Consistency

[ddarko]

I have also reported your post to the moderators.

I hope you read the rest too because that’s where the most valuable part of my reply was

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

My irony-meter just broke

:manvspc: !

 

[Betterave]

My irony-meter just broke

I have not reported either post to the moderators, but I do feel sorry for them having to police certain ‘thin-skinned’ (i.e., whiny) individuals.

 

[Betterave]

I think you might be unaware of the statement by Cardinal Elio Sgreccia, the Vatican’s longtime top official on bioethics and sexuality:
…elaborated on the pontiff’s comments, stressing that it was imperative to “make certain that this is the only way to save a life.” Sgreccia told the Italian news agency ANSA that that is why the pope on the condom issue “dealt with it in the realm of the exceptional.” The condom question was one that “needed an answer for a long time,” Sgreccia said. “If Benedict XVI raised the question of exceptions, this exception must be accepted … and it must be verified that this is the only way to save life. This must be demonstrated,” Sgreccia said.

Are you denying the Pope made a statement that contraception is permissible in certain circumstances?

Since when a male prostitute uses a condom (we’re talking about homosexuals here) it certainly isn’t contraception, it seems very clear that neither the Pope nor the Cardinal has said what you are claiming they have said.

 

[Betterave]

Of course, this consistency is a myth. For example, the Church used to approve of slavery and the death penalty. Now, it doesn’t.

When and how did the Church approve of slavery (in a sense in which she would now condemn it)?

The Church still does approve the licitness of recourse to the death penalty.

 

[DPMartin]

Much is made in this forum about the consistency of church positions and philosophy throughout the ages. But that sometimes strikes me as a double edged sword. And often a burden on its ability to reach a broader modern audience.
I just wonder what would happen if the Church were to change it’s position on, or to reinterprete, some significant issue.
I don’t mean something like " Pope announces God is dead. Resurrection done with mirrors". Which would obviously have a huge effect. But what if some writing of Thomas or some other foundational person was reinterpreted in broader and perhaps less rigid ways.
Would the Church just fall apart? Is complete consistency a requirement of the faithful. Could the Church ever say" we may not have been 100% correct about something.

mcteague

It is not that the Church could be right or wrong about anything, it is that the Church always agrees that what God says is the Truth and always is the Truth. And that is the consistency of the Church and if it did not agree to the Word of God, one, it would be unethical, and two, it’s purpose in the world would be of no use to God. Therefore since when is it more valuable to agree to that which is not the Truth? The Cross is to Reconcile men unto his Maker, not the other way around.

 

[Betterave]

The question is not will it happen, or should it happen. The question is whether complete consistency is an essential element of Catholic teaching. Does the necessity of consistency drive the reasoning rather then the reasoning inevitably coming to consistent conclusions?

That question seems not to make sense.

For example, what if the Church decided that contraception in a married relationship was actually acceptable? I don’t want to argue that it should or would. I am asking what would happen if it did? That is just an example.

Obviously we would have to look at the reasoning behind the decision in order to answer your question.

Is the church so bound by precedent that some changes can not be considered because that change might threaten it’s authority or existence?

No, the Church is bound by precedent because the precedents in question are matters of divine revelation, not because changes might threaten its authority or existence.

 

[tonyrey]

I have not reported either post to the moderators, but I do feel sorry for them having to police certain ‘thin-skinned’ (i.e., whiny) individuals.

:bighanky:

 

[Betterave]

:bighanky:

LOL! I’m sorry tony. :console: It was not my intention to cause you distress.

 

[tonyrey]

Since when a male prostitute uses a condom (we’re talking about homosexuals here) it certainly isn’t contraception, it seems very clear that neither the Pope nor the Cardinal has said what you are claiming they have said.

The Pope’s exact words:

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility," Benedict said.
Asked if that meant that the church wasn’t opposed in principle to condoms, the pope replied:
The church "of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but in this or that case, there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

I hardly think the Pope would restrict reducing the risk of infection solely to males who use a male prostitute and leave innocent wives of men with HIV to suffer the consequences…

 

[tonyrey]

LOL! I’m sorry tony. :console: It was not my intention to cause you distress.

You obviously don’t mind causing the wives of men with HIV unnecessary distress…

 

[Betterave]

The Pope’s exact words:

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility," Benedict said.
Asked if that meant that the church wasn’t opposed in principle to condoms, the pope replied:
The church "of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but in this or that case, there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

I hardly think the Pope would restrict reducing the risk of infection solely to males who use a male prostitute and leave innocent wives of men with HIV to suffer the consequences…

So you’re at least implicitly admitting here that this is your view and not the Pope’s. That’s certainly the most honest you’ve been yet.

 

[Betterave]

You obviously don’t mind causing the wives of men with HIV unnecessary distress…

That’s idiotic, tony. Thanks for coming out.

 

[tonyrey]

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility," Benedict said.
Asked if that meant that the church wasn’t opposed in principle to condoms, the pope replied:
The church "of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but in this or that case, there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

I hardly think the Pope would restrict reducing the risk of infection solely to males who use a male prostitute and leave innocent wives of men with HIV to suffer the consequences…
So you’re at least implicitly admitting here that this is your view and not the Pope’s.

It is a reasonable deduction from the Pope’s statement.

1. Do you believe the Pope is concerned solely about the risk of infection solely to males who use a male prostitute?
2. Do you believe the Pope is unconcerned about the risk of infection to innocent wives of men with HIV?
3. Are you concerned solely about the risk of infection solely to males who use a male prostitute?

 

[Betterave]

It is a reasonable deduction from the Pope’s statement.

I have my doubts, although your present claim is vaguer than your original and so perhaps less problematic in itself. But again, at least you’re being honest about the status of your claim. If I may presume to speak for others (esp. ddarko): we appreciate that.

1. Do you believe the Pope is concerned solely about the risk of infection solely to males who use a male prostitute?

Obviously not. What a silly and irrelevant question.

1. Do you believe the Pope is unconcerned about the risk of infection to innocent wives of men with HIV?

Same answer.

1. Are you concerned solely about the risk of infection solely to males who use a male prostitute?

Same answer.

 

[tonyrey]

*You obviously don’t mind causing the wives of men with HIV unnecessary distress… *
That’s idiotic, tony.

It is a reasonable deduction from your criticism of my deduction from the Pope’s statement that there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

 

[tonyrey]

I have my doubts, although your present claim is vaguer than your original and so perhaps less problematic in itself.

Why “obviously” in view of your criticism of my deduction from the Pope’s statement that there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

 

[Betterave]

It is a reasonable deduction from your criticism of my deduction from the Pope’s statement that there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

Your deduction from the Pope’s statement: I hardly think the Pope would restrict reducing the risk of infection solely to males who use a male prostitute and leave innocent wives of men with HIV to suffer the consequences…

My ‘criticism’ of that deduction: *So you’re at least implicitly admitting here that this is your view and not the Pope’s. That’s certainly the most honest you’ve been yet. *[Please note that this ‘criticism’ does not addresses the moral principle in question. I just state that I appreciate your being careful to express yourself honestly, as ddarko quite legitimately requested you to do.]

Your ‘deduction’ from my ‘criticism’: You obviously don’t mind causing the wives of men with HIV unnecessary distress… [This ‘deduction’ seems purely silly and in no way follows from or addresses my ‘criticism.’ We are discussing moral principles and your attempt to suggest that the logical result of what I have said is that **I(!) don’t mind “causing(!) the wives of men…etc.” is utterly ridiculous - isn’t it?? What am I missing?]

 

[Betterave]

What is vague about reducing the risk of infection with contraceptives?

The lack of distinctions with respect to the moral requirement to use only licit means in order to produce licit ends. Talking only about the licitness or goodness of the end is obviously totally inadequate from a Catholic standpoint.

Why “obviously” in view of your criticism of my deduction from the Pope’s statement that there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

See previous post.

 

[ddarko]

It is a reasonable deduction from your criticism of my deduction from the Pope’s statement that there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

The Pope is making a psychological comment. NOT a moral one. He is only recognizing that to wear a condom at least means the person is starting to look beyond mere self-gratification and show some concern for the other. But is it the right way to show concern? NO. The pope himself makes it very clear in the very next line of the interview :-

"But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality."

And how does the infected spouse wearing a condom not cause any distress to the other spouse?

For

1. Condoms are not 100% effective.so the healthy spouse might still get the disease
2. The spouse is simply using the other without completely giving themselves to each other WHICH IS NOT LOVE.

So condoms don’t solve distress.

God Bless