into one) it suggests that the LGBT lobby is already active. In that case it seems probable that civil unions that extend most of the rights of marriage to homosexual relationships would soon be moved onto full gay marriage; the argument would be why deny couples the right to have their union publicly recognised and celebrated on the same footing as heterosexuals when they get all of the other rights already? Especially when there is often less of a clear established link, in the context of civil marriage, between marriage, children and family life.

      The Church might be able to support something like a civil solidarity pact though.

      On the subject of liberalism vs. absolutism in the 19th century, I don't see it as so relevant to the present day. Such struggles did not go on in Protestant countries and the influence of mainline Protestant churches has collapsed in an even more radical way than the Catholic Church. Sometimes, even in these cases, there seems no direct link between Church attitudes and the status of religion, which may have waxed and waned through the 20th century before decreasing in line with rising GDP towards the end.

      The recent rise of wokedom, particularly in the last year or two, has blackpilled me in general about the possibilities of compromise with 'progressive'/liberal forces in society; if it isn't one thing (gay marriage, pushing religions to help dismantle heteronormativity and patriarchy), it quickly moves onto another (transexuality and dismantling cis-normativity). It seems like Ctulhu does always swim left towards states of maximum social entropy. I even started reading through Charles Maurras again a few months ago because he suddenly seemed culturally relevant.

      Delete
    26. Atno,

      “I'm not saying they are essentially the same,”

      It is implicit in the argument for civil unions as evinced by your last statement:

      “involve X to the same degree long-term, committed romantic unions do. I don't think you are doing justice to it.”

      I’m “not doing it justice” because such an arrangement sets up de facto “marriages” by another name.

      My argument is that “civil unions” create confusion and obscure the Church’s teaching on marriage by recognizing unions that make a parody of marriage. Such a move would severely impair the Church’s mission to teach the meaning of love, marriage, and the human body. You say otherwise. The discussion has to end somewhere.

      Delete
    27. JoeD,

      Why does the Church have to teach anything at all? Let's just have the Church do a bunch of philosophizing and navel gazing. That'd be cool. None of it would have anything to do with actually changing the world in any concrete way because . . . meh . . . who wants to do that? Living in your head and making up neat theories is better.

      Let's just be Docetists; it's much easier.

      Delete
    28. Christianity without a cross.

      Delete
    29. "I’m “not doing it justice” because such an arrangement sets up de facto “marriages” by another name."

      No, it doesn't set up "marriage by another name" (whatever that could mean; it's not marriage), the point is simply that stable romantic relationships committed to building a life together have more relevant practical effects X so as to justify the legal coverage of civil unions. But if other arrangements ALSO involved X like that, then you could very well argue for their being covered by civil unions also. It has nothing to do with being essentially the same as marriage; quite the contrary, it is NOT like marriage in essence, only in accident. And what I'm saying is that these accidental similarities justify a sort of legal protection. If other unions also involve these accidents, they could also be covered, but realistically I don't think "sibling", "business partners" etc involve the same X like heterosexual and homosexual stable long-term romantic relationships do.

      "My argument is that “civil unions” create confusion and obscure the Church’s teaching on marriage by recognizing unions that make a parody of marriage. Such a move would severely impair the Church’s mission to teach the meaning of love, marriage, and the human body. You say otherwise. The discussion has to end somewhere."

      You can argue for that. You don't have to agree with me or the pope. I just don't want my position to be seen as "outrageous" or beyond the pale for a Catholic, as if everyone has to absolutely agree with what the CDF has argued on this, and the only acceptable clarification the pope can do is supposedly a retreat - "I am actually against civil unions, sorry".

      The CDF is not infallible and if someone - especially a pope - judges that they've erred, they can disagree. Of course, the CDF carries a lot of weight and presumptive force. But disagreement is still possible, yet a lot of people have been losing their minds over this issue as if no discussion should even be allowed and there's no way the pope can justifiably defend civil unions, etc.

      Delete
    30. the point is simply that stable romantic relationships committed to building a life together have more relevant practical effects X so as to justify the legal coverage of civil unions.

      Atno, the difficulty is that such relationships, other than marriage, are per se disordered, and any civil law that grants them ANY status at all assists and even indirectly promotes immoral acts. To intend to make a law in order to bring about that effect is what is known as FORMAL cooperation with evil, which is sinful. But it is also true that to make a law without even explicitly intending to promote that effect but willing it on account of the "good effects" of such a law amounts to immediate material cooperation with evil, which is also sinful. It is immediate material cooperation with evil in that the good effects envisioned run right through the evil acts envisioned and presuppose them. This violates the norms of the Principle of Double Effect, one of which is that the good effect intended not arise through or by reason of the moral evil foreseen.

      So, yes: a pope can contradict the CDF. But not when the CDF is merely pointing at centuries-long approved doctrine like the PDE. (Not to mention if the Pope thought the CDF really had erred, the proper way to do it would be to say so, rather than ambiguously insinuate something or other that is hard to square up with what CDF had already taught.)

      In the case where civil union law is already in effect, a Catholic legislator would be allowed to vote in favor of a law that mitigated its evils while leaving the basic categories in place. But where no such law is present, advocating for it seems to be in violation of PDE norms.

      I understand the temptation to suggest that where the choice seems to be "if you don't advocate for civil unions, you're going to get 'gay marriage' laws instead". And it might even be true. But that doesn't automatically mean we could advocate for civil union law: if the choice were "if you don't advocate for killing all babies under 1 year old, we are going to get a law killing all babies under 2 years old instead" we could not go along and argue that prudentially, the law for killing fewer kids is better so that's the one we should support. No dice. Sometimes you have to accept that a bad law is being made over your objections.

      Delete
  6. George Orwell used the word ‘doublethink’—it’s how you implement authoritarian control, like Socialism—but weasel word is good too.

    “An open mind, like an open mouth, is meant to shut on something solid.” G.K. Chesterton

    ReplyDelete
  7. The explanation for Francis’ thoughts on communion for the re-married is that one party truly desires to adhere to the Church’s teaching on marital chastity, but cannot because doing so would anger the other spouse. What this does is puts the Church in the position of endorsing domestic violence.

    The pope-splainers, Cardinal Kasper, and maybe even Francis should really just join the Orthodox; they've had that for a long time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For clarity:

      If a person really doesn't want to have sex with someone who is not their spouse, but feels compelled to anyway, that is a form of rape. What Francis' is doing is having the Church condone rape in order to recieve communion.

      Delete
    2. TN,

      Only if there is not moral council to leave. While one might argue that mild verbal abuse should be tolerated for the sake of the children rape is heinous evil. Should not the pressures person be able to kick the aggressor out of the home and have a restraining order. While determining who the children should be with while the parents are separated is difficult. Clearly they should be separated.

      However if things are difficult and the person has been verbally abused it may be difficult for them to leave. If that is what his comments were directed towards then while insufficient they are accurate. Why should rape bar you from communion? Obviously the culprit cannot. This would make hia walk with them comments make more sense. Perhaps I should no longer trust a media which thinks a statue is what we mean by the body of Christ to have any idea if Pope Francis is Orthodox or not. I tend to assume people do their homework.

      Denying communion to rape victims is immoral. If that is his point then it's up to the person receiving to ensure they are a valid recipient. Not for the priest to deny them when one can charitably think they are worthy.

      If one cannot be certian beyond a resonable doubt how can one deny the sacrament to someone?

      Delete
  8. Did you run out of cartoons for thumbnails? Haven't seem them in a while

    ReplyDelete
  9. A combox discussion so far not overrun by Stardusty and his imitators and supporters. That's a change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I presume that is an invitation. What a moron you are.

      Delete
    2. Get lost Cervantes.

      Delete
  10. For many, I suspect the main threat to orthodoxy is not anything Pope Francis might say but certain overreactions to him. One has only to look at the ramblings of Archbishop Vigano and the coterie of Catholic "spokesmen" who support him to see where the danger for them is.
    Vigano has openly adopted the Protestant "End-Times" narrative. The Pope is the
    antiChrist, or his ally, and Trump the "kathekon".

    Some groups, like the Remnant, OenPeterFive, Church Militant, are openly attacking Vatican I, in the case of the Remnant, denying that Papacy is the Rock upon which the Church is built. For them, the principal threat to remaining in the Church of Christ is their own schismatic type ideas.

    This problem is not likely to go away no matter who wins the presidential election in the United States. This mob of lunatics has now gone beyond all reason in its hatred of Pope Francis, who while certainly a problem, is actually better than some of his critics on certain issues. On the other hand, far from being chased from the Church by Francis, it is more likely that these groups will exclude themselves. Perhaps it's a good thing in the end, looking at their state of mind.

    The things that scandalised Luther were real. But he ended up outside the Church, and those he hated remained firmly inside. The same may be what's going to happen with the lunatics around Vigano; they will contemplate Pope Francis from outside the Church. But perhaps they'll be happier like that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you mean the "katechon"? "To kathekon" is a term in Stoic ethics, "the appropriate" or the like.

      Delete
    2. Yes indeed. It might have been for Vigano's sanity if he had been referring to the Stoic concept though...

      Delete
  11. I call bullshit on the Sky-is-Falling-Crowd! Pope Francis merits criticism but as per usual the critics have their heads up their butts. I'm nor having it laddie.
    (activate Full Scottish mode. Alba Gu Brah!)

    Is the "civil union" in question the Pope has in mind a formal legal recognition that the participates are in a romantic sexual relationship analogous to a marriage? Is it something a man could legally participate in with his "boyfriend' but not his brother(incest is still illegal)? Well that is wrong and contrary to doctrine.

    Or is it just a domestic partnership where any two individuals sharing a household may wish to form a legal and economic union and it is not implied they have to be sexually involved as a pre-requisite? Well I don't see how technically that is against the CDF?

    According to Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez who worked with Francis in Brazil at the time.

    Quote "Cardinal-Bergoglio(future Francis) “always recognized that, without calling it ‘marriage,’ in fact there are very close unions between people of the same sex, which do not in themselves imply sexual relations, but a very intense and stable alliance. They know each other thoroughly, they share the same roof for many years, they take care of each other, they sacrifice for each other. Then it may happen that they prefer that in an extreme case or illness they do not consult their relatives, but that person who knows their intentions in depth. And for the same reason they prefer that it be that person who inherits all their assets, etc. This can be contemplated in the law and is called ‘civil union’ [unión civil] or ‘law of civil coexistence’ [ley de convivencia civil], not marriage.”

    This is likely what he meant given his constant public teaching on evils of homosexuality, false gay marriage and gay adoption and Gender Theory (thought it is granted this concept mentioned by the Archbishop is naive & thus it doesn't surprise me Francis is into it) and last year when they did the final edit of the film about him they omitted this conversation on civil unions in the final cut.

    Clearly this was leaked by somebody with an agenda. Also Catholic News Agency clearly showed the released footage was heavily edited to distort the Pope's words.

    https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-homosexuality-comments-heavily-edited-in-documentary-no-vatican-comment-on-civil-union-88210

    So I cry bullshit and I condemn assholes who give aide and comfort to the anti-Catholic media instead of denouncing them for lying and backing down in explaining Papal Authority(even if the Pope went the full heretic here a conversation is not doctrinally binding). If this was sleepy creepy Joe Biden misquoting Trump many of you lot would be chomping at the bit to answer that(as would I MAGA!). But because it is Francis you want to make it look like any day now he is gonna make gay marriage the eight sacrament. It is not going to happen!

    Now having defended the Pope's honor here from the usual suspects I will venture the real criticism that needs to be said (and was alluded to in Prof Feser's article).

    The Pope needs to get off his backside and clearly teach the Catholic Faith. If people are running around claiming he is doing a 180 on gay marriage he should be doing the damage control and not sit by "turning the other cheak".

    Now some of the gay activists have noticed the Pope hasn't actually changed any Church teaching.

    https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/12/01/pope-francis-homosexuality-gay-priests/

    https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/10/27/pope-francis-lgbt-gay-marriage-same-sex-civil-union-comments/

    But they are also using these comments to justify gay marriage in Poland and using them to attack the Catholic Church. That must not be allowed.

    So speak out! But aim correctly or I will go the full Scottish on you!

    I have spoken all hail me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Son of, I don't disagree with you that many of the pope's critics have gone to excess this time. But there is more to the story than accepting some (nebulous) legal status for generic "pairs of people who live together regardless of any sexual status". The fact is that we have had "pairs of people" living together without sex for a very great long time without anyone suggesting they needed (or should get) some of the benefits we grant to married couples. It's only now that same sex couples want a special status that there is any push for giving it to "all those other too". The "other people" is a cover for giving gays a social status.

      The trick is to consider each of the benefits that are usually talked about for these civil union pairs, and ask "was there actually a specific REASON this benefit was given to married folk and not to, say, two brothers living together?" And sure enough, there sure is, a good reason. I go into considerable detail over at whatswrongwiththeworld.net check it out.

      In fact, several cardinals and bishops have suggested allowing civil unions as a method of MINIMIZING the effect of "gay marriage": kind of like let's reduce the damage to something less than full on "gay marriage" to a lesser evil, in a situation where "gay marriage" is already approved. (Like a Catholic legislator voting to pass a law that allows abortion only in the 1st trimester, in order to reduce from the current law allowing it in all 3 trimesters).

      That's fine, as long as you make it CLEAR that you are not OK with "gay marriage", and you are trying to REDUCE the evils. Otherwise you end up giving scandal to those who thought (rightly) that civil unions, too, are evil and to be avoided. You can't give scandal in the course of trying to do minimize some evil.

      So, did the pope make it clear that he meant "civil union law is a less-bad law than 'gay marriage' law, we'd be better of with civil unions"? No, not even close. Ambiguously, his EARLIER comments in other years can be read that way, but this one is just not even suggestive of that. So, yes, the pope probably doesn't want gays getting all sorts of pseudo-marriage treatment, but he (like usual) isn't careful about how he talks and he give the impression (even in the real interview, not in the sliced up documentary) that he positively FOR civil unions for gays.

      Delete
    2. Tony,

      What the gays want(activist left winger types) is a legal authority or some type of public authority to say their "lifestyle" is good or moral. Which it is not by definition. They would complain "Why can't I visit my lover in the hospital if they are sick? They say they have these rules you must be related blah blah blah..". So we give them what is not wrong to give them in the first place. If only out of consideration or kindness. Church teaching also says unjust discrimination against the gays is wrong and some of the things they say they want is not wrong to give them and is plausibly unjust if we don't.

      Of course if giving them these civil considerations where all that mattered they would have just stopped with Civil Union Domestic Partnerships and stopped banging on about it. But while there is an agreeable class of gay libertarians who practice live and let live & don't care about legal marriage as they think the whole concept is a License to F-word from the State. There are a class of gay totalitarians who need to force the rest of us to grant them formal recognition for that which we can never in principle recognize.

      That lot are the problem. They became the problem the moment gay marriage was legalized and they took the first Christian Baker and or Wedding Photographer to court to rub their noise in it & force their participation. Their next act will be to civilly penalize religions that don't allow gay marriage. Uncle Bad Touch hair smeller & Camel Toe the new witch of the West have been signaling that recently if they get power.

      Morally you can have civil unions for persons whom the moral and natural law do not prohibit chaste cohabitation. That gays might take advantage of it still gives the law plausible deniability IMHO and as you say given the current climate it is the lesser evil.

      >The fact is that we have had "pairs of people" living together without sex for a very great long time without anyone suggesting they needed (or should get) some of the benefits we grant to married couples.

      Yeh but with the rise of the social welfare state if we didn't have gays someone would want it. The Chuck and Larry types.

      >I go into considerable detail over at whatswrongwiththeworld.net check it out.

      Thanks I will give it a look.

      >So, did the pope make it clear that he meant "civil union law is a less-bad law than 'gay marriage' law, we'd be better of with civil unions"? No, not even close.

      The Pope didn't but Fernandez made it clear that is what he likely meant and given the proximity they worked together it is the likely inference.

      Not that this matters to gay propagandists or Radtrads who wish to claim Pope Francis is now preparing an Ex Cathedra decree allowing the gay marriage.

      It is all a meme war not a rational discussion.

      >Ambiguously, his EARLIER comments in other years can be read that way, but this one is just not even suggestive of that.

      Nonsense, first of all we don't know the true context and as CNA showed his words have been edited from an interview he gave last year.

      >he (like usual) isn't careful about how he talks and he give the impression (even in the real interview, not in the sliced up documentary) that he positively FOR civil unions for gays.

      That is the real problem he is not careful. No argument but I have a problem with those of us who know how to be careful & refusing to do so because "Man in White" heretic or something.

      Delete
    3. Really, why should anyone outside your church give a toss about what it teaches about anything in particular ( plenty inside it do not )? Apart from any other considerations , gay marriage being legal is a matter of religious freedom, as plenty of churches find it perfectly acceptable, and the days have thankfully long since passed when you had a monopoly in deciding this kind of thing.

      Delete
    4. What does the state recognizing gay marriage have to do with religious freedom? No one is saying private institutions can't perform what they consider same-sex marriages, so any position by the state recognizing or not recognizing SSM seems to be the state taking a positive position on a moral issue not a matter of religious freedom.

      Delete
    5. Golly, I sure don't want anyone to go full Scottish on me. Sounds brutal.

      Does the sexual relationship that produces society have different rights (legal and otherwise) because it is a different thing? Or should it have no different rights as any other sexual relationship and we can just distinguish it theoretically in our heads?

      Delete
    6. >Golly, I sure don't want anyone to go full Scottish on me. Sounds brutal.

      Now you will feel the steel of my Claymore.

      >Or should it have no different rights as any other sexual relationship and we can just distinguish it theoretically in our heads?

      It has nothing to with it.

      Rather letting somebody visit you in the hospital doesn't have to solely apply to persons with whom you share a moral sexual relationship with (i.e. yer married in the correct Catholic understanding of marriage-Man/Woman etc). There is no natural right to visit somebody in the Hospital unique only to (validly) married persons.

      You have a natural right to dispose yer property as you see fit. Creating a legal disposition by which a person whom you formally share a domestic partnership with (which does not per say recognize yer cohabitation is a wee bit more than merely being roommates)has an automatic right of survivorship need not be exclusive to persons whose union is that of a true marriage.

      The Civil Unions condemned by the CDF clearly refer to any civil union that tries to make a formal and explicit marriage analog between two same sex persons who enter it. No Catholic can advocate for that. But I am not convinced those are the "civil unions" the Pope is talking about?

      What do you think the CDF is condemning here? Do you imagine it is placing a ban on an ambiguous equivocal term ie "civil unions"? Or is it condemning a clearly defined concept? I say the later.

      Now fall to wrath sassanach! Alba Gu Brah!

      Delete
    7. anon,

      Would mind Sodding off! I am talking to my fellow Catholics about our Spiritual Father. It is a family argument. Yer nor welcome to it. Now on yer bike. Clear off!

      Delete
    8. Tony,

      I'd like to remind you that Pope Francis *has* been much clearer about the true nature of marriage in other places. For instance, this is the same Pope who said "The family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage. These realities are increasingly under attack from powerful forces which threaten to disfigure God’s plan for creation.
      ", and compared the damage done to society by gender theory to the physical harm done by nuclear bombs. Should he have clarified again in the same interview? Maybe, but what would have stopped the filmmaker from editing that out, too?

      Delete
    9. Cantus, filmmakers can indeed edit a great deal, but they tend not to edit out two words of a sentence and keep the other 7, it makes the lilt and cadence seem weird, and becomes too obvious. So, one of the tricks is to couch your language so EACH SENTENCE contains qualifiers or at least clear pointers to qualifiers in the previous sentences. And the qualifiers should always be there in each paragraph at a minimum. So, for example, on gays having a "right to a family", he could have phrased it as "those suffering from same-sex attraction are born into a family and that family relationship doesn't just go away..." And so on.

      Although Francis has made "clear" in some places his opposition to homosexual acts, he has also undermine some of that with other comments that seem to ease off, not on the fact that the acts are wrong, but (for example) on whether the acts disqualify one from receiving communion. Secondly, there is real doubt as to whether Francis thinks civil unions (or some lesser but still officially recognized status) for gays is just "not a a great idea if you can avoid having such a law" or (like the CDC taught) that it is gravely pernicious and damaging to the institution of marriage and can only be tolerated, not approved.

      Delete
    10. Yakov - You are an abusive, ill tempered fellow arn't you. Not at all suited to heaven I would say. Better hit those Hail Mary's as you risk several billion unnecessary years in purgatory I would say��

      Delete
    11. Yakov,

      Claymores! Yikes!

      If you want to visit someone in the hospital, or enter into a legal contract with someone for power of attorney, or whatever, fine with me. If you want me to call that "marriage" (or whatever equivalent), I won't.

      Delete
    12. @TN

      >If you want to visit someone in the hospital, or enter into a legal contract with someone for power of attorney, or whatever, fine with me.

      We agree.

      >If you want me to call that "marriage" (or whatever equivalent), I won't.

      We agree but the issue is can a Catholic advocate for any Civil Union between same sexed persons who wish to enter into it that is legally and formally a marriage analog?

      The CDF says no and I don't think Pope Francis disagrees. But waiting for him to clear it up well we will be halfway threw John Paul III or Francis II reign before that happens.

      Delete
    13. Anon

      >Yakov - You are an abusive, ill tempered fellow arn't you.

      Yes now sod off.

      Delete
    14. Ha, ha. Another million years in purgatory. Tut, tut.

      Delete
    15. Tony

      Did ye nor read the articles on how the clip was manipulated and did ye not read the transcript of the original interview? They spliced sentences together out of context and even out of chronological order. It was pretty bad. CNN levels of bad.

      They could have made St John Paul II himself sound like uber liberal Anglican Bishop John Spong. You can't act like everybody around you is gonna lie like a devil and misrepresent what you say. On this the Pope gets a pass & I am more than willing to throw him under the bus for not speaking out to clarify right now.

      >on whether the acts disqualify one from receiving communion.

      Moving the goal posts. Nobody is disputing Amoris is problematic. We have had that discussion. What is at stake here is the objective fact Pope Francis has been consistent and consistently clear on gay adoption, gay priests, gay marriage and homosexual conduct. Fanatics who run around trying to credibly claim Francis has changed his views or the Church's teaching on these matters are about as credible as somebody claiming Pope Francis now disbelieves in Global Warming. It doesn't pass the laugh test.

      >Secondly, there is real doubt as to whether Francis thinks civil unions (or some lesser but still officially recognized status) for gays is just "not a a great idea if you can avoid having such a law"

      This circumstantial evidence seems to point too him supporting a genetic civil union law that even related persons or any persons who are not lover can enter into. The only accommodation are those that would be due them by natural justice.

      Delete
    16. Did ye nor read the articles on how the clip was manipulated and did ye not read the transcript of the original interview? They spliced sentences together out of context and even out of chronological order. It was pretty bad. CNN levels of bad.

      I read both, man. The original interview was no great shakes for clearness of Catholic teaching, though they made it worse with clipping and re-arranging. They chopped him up. But they did not chop phrases in half, nor create fake sentences with each word from a different real sentence.

      This circumstantial evidence seems to point too him supporting a genetic civil union law that even related persons or any persons who are not lover can enter into. The only accommodation are those that would be due them by natural justice.

      On what grounds are the privileges granted by such laws "due to them by natural justice?"

      Delete
    17. Hello?

      The chopped up interview gave the impression Pope Francis believed Gays should be allowed to start their own families (like a Mother and Father do). The original interview merely told us gays shouldn't be rejected by their own families just for being gay. Major difference!

      How did you miss that? That is a major misrepresentation of the stated opinions of a man who has clearly said children need both a mother and a father.

      >On what grounds are the privileges granted by such laws "due to them by natural justice?"

      Natural Justice is just the duty to act fairly. What privileges do you feel are granted to let us say two brothers in a domestic partnership that are not fair and should be reserved to married persons alone?

      Delete
    18. The chopped up interview gave the impression Pope Francis believed Gays should be allowed to start their own families (like a Mother and Father do).

      I would say that the chopped up interview was intentionally ambiguous as to whether Francis thought gays should be able to start their own families, with, yes, a leaning toward the idea they could, but not anything like a clear commitment in that direction. It was a twisting of Francis's words because the original interview didn't go there. Unfortunately, the original interview, while it clearly was meant to refer primarily to the family a homosexual is born into, was also less than perfectly clear. For example, after the pope said they have a "right to be in a family" (itself not EXPLICITLY limited to the family they were born into), he then cut down clarity even further with this:

      and the parents have the right to recognize this son as homosexual, this daughter as homosexual.

      This is damaging also, because properly speaking the son or daughter is a person who at present suffers from SSA, they are not "a homosexual" in the same sense they are "a son" or "a daughter": their homosexual disorder does not characterize their very being. They might be cured of it. Even if they are not cured of it, they need not act on the disordered inclinations, the disorder does not define what constitutes happiness and upright life. And what is the purpose of calling this a "right" of the parents - it almost implies a "right" of the child also to BE a homosexual" - more confusion. The pope could have said everything beneficial in his comment and nothing damaging by more measured language: each child has a right to be acknowledged as a person, made in God's image, and having the dignity of being destined for heaven. If a child suffers from SSA, he or she does not lose his or her dignity as a person and a right to be loved: every child has a right to be helped in the struggle toward holiness with each child's own individual crosses and difficulties, and a right to seek medical assistance to overcome those disorders that are in them at birth or due to disease, abuse and environmental factors. No child ought to be thrown out of a family because of suffering from SSA or any disorder they suffer from, though a young adult may merit being separated on account of behavior that cannot be condoned or overlooked in the context of raising other children.

      Delete
    19. Natural Justice is just the duty to act fairly. What privileges do you feel are granted to let us say two brothers in a domestic partnership that are not fair and should be reserved to married persons alone?

      The issue refers to "privileges" or "benefits" that are is granted to married couples, and whether some or all of them ought to belong to other pairs or groups as a matter of justice."
      First note that some of the benefits are not such that ANYONE has a claim to them as a simple matter of justice. But we decided that it made society better by granting them to married couples as a unit.

      When pensions were first offered in modern industry / business, most of them were established to pay just the retiree for his life, not to the retiree and spouse until the second one is dead. But it became clear that the latter sort, the "joint life plus survivor" pension is more wholesome and fitting for society, because the married couple are a social unit, and ESPECIALLY because the wife (usually, at the time) did not have a job because she contributed to the welfare of society through her work inside the home: they ordered their working and financial affairs so that one could attend primarily to work that brought an income and one could attend primarily to raising the next generation of citizens. So that her financial well-being was intimately connected to (dependent on) her husband's work - so her "retirement" finances were, also, dependent on his retirement benefits. A brother and sister who happen to live together are absolutely NOT in a similar situation: there is no principle upon which we would naturally expect that their financial affairs to have become like those of a married couple, since they are not married and raising children. If it is true that the brother is supporting the sister financially by his work, what is the sister contributing to the welfare of society? Supposing that an employer has an obligation in justice to grant a “joint life and last survivor benefit” to just any two people who live together is nonsensical, and would in fact lead to MANY bad effects. Not least of which is that there would no principled way to limit it to just ONE additional person besides the employee.

      Delete
    20. Take the default assumption for an intestate death (a man dies without having made out a will): the benefit we are granting to the married man is that we act as if he had willed his property to his wife and kids, we have a default presumption as a legal standard (one that he can defeat by an expressly written will). This is (like the above situation) based specifically on the fact that the married couple are presumed to have combined both their wealth and their efforts, but (typically) separated those efforts by "specialization" so that the wife's main work stayed in the home and received no DIRECT pay, whereas the husband's work brought in the pay needed for both of them and the kids. The natural result is that the pay and wealth thus gained properly belongs to the whole family together, not to just one of them. (I would also point out that a brother can always overcome the lack of a "default presumption" granted to married couples just by WRITING A WILL. This is so modest a burden that it is difficult to see how anyone can argue it merits a far-reaching law that creates untold oceans of effects.)

      These sorts of results (like the naturalness of the property assumption for married folk) flow from the fact that the family is the basic social unit, the fact that they have formed a “union of the whole life”, and that there is an ontological reality of a unit, a "combined pair" that begins anew with a marriage, a real new THING that didn't exist before, not just something that society "treats like" a being. Society treats it like a thing because it is a real thing, not just a useful mental pigeon hole. Whereas if a brother and sister live together, they may well operate (in certain respects, like in terms of economies of scale) much like a married pair would act, but they are NOT married and have NOT formed a new ontological entity. The siblings would, for example, retain the right and freedom to depart from the "joint venture" of living with the sibling, (say, if one were to decide to get married), and this highlights the real differences; they could also invite in other persons to join the grouping. They have not formed a new ontological unit that possesses certain a character by its very nature.

      The benefits talked about being granted to other pairs are not "rights" that by justice belong to other pairs. Sometimes, they don't even belong to married couples "by right", but when they do, they belong precisely in terms of the "union of the whole life" that is distinct in kind from other groupings, and which has its own special character and end: the procreation and raising of children, from which comes also the obligation for fidelity and permanence.

      Delete
    21. Tony,

      Don't bore me to death trying to get me to defend Pope Francis' Big government pseudo Democratic/Labor party politics. I am a hardcore Orange conservative. The issue isn't which is the prudent and more reasonable social policy. Conservatism beats Liberal hands down in IMHO. The question is what is correct in principle and in principle you can give benefits to brothers and sisters if you can give them to a husband and wife. It is not intrinsically wrong.

      This is like arguing with an anti-death penalty Catholic who bores me to death with all his practical and prudent arguments on why you shouldn't ever execute people while I am trying to show Church teaching allows it in principle. So either show me all these benefits are intrinsically evil to give to anybody but a married couple or admit they aren't. I dina care if Pope Francis politically swings liberal. I only care about doctrine. Better to be a believing Catholic who likes the welfare state than an Atheist Trump supporter and I say this as a fan of Dave Ruben.

      That is the sole issue there. The distribution of benefits and of course the Pope has made it clear he does not see any civil union as an ontological union equivalent to marriage or a formal endorsement by the State of immoral sexual activity.

      Second I've had this argument over at Crisis before the SSPX types had me banned. I don't think there is a fig's worth of difference between calling someone SSA or Gay or homosexual. What matters is the demands of the divine, moral and natural law that dictate you may not ever licitly act upon
      whatever disordered passions afflict you. So people can say according to the Pope "Yeh I have a right to recognize my son or daughter has these disordered passions or is SSA or is Gay or is a homosexual(whatever) that they likely did not ask to have & not waste my time in denial they are really straight and will someday grow out of it.".

      Even if the Pope used the precise language you advocate here an interviewer who radically cuts and pastes can still distort that to promote heresy. The only difference is the Pope would have said SSA not homosexual and all the qualifications you include would be edited out.

      The clip being edited reminds me of..

      "Some very fine people on both sides". Yeh the Orange One (luv him BTW) explicitly said he wasn't talking about racists and neo-Nazi types. But the modern media doesn't care. Whatever the Pope says they will make it mean what they want.

      The media like the devil lies.

      Delete
    22. The Vatican has cleared the Air finally.

      https://www.ncregister.com/news/vatican-secretariat-of-state-provides-context-of-pope-francis-civil-union-remark

      Delete
    23. “The Holy Father had expressed himself thus during an interview in 2014: ‘Marriage is between a man and a woman. The secular States want to justify civil unions to regulate various situations of coexistence, moved by the demand to regulate economic aspects between people, such as ensuring health care. These are coexistence pacts of a different nature, of which I would not be able to give a list of the different forms. It is necessary to see the various cases and evaluate them in their variety,” the post added.END

      The Pope who is not usually clear is very clear here. He is seeing the civil unions solely in terms of economic benefits not as a legally sanctioned marriage analog.

      Delete
    24. The question is what is correct in principle and in principle you can give benefits to brothers and sisters if you can give them to a husband and wife. It is not intrinsically wrong.

      No, it is not intrinsically wrong to give them to brother and sister. If civil union laws were limited to siblings, I would not have as big an objection.

      But nobody REALLY advocates for civil unions OTHER than because they want gays (and/or heterosexuals shacking up) to have them available. And so as a practical matter, choosing to make a civil union law in these contexts ends up being formal cooperation with evil for most cases, and proximate material cooperation with evil for the rest. Both types of cooperation with evil violate moral norms.

      Where the pope says It is necessary to see the various cases and evaluate them in their variety,”, the conclusion SHOULD be obvious that each separate category of those who live together should be evaluated separately for the benefits to grant or not, which leads to the possibility that there is no actual sizable social need for the kinds of benefits being talked about OTHER than for an extremely tiny set of groups, outside of the gays and shacking up couples who should not be assisted to live together and thus violate moral norms. They are using a sledghammer for scalpel-sized "problems", because they want to be SURE gays and shacking-up couples get in the door.

      Any way you cut it, the whole issue is one invented in order to improve the ability to enter into lives of disorder. That it CAN also help others is true but not determinative.

      Delete
    25. "Some very fine people on both sides". Yeh the Orange One (luv him BTW) explicitly said he wasn't talking about racists and neo-Nazi types.

      Except neo-nazis said it was the watershed moment where the President made them equal members of society.

      DJT is sympathetic to white supremacists, and the tokenism of having a Jewish son-in-law onviously doesn't disprove that assertion. Anyone voting for him because he's pro-life is being willfully ignorant of the fact that they're doing something intrinsically evil that a greater good may come.

      Delete
    26. Catholic teaching is extremely clear that since a person is never per se evil, voting for a person is not something "intrinsically evil".

      Catholic teaching since Evangelium Vitae has been equally clear that it IS possible to morally uprightly vote for a bad person, or for a person with bad policies, if you do so not as a means to pursue evil, but for some good that they also intend. Thus, it is morally permissible, the vote is between two pro-abortion candidates, to vote for one who is LESS pro-abortion, or who has some other policy that is good, if you vote not on account of her pro-choice position.

      Whatever else is the case about voting for a candidate who is "sympathetic to white supremecists", it is not "intrinsically evil".

      Delete
    27. Catholic teaching is extremely clear that since a person is never per se evil, voting for a person is not something "intrinsically evil".

      So voting for Adolf Hitler wasn't intrinsically evil? Not comparing Trump to Hitler, but to use an extreme example, because ideas break at their boundary cases.

      Catholic teaching since Evangelium Vitae has been equally clear that it IS possible to morally uprightly vote for a bad person, or for a person with bad policies, if you do so not as a means to pursue evil, but for some good that they also intend.

      So it's permissible to vote for Hitler because of the good that he promised (and followed through) to ban the communist party and prevent all future socialist insurrections (see: Rosa Luxemburg)?

      Delete
    28. Tony

      >No, it is not intrinsically wrong to give them to brother and sister. If civil union laws were limited to siblings, I would not have as big an objection.

      In principle they could be given to anybody.
      Except ironically to a man or woman who are not related as living together would be inappropriate. Two persons of the same sex have plausible deniability for purposes of the civil law.

      >But nobody REALLY advocates for civil unions OTHER than because they want gays (and/or heterosexuals shacking up) to have them available.

      Actually what they really want is the State authority to give formal recognition of their illicit relationship. Asking for benefits is a pretense which is why they don't stop at domestic partnerships or even civil unions that grant their immoral relationship some recognition analogous to marriage. They need some affirmation their sinful lifestyle is good and of course it is not. We can give them what is fair and not contrary to the natural or moral law but no more.

      Delete
    29. part 2

      Now Pope did not endorse any civil union that formally recognizes an immoral relationship and spoke merely of giving economic benefits he believes are due(for example he cited healthcare). Obviously given the Pope political leanings he support democratic social welfare states. So he apparently imagines if two lesbians are raising children those children should get healthcare regardless of the immoral relationship of their "parents"(I use the term very very very loosely here of course).

      Delete
    30. BalancedTryteOperators

      Could you please like Anon just Sod off! I am not interested in debating politics with human garbage. I come to philosophy blogs or religion blogs to get away from politics. If I use a political analogy I do so becauseI assume the person I am dialoging with is like minded and I am here talking to my fellow Catholics about Our Spiritual Father Pope Francis.

      So really sod off!

      Delete
    31. Son of Ya'Kov

      I come to philosophy blogs or religion blogs to get away from politics.

      Yeah yeah. Dr. Feser is master of that game. Anything left of center is "being political" and anything right of center is the neutral point of view. Of course, I am not being political because that involves a specific type of action which I haven't done.

      And you lifted "Sod off, swampy!" from Glenn Reynolds.

      Delete
    32. Son of Ya'Kov

      But thank you for respectfully addressing me by my username as opposed to "unbalanced" or "tryte" as Anonymous and other regulars do.

      Delete
    33. Actually I take that back. Dr. Feser is a journeyman at that game, John C Wright is a seasoned artificier and Vox Day is the FIDE Grandmaster.

      Delete
    34. @BalancedTryteOperators

      Whatever. Sod off.

      PS. FYI I stole that from Billy Conney in the third Hobbit Movie.

      Delete
  12. This is, of course, why in practice “dialogue” never leads anywhere. A truly honest dialogue would soon result in the parties saying to one another: “Sorry, but you’re wrong, and you need to convert,” or at least “We’ll just have to agree to disagree.” But neither of these is touchy-feely enough for your standard dialoguer. So the “dialogue” is never actually free, much less frank or likely to result in understanding. Anything that might result in clear, firm, and final judgments of incompatibility is kept off the table.

    In the old days of, say 100 years ago, modernists used "dialogue" as a weapon: get the other guys all involved in spending their effort and time sitting down with you in dialogue, while you consistently wrap your words and sayings in inconsistency and nonsense... so that in the meantime your friends go out there and wreck Christianity from behind. They never had any intention of the dialogue actually, you know, having a point, because it was just a tool.

    The funny thing is that they have by now trained up a whole couple of generations who BELIEVE in dialogue - not to "get to an agreement" or even to get to "we'll have to agree to disagree". Oh no. They believe that dialogue ITSELF is the good, as such - there is no "point" to it, there is ONLY the dialogue. Each person expressing themselves: it isn't for others to "get" them, it is just for EXPRESSING yourself. Dialogue isn't "for" anything, just doing it is all the point you need.

    Needless to say, those of us who believe there is such a thing as truth can't make any HEADWAY in arguing or discussing with such a "dialoguer", they are there to convince or be convinced. They are only there to speak their own mind. They don't care that they can't be understood by anyone else. They don't care that their words have NOTHING to do with the words of the person who came before. It's just "expressing yourself". It's performance art, with an audience of only yourself - how could you not be perfect?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry: they aren't there to convince or be convinced...

      Delete
    2. Yeh but yer average reactionary so called "Traditionalist" doesn't what to convince or be convinced. They want to preach at you. They do this with their fellow orthodox Catholics and they are even more odious with the non-believers.

      Theirs is the opposite error to the endless talking without reaching an agreement mishagoss that plagues modern dialog.

      Delete
    3. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/mexican-broadcaster-televisa-vatican-held-back-popes-words-on-same-sex-civil-unions-in-2019-interview-76337

      Quote"Mexican broadcaster: Vatican held back Pope Francis' words on same-sex civil unions in 2019 interview footage

      Quote"A spokesman for Televisa told the Washington Post Oct. 22 that “Someone at the Vatican gave us the part that we did broadcast, and later they gave the rest of the material to someone else.”

      The missing footage appeared in the documentary “Francesco,” directed by Evgeny Afineevsky, which premiered Wednesday in Rome, prompting a global media firestorm.

      The Vatican has not addressed why the comments that were excised from the interview it sent to Televisa later appeared in the documentary."

      I smell deep state.

      Delete
  13. yes this misuse of "pastoral" has long annoyed me. Pastoral actually means LIKE A SHEPHERD (Latin pastor), especially the Good Shepherd of whom King David prophesied,
    "You are there with your crook and your staff,
    with these you give me comfort."
    The shepherd's two tools of trade - the crook (hookended stick) to grab a sheep by the neck when it's going the wrong way, and forcibly pull it back in the right direction, and the staff (stick) to beat a sheep on the rump even when it's going the right direction, to spur it to go faster! And the sheep don't object to this, in fact it gives them comfort, to be pushed and pulled in the right direction. But these dishonest men think a shepherd is pastoral when he lets the sheep wander wherever they want, in every wrong direction, and tells them "it's all good". A BAD shepherd, like the hired hands who desert the flock when a wolf appears.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The example of Shell Shock by George Carlin is a very bad one to use. Firstly the term Shell Shock is inaccurate because you don't have to have encountered war to suffer from it. People who have suffered from any number of traumatic events such as domestic abuse can suffer from the same thing which is why PTSD is the preferred and more accurate term. Secondly, despite the name, people who were diagnosed as suffering from shell shock were seen as cowards. It was not unusual for them to be shot for desertion.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I live in the U. K., and I always get annoyed when watching the political discussion show "Question Time" about the way that people use words there.
    Questions are always, "Was it problematic or unproblematic for Boris to do...?" Why not abandon the long, soft word, "problematic", for the short, clear word, "right"? Was it right, or was it wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Er,'problematic' is hardly a long word. Its use in the context you mention invites the audience and panel to submit and analyse issues they may have with what Boris did, which may or may not have a moral dimension. To my ears, 'right' and 'wrong' sound absolutist and theological , and rather archaic in the context of a complex, multifaceted political discussion. Thankfully, it seems the chair of Question Time does not dumb things down to that level.

      Delete
  16. I have a whole list of such words, which includes all of yours, Ed. You missed a few, like "development" and "conscience." "Rigorist" has exhibited the opposite phenomenon, expanding to cover any moral rules whatsoever. Meanwhile, terms such as "concrete situations," "changing realities," and "moral ideals" are deployed to legitimize exceptions to exceptionless laws.

    I wonder what it'll be next. If I had to guess, "scandal" will next be reunderstood to apply to frank explanations of Catholic teaching. After all, such explanations confuse the faithful—who frequently hear just the opposite—which makes them no better, really, than lies and dissimulation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They say they want a religion to be social, when they would be social without any religion. They say they want a religion to be practical, when they would be practical without any religion. They say they want a religion acceptable to science, when they would accept the science even if they did not accept the religion. They say they want a religion like this because they are like this already. They say they want it, when they mean that they could do without it. -- G.K. Chesterton

      Delete
    2. Too true.

      Delete
  17. Another stark example is how some use "sensitivity", a very soft word, to attack the use of the word "disordered", a hard word with a clear definition, in some Church teaching and Vatican documents.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Disordered" is a soft word too. It usually replaces "sinful." You don't see it in pre-V2 books.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Disordered" is a mean, dehumanizing soft word. Soft is not kind! "Sinner" puts the man attracted to other men back in control. (Sirach 15:14-17)

      Delete
    2. Aquinian, I take it from your username that you are something of a follower of St. Thomas.

      Allow me to correct you, then, on your characterization of "disordered" as a soft word, and your claim that it is not in pre-Vatican II works, using St. Thomas as our guide.

      The Summa has sixty or so instances of the Latin deordinatio, which we usually translate as "disorder". It is especially prevalent in the Prima Secundae, wherein one will also find St. Thomas's treatment of sin and vice, subjects where disorder is a central theme.

      Now, it is clear that every sin is a disorder of some sort (ST I-II.71, for example), but not everything that is disordered is a sin. This is because sin, as a distinctively human act, requires the engagement of the will. In contrast, something like a homosexual inclination (to which one does not consent) does not engage the will, and so, by that very fact, is not sinful. It's like being inclined to acts of (imperfect) fortitude or (imperfect) cowardice; the inclinations themselves are neither morally praiseworthy or blameworthy. They only become so when acted upon, i.e., when the will consents to their proper acts.

      Thus, we might reach a threefold conclusion, although time prevents me from expanding on these more:
      (1) "Disorder" is indeed in pre-Vatican II writing; not only is it present (and central!) to St. Thomas's writings, but in those of St. Augustine, St. Albert, St. Bonaventure, countless Church documents throughout history, etc. etc.
      (2) There is a genuine difference between "disorder" and "sinful", and (I'm assuming you're referring to the Catechism) this distinction is rightly made with reference to homosexual inclinations: they are, of themselves (i.e., aside from any action), intrinsically disordered, not sinful.
      (3) A proper understanding of the term "disorder" and its role in the philosophical and theological thought of the Church would reveal that it is anything but a soft word! It carries tremendous weight with it, being the hinge upon which, in particular, sin (especially mortal sin!) turns. The same is true of vice. Indeed, perhaps the most important role of reason is to discover and conform to the natural order of things, and when this process goes awry (disorder), the consequences can be terrible.

      Delete
    3. The term you’re hunting for is there in St. Thomas, and right in the article to which you refer - it is vice.

      That’s the term missing from the Catechism, the word being carefully avoided, the concept being suppressed, actually.

      St Thomas does not employ the term disordered in the manner of the Catechism, and I will be surprised if anyone other than a Modernist did so prior to V2.

      Delete
    4. Aquinian, you are quite mistaken. I have two points, and a question.

      (1) I am having trouble interpreting your first comment, but if you mean that disorder is vice, you are surely incorrect. While all vices imply disorder, not all disorders are vices.

      (2) The English word "vice" occurs twelve times in the Catechism, and like in St. Thomas himself, it is closely linked to sin, so much so, that, at times, the Catechism and St. Thomas both prefer to speak of vice and sin interchangeably (sin being that to which a vice is directed as its completion and perfection). For examples of this in St. Thomas, see the preambles to ST I-II.71, as well as the preambles to the subsequent three questions. See also the Catechism, paragraphs 1865-1866, and especially 1876 (note that, except for the characterization of pride as a capital sin / vice, what the Catechism says here is entirely agreeable with St. Thomas's own thought on the matter).

      (3) As you appear to be quite knowledgeable in the meaning of the term "disordered" in both St. Thomas and the Catechism, perhaps you could enlighten us as to their respective meanings?

      Delete
    5. Mr Fehr,

      I am not having any trouble understanding you, but I am struggling to respect your approach.

      In your first reply, you asserted that the manner in which, for example, unnatural vice is handled in the Catechism, is how St. Thomas explains vice and sin in the Summa, and you pointed us to an article in the Summa to support your claim. But that article does not support your claim at all, as anybody who just reads it through will know. And actually, your reply didn't quote the Summa to support your case, your reply instead listed a series OF YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS.

      Do you concede that the approach of the Catechism is novel? Can you find any pre-V2 book, other than by open Modernists, that declines to call the tendency to unnatural vice anything but an inclination towards or an attachment to, vice, and instead cocoons it as a "disordered" inclination? The Catechism has bought, and is selling, the entirely false, liberal error that there is a "homosexual state" or "lifestyle" or "identity" which one can enjoy (or suffer) without sin. It's a way of divorcing the sinful act from the perverted dressing that frequently surrounds it, and attempts to normalise or even glorify that adornment.

      "Disordered" is not a _tremendously strong_ word in the context of a catechism, especially when traditionally catechisms used terms like "sin" and "vice". In the context of a catechism, a term that ordinary people won't easily understand is indeed a _soft_ word, and indeed that is exactly why it's used. The entire V2 revolt from Christ is predicated on abandoning clarity for "pastoral" reasons. This is of a piece with that.

      They hate the Cross (no penance, no fasting, no self-denial), they never mention hell (contrary to, spectacularly, Our Lord), and they are _more_ concerned that a sinner might be _offended_ than they are that a sinner might go to hell. Well, why would they not be? After all, hell is so, you know, last millennium, and it's empty anyway, right?

      Delete
  19. "Whatever one thinks of that thesis, soft words certainly make for soft minds, minds that cannot think clearly and logically and cannot abide firm judgments and plain speaking."

    Part of the problem is that firm judgements and plain speaking cause pain and humiliation, and we have become, as a society, fundamentally suspicious and distrustful of anyone who calls for inflicting pain, especially in ways the person calling for this supposedly necessary pain will not himself suffer. That this is a temptation we do have to watch out for is real (viz. Christ telling the would-be stoners of the adulterous woman, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone") but it is possible to go too far in that direction too (Christ still told the woman, "Go thou and sin no more").

    Ironically, part of this suspicion itself in turn comes out of the fact that as life gets technologically easier, it gets much more plausible to think that pain and suffering can be wholly and licitly eliminated, or that any presence of it at all is an intolerable outrage. There is a reason atheism and utopianism are philosophies of the wealthy, powerful, and spoiled.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ed,

    I continue to thank God for your whole hearted response to His call to learn and educate the world in the light of truth. I continually read your posts and books. They are a deeply insightful view into the beauty of truth displayed in the clear exposition of faith and reason. Keep up your mission and I will continue to respond generously in mine with courage.

    ReplyDelete
  21. BalancedTryteOperators

    Hopefully I spelled your handle correctly.

    As regarding Hitler would depend what one thought he would do. If Trump does similar to the last 4 years again that wouldn't fall into intrinsic evil territory. Though it may still be incorrect. In either case I'm ineligible to vote so I cannot but that's my understanding of the moral
    dilemma.

    Given how strident Biden is in supporting abortion I'm not sure the same can be said for voting that way.

    Some neo Nazis went over to the Democratic party does that mean no one can vote Democrat?

    The neo nazis are saying how they percieved or feel. The statements in some cases are unambiguous. So their irrationality does not make a case against voting red. Though you are free to make one on other grounds.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Son of Ya'Kov

    I lose my temper as well at times but I submit that our Blessed Lord would have sacrificed for the least of us. That in his eyes we are not garbage. So some push back I'm sure was warranted but I think that your one statement goes too far.

    Thanks for your comments clearing up some of the confusion with the Holy Fathers comments.

    God Bless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown

      I don't want that piece of garbage to go to Hell because it is offensive to me to wish damnation on anybody.

      I just want him to Sod off. It's nor hard laddie or lassie.

      Cheers.

      Delete
    2. Ha, ha . 'Piece of garbage ' eh? I see that you are a deeply spiritual person, who takes the precepts of his religeon regarding ethical conduct and behaviour very seriously indeed. Even more stretches of geological time in purgatory await you.

      William Lane Craig would never speak or write in such a manner.

      Delete
    3. Whatever? You can still sod off with yer politics. Come back when you learn some philosophy so as to appear mildly interesting.

      Delete
  23. "Dialogue", by those who say it, seems to actually mean, "I will talk, and you will shut up & listen!"

    ReplyDelete
  24. If you want to see where pastoral dialogue and accompaniment lead, look nor farther than the Anglican communion. A splintering global train wreck of heresy, sin, and delusion.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Why doesn’t Pope Francis treat racism and racists with the same kid gloves as he treats homosexual sexual perversion and the homosexuals?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because to do so would be to publically criticise many, many African-American activists….

      Delete

    2. Anonymous,
      Why doesn’t Pope Francis treat racism and racists with the same kid gloves as he treats homosexual sexual perversion and the homosexuals?

      Perhaps he sees a difference between hate and love?

      Delete
    3. Because what the Pope says and does, is heavily influenced by expediency, political and otherwise, and is not simply a matter of morality and principle. Look at the events surrounding the child sex abuse scandal within the church for example. The Catholic Church is just a human institution, all too human.

      Delete