"Like saying Hillary Clinton is a Carmelite nun" [CalCath]

[Caveman]

The first three paragraphs from The California Catholic Daily;

"Like saying Hillary Clinton is a Carmelite nun"
USF professor says Jesuit school has lost its Catholic identity

“Calling USF a Catholic school is like saying Hillary Clinton is a Carmelite nun,” a philosophy professor at the Jesuit-run university told the archdiocesan weekly Catholic San Francisco in a story published in its June 12 edition.

USF philosophy professor Raymond Dennehy made his comments during an interview with Catholic San Francisco about the school’s decision to award dissident Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg, South Africa, an honorary degree and for inviting him to deliver the commencement address to undergraduate humanities and sciences students during May 22 graduation ceremonies. Bishop Dowling also delivered the homily at a pre-commencement Mass.

Bishop Dowling has defied Church teaching on abstinence before marriage, saying, “Abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in a marriage is beyond the realm of possibility here. The issue is to protect life. That must be our fundamental goal." Bishop Dowling also parted ways with the Church on the issue of condom use, saying of Africans, “They must use condoms.” The Catholic San Francisco headline for the story read, “USF honors dissenting South African bishop.”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Bishop Dowling has defied Church teaching on abstinence before marriage, saying, “Abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in a marriage is beyond the realm of possibility here. The issue is to protect life. That must be our fundamental goal." Bishop Dowling also parted ways with the Church on the issue of condom use, saying of Africans, “They must use condoms.” The Catholic San Francisco headline for the story read, “USF honors dissenting South African bishop.”

Taking things out of context is, at the best, unhelpful, at the worst, calumny.

The bishop did not say that Africans in general have to use condoms. He said that people who have AIDS and are promiscuous have to use condoms. And I have yet to see a clear church statement which says people who engage in extra-marital sex and have AIDS must not use a condom for those acts.

 

[rmd13]

And I have yet to see a clear church statement which says people who engage in extra-marital sex and have AIDS must not use a condom for those acts.

And you will never see a statement like that. “If you are going to sin and have premarital or extra-marital sex, make sure not to use contraception.”
Or perhaps the Church should ok contraception use only when committing adultery?
Why are abstinence, chastity and celibacy considered unabtainable?
What a beautiful grace and gift from God to see their true merits instead of stumbling blocks to worldly fulfillment!

Peace and Prayers.

 

[EtienneGilson]

In related news the Vatican has come out with an encyclical forbidding seatbelts while speeding.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Lest anyone misunderstand my previous post, I’ll expand a bit:

Catholic moral teaching is clear: sex with a condom is never morally permissible.

But the problem being addressed here, by the bishop, is the accusation that the Catholic church tells people not to use condoms when fornicating. In fact, that is not the case. As we all know, the Catholic church tells people to never fornicate.

But, the detractors will say, most people don’t follow that rule. And they are correct. And so they say that the Church teaching is a death sentence for the innocent partners of the adulterers.

So, the Bishop has expressed an opinion, apologetically valuable, and not contrary to any Catholic teaching, that it is morally perrmissible for people committing sexual immorality with HIV to use a condom if they insist on committing sexual immorality.

While there is room to disagree with the Bishop’s opinion, the church has not ruled that it is incorrect. Also, his opinion helps non-Catholics overcome a stumbling block and avoid misunderstandings.

 

[JReducation]

Lest anyone misunderstand my previous post, I’ll expand a bit:

Catholic moral teaching is clear: sex with a condom is never morally permissible.

But the problem being addressed here, by the bishop, is the accusation that the Catholic church tells people not to use condoms when fornicating. In fact, that is not the case. As we all know, the Catholic church tells people to never fornicate.

But, the detractors will say, most people don’t follow that rule. And they are correct. And so they say that the Church teaching is a death sentence for the innocent partners of the adulterers.

So, the Bishop has expressed an opinion, apologetically valuable, and not contrary to any Catholic teaching, that it is morally perrmissible for people committing sexual immorality with HIV to use a condom if they insist on committing sexual immorality.

While there is room to disagree with the Bishop’s opinion, the church has not ruled that it is incorrect. Also, his opinion helps non-Catholics overcome a stumbling block and avoid misunderstandings.

If you’re right about what the bishop is saying, I can see where he’s going with it. But I do find that it’s a slippery slope.

On the one hand, it is true that people are promiscuous and those who are HIV+ are a danger to their sexual partners. Condoms minimize the danger. That can appear as a good.

However, we must always strive for the greater good. The greater good is chastity.

Wearing a condom to save lives may be a good, but not good enough. The greatest good is chastity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[wynnejj]

Bishop Dowling has defied Church teaching on abstinence before marriage, saying, “Abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in a marriage is beyond the realm of possibility here. The issue is to protect life. That must be our fundamental goal."

How can a priest who has taken the vow of celibacy say that abstinence in any context and faithfulness to a vow in any context is beyond the realm of possibility here or anywhere?

That is the devil speaking through this bishop. To accept the bishop’s seriously flawed argument is a disrespect to the sacraments of marriage and holy orders as vows that cannot be kept and therefore should never be made.

The teachings on sexual morality by the Catholic Church are generally perceived by the secular world as beyond the realm of possibility here in the real world.

The issue is to protect the Truth of the Gospel. The fundamental goal should be to assert the truth that the flesh is weak though the spirit may be willing, but that all things are possible with the Lord.

 

[rlg94086]

In related news the Vatican has come out with an encyclical forbidding seatbelts while speeding.

Your attempt at analogous humor falls flat. Seatbelts are not a sin or illegal, so they should be worn for safety all the time. There would be no reason for the Vatican to forbid a good to be done while sinning.

We are to “strive for the greater good,” as JReducation posted. The cavalier attitude toward sin (e.g. everyone does it, so why urge people not to do it) is the problem in our society.

 

[mark_a]

And you will never see a statement like that. “If you are going to sin and have premarital or extra-marital sex, make sure not to use contraception.”
Or perhaps the Church should ok contraception use only when committing adultery?
Why are abstinence, chastity and celibacy considered unabtainable?
What a beautiful grace and gift from God to see their true merits instead of stumbling blocks to worldly fulfillment!

Peace and Prayers.

You are right. Good post.

It’s not the Church’s resposibility to teach people how to sin. We are all quite capable of sinning without anyone’s help.

 

[EtienneGilson]

Your attempt at analogous humor falls flat. Seatbelts are not a sin or illegal,

Neither is non-abortificiant contraception. But I doubt the opinions of Abbe Journet, Jacquea Maritain, the Canadian Bishops, the Dutch Bishops or Karl Rahner would convince you. Germain Grisez and Jacques Maritain had both destroyed the natural law arguments against contraception prior to Humani Vitae, though Paul VI ignored the advice of his own commission and issued a seriously flawed encyclical based on faulty science and poor Thomistic philosophy. Modern attempts to justify the CONCLUSIONS of HV neglect the fact that they stray significantly from the foundation of the encyclical, Thomism. Theology of the Body is not good philosophy, not good scriptural analysis and even worse philosophy. It has all but been ignored by serious Catholic intellectuals. John Noonan tried to tackle the issue in “Contraception” and was nearly turned into another Galileo. Norris Clarke, in my estimation one of the greatest living Catholic philosophers, said “You are not speaking as our Pope” concerning the issue.

 

[rlg94086]

Neither is non-abortificiant contraception. But I doubt the opinions of Abbe Journet, Jacquea Maritain, the Canadian Bishops, the Dutch Bishops or Karl Rahner would convince you. Germain Grisez and Jacques Maritain had both destroyed the natural law arguments against contraception prior to Humani Vitae, though Paul VI ignored the advice of his own commission and issued a seriously flawed encyclical based on faulty science and poor Thomistic philosophy. Modern attempts to justify the CONCLUSIONS of HV neglect the fact that they stray significantly from the foundation of the encyclical, Thomism. Theology of the Body is not good philosophy, not good scriptural analysis and even worse philosophy. It has all but been ignored by serious Catholic intellectuals. John Noonan tried to tackle the issue in “Contraception” and was nearly turned into another Galileo. Norris Clarke, in my estimation one of the greatest living Catholic philosophers, said “You are not speaking as our Pope” concerning the issue.

You are correct…none of your rant convinces me. I will stay loyal to the Church and the pope, rather than put my trust in Catholic philosophers and risk heresy. Thanks.

 

[rpp]

You are correct…none of your rant convinces me. I will stay loyal to the Church and the pope, rather than put my trust in Catholic philosophers and risk heresy. Thanks.

I am right there next to you rlg!

Now, if we can bring this thread back on topic…

 

[JReducation]

Neither is non-abortificiant contraception.

The problem here is that the only person who can make that statement with authority is the pope. Paul VI made it. None of his successors have retracted it. They could have retracted it. Paul VI never attribued infallibility to his statement. However, Petrine authority applies here. Not everything that comes from Peter has to be attribued with infallibility to bind the faithful. This is part of the Church’s tradition. The ordinary teaching authority of the Church is enough and requires assent.

But I doubt the opinions of Abbe Journet, Jacquea Maritain, the Canadian Bishops, the Dutch Bishops or Karl Rahner would convince you.

Having studied the statements and thoughts of these people, I can tell you that they all have something in common that we must all develop, humility. They all realized that they were posing their thoughts and ideas. They were also cognizant of the fact that they owed obedience to the Holy Father, even if he dismissed their opinions.

It is no secret that there was an intimate relationship and mutual admiration between Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger. Even now, Pope Benedict uses a lot of Rahner’s language and ideas in his own theology. But Rahner never attempted to say that he was right and Peter was wrong. As a faithful son of the Church he did his job. He put tough ideas on the table and made Catholic scholars think. This has been the mission of Jesuits and Dominicans since their foundation. They have often defended the faith by posing desenting positions, which required a thoughtful defence of the faith therefore strengthening the understanding and the faith of the theological student.

Germain Grisez and Jacques Maritain had both destroyed the natural law arguments against contraception prior to Humani Vitae, though Paul VI ignored the advice of his own commission and issued a seriously flawed encyclical based on faulty science and poor Thomistic philosophy.

Ignoring the advice of his own commission is a right that comes with the papacy. We cannot abitrarily decide that a pope does not have this right. Pope Paul VI had this right and he made use of it. It comes with the office of Peter.

Theology of the Body is not good philosophy, not good scriptural analysis and even worse philosophy. It has all but been ignored by serious Catholic intellectuals.

Theology of the Body was not written to be philosphy or scriptural analysis. It was written as spiritual theology. It’s focus is the spirituality of the body, a completely different discipline.

John Noonan tried to tackle the issue in “Contraception” and was nearly turned into another Galileo. Norris Clarke, in my estimation one of the greatest living Catholic philosophers, said “You are not speaking as our Pope” concerning the issue.

Anyone is allowed to have their opinion. The problem rises when those with an opinion assume for themselves a teaching magisterium that is not properly theirs. It is the position of the pope alone to assume such a teaching position.

Our hope in life is to reach union between our soul and the Divine. It is not to debate with the Papacy. Even winning a debate with the Papacy will not help us become saints. A saint is one who does the will of God as it is communicated through the Church, led by Peter, regardless of how we feel about it. We can disagree. We can express our opinion. But we may never try to usurp the authority of Peter. Such an attempt would not only be harmful to the faithful, but will not lead to the inner silence where the soul and the Divine achieve perfect union.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Jeffrey]

They really need to start excommunicating ppl that do stuff like this. Including supposed Catholic politicians that vote for murder

The first three paragraphs from The California Catholic Daily;

"Like saying Hillary Clinton is a Carmelite nun"
USF professor says Jesuit school has lost its Catholic identity

“Calling USF a Catholic school is like saying Hillary Clinton is a Carmelite nun,” a philosophy professor at the Jesuit-run university told the archdiocesan weekly Catholic San Francisco in a story published in its June 12 edition.

USF philosophy professor Raymond Dennehy made his comments during an interview with Catholic San Francisco about the school’s decision to award dissident Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg, South Africa, an honorary degree and for inviting him to deliver the commencement address to undergraduate humanities and sciences students during May 22 graduation ceremonies. Bishop Dowling also delivered the homily at a pre-commencement Mass.

Bishop Dowling has defied Church teaching on abstinence before marriage, saying, “Abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in a marriage is beyond the realm of possibility here. The issue is to protect life. That must be our fundamental goal." Bishop Dowling also parted ways with the Church on the issue of condom use, saying of Africans, “They must use condoms.” The Catholic San Francisco headline for the story read, “USF honors dissenting South African bishop.”

 

[JReducation]

They really need to start excommunicating ppl that do stuff like this. Including supposed Catholic politicians that vote for murder

Unfortunately or fortunately, you can’t excommunicate someone unless they violate canon law.

I don’t know how true this is, so don’t take it to the bank. Rumor has it that the Holy Father is reversing bishop’s decisions to excommunicate on this issue. He wants pro-abortion and pro-choice people to refrain from receiving Holy Communion. But he is not ready to excommunicate. He does not want male religious and clergy excommunicated, unless they commit a violation of canon law and excommunicate themselves. But he does not want public displays of excommunication of the clergy and male religious. He wants fraternal and compassionate correction and dialogue instead.

I have to admire his perseverence in his show of mercy. He is truly a very holy man.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Holly3278]

Doesn’t USF stand for University of San Francisco? If it does, I didn’t think that university had any religious affiliation at all.

 

[canadianguy1143]

Doesn’t USF stand for University of San Francisco? If it does, I didn’t think that university had any religious affiliation at all.

Georgetown University in Washington DC and Boston College are two other examples of Catholic post secondary institutions.

 

[Eucharisted]

And I have yet to see a clear church statement which says people who engage in extra-marital sex and have AIDS must not use a condom for those acts.

I encourage you to learn about the Faith. The Church is crystal clear on the matter that extramarital sex is a sin and using contraceptives is a sin. The Church dose not need to clarify the moral situation any further.

The Church teaches that the only moral use of a contraceptive is for medical purposes. This dose not include AIDs, though. The same goes for smoking marijuana. The Church teaches that smoking marijuana is drug abuse and drug abuse is a sin. But the only moral way of smoking marijuana is for medical purposes. This dose not include addiction, though.

 

[pnewton]

Norris Clarke, in my estimation one of the greatest living Catholic philosophers, said “You are not speaking as our Pope” concerning the issue.

This statement by Norris Clarke is naive and best, disobedient at worse and in either case ridiculous. Of course the Pope speaks as pope when he writes an encyclical. The problem is educated men forget how to listen as children when a father speaks. One dissident philosopher is hardly a good source to provide support for a dissident bishop.

I find Humanae Vitae to be very sound. It was also praised by Peter Kreeft, if you want to play philosopher one-up-manship. I do not know who is the better philosopher (or care) but I do know who has the better concept on what a Catholic is.

 

[pnewton]

I actually see what Neil Anthony is saying (initially) and agree with him. We do not need to exaggerate a person’s position to better demonize him. I do not know if the statements were taken out of context, since neither the articlce or Neil has provided any context, but if it was, then it is unnecessary and inappropriate.

The Bishop’s position is scandalous enough without any embelishment.