Petty squabbling

[MariaG]

Ahh too late to edit again. My comments above are not truly on topic. There is a thread here,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=74556&highlight=filioque+explanation
dealing with the filioque. Sorry for straying.

For example, post 31 forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=933494#post933494

posted by InnocentIII
It was included in the creed in Spain for an excellent practical (though perhaps not theological) reason as a means of combatting the Arianism of the Visigoths. It must be remembered that the Arian Visigoths greatly persecuted orthodox Catholics and the addition to the creed was intended to clearly distinguish the Arian doctrine of the subsidiarity of the son from orthodox Catholicism. Put simply the Arians could argue that as the Spirit proceeded from the Father and not the Son, the Father must therefore be greater than the Son. Whatever the theology of the addition, it did reaffirm the the co-equality of the Father and the Son.

The subsequent history of the clause was closely bound up with politics both secualr and religious. There is evidence that the other Patriarchates accepted the interpolation possibly because of the opposition to Photius. The whole history of Photius is of course one on which the Orthodox and Catholic Church will unlikely see eye to eye. But in an age when personal and political squabbles needed at least a religious basis the filioque provided a convenient point of departure. As the Wikipedia article points out Photius was the first important theologian to accuse Rome of innovation in this matter and that was 400 years after the Synod of Toledo and 100 years before the creed was included in the Roman mass.

Why is it such a big deal - because it has become a shibboleth, a means of disguising the true division between East and West namely authority. Were either side to admit that it was a bit of theological trivia (in line with the number of angels on the head of a pin) nothing other than the (purely egotistical and secular) desire to be first would divide them. in this regard, the Orthodox have a greater problem than Rome for Rome has over the centuries developed a fully articulated doctrine of Papal primacy. Indeed the Eastern rite Catholic Churches do not use the clause and yet this does not inhibit the acceptance of Papal primacy. The Orthodox, whose primacy rested soley on Constantinople’s position as the “New Rome” and the somewhat dubious foundation of the “see” by St Andrew and who lack a fully developed doctrine of primacy (as in some of the comments by Bishop Ware) would have more difficulty in asserting their primacy vis a vis Rome. perhaps for this reason the filioque is clung to even more tenaciously as a marker of theological difference.

 

[Mystophilus]

It is not an issue of the Orthodox understanding their beliefs, but the Orthodox insisting on meaning to the filioque that was never meant by Catholics. The filioque is a Catholic teaching that the Orthodox reject and put meaning into that is not there, nor ever was.

In my humble opinion, as well as others, the misunderstanding is a cultural one and a language use one.

The filioque is not merely a Catholic teaching which the Orthodox reject, but an addition to the Nicene Creed. It did not exist in the original, and therein lies the trouble. For the Orthodox, the council’s decision upon the creed was authoritative, and could not be altered according to the vicissitudes of apologetics against heretics in one location.

Thus, the problem was that the Latin church altered the creed without consulting the Greek church, thus deviating from the agreed theological line. When the Latin and Greek sides of the church came into conflict over the christianisation of Bulgaria, the filioque became a focal point. The Greeks, who thought of the council’s decisions as effectively immutable, saw the alteration of the creed as heresy, and the Latins as having altered the very fabric of Christian belief.

This is my understanding of the situation. However, I have PMed Doxa in order to (hopefully) gain a clearer view.

 

[MariaG]

Mystophilus:

The filioque is not merely a Catholic teaching which the Orthodox reject, but an addition to the Nicene Creed. It did not exist in the original, and therein lies the trouble. For the Orthodox, the council’s decision upon the creed was authoritative, and could not be altered according to the vicissitudes of apologetics against heretics in one location.

Thus, the problem was that the Latin church altered the creed without consulting the Greek church, thus deviating from the agreed theological line. When the Latin and Greek sides of the church came into conflict over the christianisation of Bulgaria, the filioque became a focal point. The Greeks, who thought of the council’s decisions as effectively immutable, saw the alteration of the creed as heresy, and the Latins as having altered the very fabric of Christian belief.

This is my understanding of the situation. However, I have PMed Doxa in order to (hopefully) gain a clearer view.

Right. But you said:

While I would never deny your freedom to believe whatsoever you would like to believe, I would suggest that you might like to consider what Orthodox believers say about the history of their church, and the continuing importance of the filioque, if only because they are likely to understand their beliefs and choices better than outsiders are.

In response to explanation about the filioque. Since it is not an Orthodox belief, since they are the ones that continue to say the filioque means something that it was never intended to mean, it cannot be that the Orthodox “Understand their beliefs and choices better than outsiders…”

The problem is that the Orthodox do not understand Catholic beliefs as stated in the filioque.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[DOXA]

Dear Mystophilos,

I think that your answer was clear enough. I’m not anyone special to be able to answer your question, more clearly. No matter how clear one may be unfortunately, there is not way of penetrating the fundamentalist Latin ideas about the filioque clause.

The Latin attitude of believing that breaking the ecclesiastical code is a petty issue, says it all.

 

[MariaG]

DOXA:

Dear Mystophilos,

I think that your answer was clear enough. I’m not anyone special to be able to answer your question, more clearly. No matter how clear one may be unfortunately, there is not way of penetrating the fundamentalist Latin ideas about the filioque clause.

The Latin attitude of believing that breaking the ecclesiastical code is a petty issue, says it all.

The “Latin attitude” is that nothing was broken. And the Orthodox must keep insisting that it was.

But I will remove myself from this discussion since it has turned into this. I avoid the Eastern boards. For some reason, the Orthodox attitude towards Catholics has always been 100 times more distressing to me than Fundamentalists even though they almost mirror each other in their contempt of repeated Catholic stated beliefs.

No matter how much you explain language differences and intent, Orthodox insist on meaning that was not meant. Why this is more hurtful than Fundamentalists who do the same thing, I really can’t say, but it is.



May God bless you all and keep you and may the Holy Spirit shine the light of truth on you.

Maria

 

[aaronjmagnan]

The apostles arguing is representative of bishops and clergy arguing, not different Christian denominations. The word of the gospel, oriented toward the organization of the kingdom. Thus, it was showing that there will be strife within the church, but we must act like children, and come to the Father through his Child. The father is represented in the pope and the magisterium and present as God understands that the strife will occur among bishops, etc…

I think this is the idea,
God bless,
Aaron

 

[ComradeAndrei]

While I would never deny your freedom to believe whatsoever you would like to believe, I would suggest that you might like to consider what Orthodox believers say about the history of their church, and the continuing importance of the filioque, if only because they are likely to understand their beliefs and choices better than outsiders are.

I know what they say. But the Catholic Church maintains that it is within its authority to see to the development of doctrine and the filioque clause is legitimate.

I trust what the Fathers say about the Primacy (and not just “primer inter pares”) of Rome and the Roman Pontiff. I do not buy what the Ecumenical Patriarch says, as he’s not infallible unless he would be teaching in union with the Pope. I also don’t buy what they say because history shows how often they wandered off into heresy or were made puppets of the powers-that-be (Byzantine emperors and Ottoman sultans). Also, it seems a classic power struggle. Rome was the old Imperial capital, Constantinople was the “New Rome”-and the Patriarchs of Constantinople wanted the power to go along with it. Now I realize that the history of the Popes are not spotless, and that other factors contributed to the Great Schism that were the fault of Western Christians but that doesn’t change the fact that the Pope had the authority to add the filioque clause.

This presents an interesting difference in values. If my child took up binge drinking, I would still insist that s/he leave the car at home, and I would be more than willing to pay for a taxi. Similarly, if s/he started sleeping around, I would be less than happy, but I would add “You must use condoms” to “This is not a good idea.”

This is not a coherent example. Calling a cab is not objectively sinful, therefore it would be legitimate to do this to lessen the danger that might come from the sin of willful drunkenness. Condom use is objectively sinful, thus it is not legitimate to recommend their usage even for a perceived good.

In part, this is motivated by simple mercy, and, in part, by the acknowledgement of the fact that the consequences are often much wider than the erring individual. That pedestrian whom you hypothetically ran over was injured or killed. If I allowed you to drive when you were drunk, I would be morally (and, in some countries, legally) culpable for that. When I have the power to reduce the negative consequences of another’s folly, I have the responsibility to do so.

Not simple mercy-false charity. It is not acceptable to bring about “good” through sin-even venial.

“During 2004, an estimated 640,000 children around the world were infected with HIV… Most of these children - as many as 90% - acquired the infection from their mother during pregnancy, birth or breastfeeding.”

In some African countries, AIDS orphans account for 9% of the total population.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

I know the gig, the anti-gunners pull the same thing. Bring out statistics that make the other side look bad, especially if it has to deal with children. Try to pull the heartstrings of the misinformed or uninformed so that any logical arguement looks like it is cold and uncaring. Well, I’m not buying it.

The fact of the matter is that far fewer children (and people in general) would have AIDS if people would quit having sex outside the proper confines of marriage. Remember what happened to King David’s son after his adultery with Bathsheba (sp?) and having her husband sent to the heat of the front lines so he’d be killed? God forgave his sins, but took his son as punishment. The wage of sin is death. It is unfortunate but true.

Condoms reduce the total number of hosts. Because the virus spreads from a single host to multiple others, any increase or decrease in the number of hosts, and the total effect, is exponential rather than simply arithmetic.

Rounding everyone up with AIDS and having them gassed would also reduce the total number of hosts. Is that moral though? Nope. Neither is condom use, neither is extra-marital sex.

Perhaps, or a thoroughly secure one.

So the tolerance of heresy marks a church as “secure”? That isn’t “secure”, that is just a false sense of unity because no one has the guts to say that position X is absolutely right and the others are incorrect.

 

[Mystophilus]

ComradeAndrei:

I know what they say. But the Catholic Church maintains that it is within its authority to see to the development of doctrine and the filioque clause is legitimate… I trust what the Fathers say about the Primacy (and not just “primer inter pares”) of Rome and the Roman Pontiff. I do not buy what the Ecumenical Patriarch says, as he’s not infallible unless he would be teaching in union with the Pope… Condom use is objectively sinful, thus it is not legitimate to recommend their usage even for a perceived good…It is not acceptable to bring about “good” through sin-even venial…Neither is condom use, neither is extra-marital sex…So the tolerance of heresy marks a church as “secure”? That isn’t “secure”, that is just a false sense of unity because no one has the guts to say that position X is absolutely right and the others are incorrect.

I perhaps begin to belatedly understand your epistemology, and see the reason why I might achieve nothing in discussing this further. I suspect that, for you, the Church’s teaching is the fundamental basis of Truth. I cannot achieve such a position, and so we may have a commensurability problem in this respect.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

I know the gig, the anti-gunners pull the same thing. Bring out statistics that make the other side look bad, especially if it has to deal with children. Try to pull the heartstrings of the misinformed or uninformed so that any logical argument looks like it is cold and uncaring. Well, I’m not buying it.

Do you believe that the statistics are entirely falsified (i.e., that no children in Africa die because their parents/breastfeeders have AIDS, and that no children in Africa are orphaned by AIDS), or do you think that they are inaccurate? If the latter, how inaccurate do you perceive them to be, and why?

I am curious about this, because you are presenting your argument as “logical”, whereas I am (thus far) understanding it to be ideological. (I should add that I do not regard ‘ideological’ as a pejorative, and you may certainly substitute ‘pistological’, i.e., ‘based upon faith’, if you so choose.)

The fact of the matter is that far fewer children (and people in general) would have AIDS if people would quit having sex outside the proper confines of marriage.

This is certainly true, but so is the fact that fewer children (and people in general) would have AIDS if people would wear condoms when they do have sex. These are not faithful, orthodox Catholics whom we are discussing, because they are having extramarital sex. As such, the options are, 1/, that they could die with AIDS; 2/, that they could live in contravention of Catholic teaching (i.e., use condoms); 3/ that they could live in obedience to Catholic teaching (i.e., stop having extra-marital sex). Would you say that you would prefer 1/ to 2/, for them to die rather than to live in contravention of Catholic teaching?

Does the fact that their choices, and deaths, will affect the lives of others have any bearing upon this?

Remember what happened to King David’s son after his adultery with Bathsheba (sp?) and having her husband sent to the heat of the front lines so he’d be killed? God forgave his sins, but took his son as punishment. The wage of sin is death. It is unfortunate but true.

It is true, but that is God’s decision. Like Abraham and Moses, I will try to save as many as I can, even if it means opposing God.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I suspect that, for you, the Church’s teaching is the fundamental basis of Truth. I cannot achieve such a position, and so we may have a commensurability problem in this respect.

What do you think is a basis for truth? What else is there? All Truth comes from God, God gave authority to the Church, therefore the teaching of the Church is Truth.

Do you believe that the statistics are entirely falsified (i.e., that no children in Africa die because their parents/breastfeeders have AIDS, and that no children in Africa are orphaned by AIDS), or do you think that they are inaccurate? If the latter, how inaccurate do you perceive them to be, and why?

I don’t think they are entirely falsified nor do I think they are necessarily mathematically inaccurate. I am saying that the way you are using them is wrong. You make it sound like it is the big bad Catholic Church’s fault that all these children die or are left orphans in Africa because the Church won’t get with the times and teach that condom use is acceptable-and it is NOT our fault. All fault lies squarely with the people who have extra-marital sex and who contract this disease and/or pass it on to their other partners and/or children.

I am curious about this, because you are presenting your argument as “logical”, whereas I am (thus far) understanding it to be ideological. (I should add that I do not regard ‘ideological’ as a pejorative, and you may certainly substitute ‘pistological’, i.e., ‘based upon faith’, if you so choose.)

I say logical because it is the only reasonable solution to the question. Like I said before, we could kill off all (or at least most) the people with AIDS and that would cut down dramatically on infection rates but that is not moral. Condom use is not acceptable either because it is immoral. If you throw out the moral implications, than either solution is acceptable.

This is certainly true, but so is the fact that fewer children (and people in general) would have AIDS if people would wear condoms when they do have sex.

Agreed!

These are not faithful, orthodox Catholics whom we are discussing, because they are having extramarital sex.

If they are Catholic, they have an obligation to be faithful and orthodox otherwise they must suffer the consequences of their actions. Everyone should be Catholic, but I know that is not the case. However, their religious affiliation does not change the moral correctness or incorrectness on something that is objectively immoral. Opinion or practice does not dictate Truth.

As such, the options are, 1/, that they could die with AIDS;

Unfortunately, that is a possible conseqence for sin.

2/, that they could live in contravention of Catholic teaching (i.e., use condoms);

But, they’d be living in mortal sin-which is death for the soul.

3/ that they could live in obedience to Catholic teaching (i.e., stop having extra-marital sex).

They aren’t dogs, they are human beings. They are definately able to do this.

Would you say that you would prefer 1/ to 2/, for them to die rather than to live in contravention of Catholic teaching?

I’m not falling for that. If I pick 1 then I sound cold-hearted and uncaring and if I pick 2 then I go against the Church-it would be a loose/loose for me.

I will say this, 1 is a possible consequence to their sinful actions-that is the way it is and 2 is also a sin and not even 100% effective anyway. So, to go on sinning and not use a condom would be like playing Russian roulette with only 3 empty chambers and to go on sinning and use a condom would be like having only 1 loaded chamber-not a good idea either way. Plus, as to their eternal soul they condemn themselves.

Therefore, we cannot give our consent to condom use AND it is NOT our fault if people get AIDS or give it to other people because of their irresponsibility.

It is true, but that is God’s decision. Like Abraham and Moses, I will try to save as many as I can, even if it means opposing God.

And you will fail if you put yourself up against God. Abraham and Moses were faithful and obedient-not dissentful and disobedient. I don’t see how you figure that Abraham and Moses actually opposed God, as in went against God’s will.

In opposing the Church, you are not emulating Abraham or Moses. I would say more like Korah from Numbers 16. Just look what happened to him and his bunch when they went against God’s own appointed official Moses. They got swallowed up by the earth.

 

[Mystophilus]

ComradeAndrei:

What do you think is a basis for truth? What else is there?

I would say that Truth only exists in God, and that all else is imperfect.

I don’t think they are entirely falsified nor do I think they are necessarily mathematically inaccurate. I am saying that the way you are using them is wrong. You make it sound like it is the big bad Catholic Church’s fault that all these children die or are left orphans in Africa because the Church won’t get with the times and teach that condom use is acceptable-and it is NOT our fault. All fault lies squarely with the people who have extra-marital sex and who contract this disease and/or pass it on to their other partners and/or children.

If the statistics themselves are accurate, then the problem remains. The Church does oppose something which does save lives. This is perplexing to me, because I cannot see that any doctrine should overrule mercy.

their religious affiliation does not change the moral correctness or incorrectness on something that is objectively immoral. Opinion or practice does not dictate Truth.

There is a semantic problem here. ‘Morals’ are consensus values. As such, nothing is ever “objectively immoral”. Some things may be “objectively wrong”, but defining whether or not a given action is so would require establishing objective criteria for righteousness. This would be an impressive feat for subjective humanity.

They aren’t dogs; they are human beings. They are definitely able to do this [abstain].

I am not so sure, given the difficulty which so many people have with merely dieting. It also raises the question of people who are addicted to sex. While I would certainly agree that some people can do this, I am just as sure that some people cannot.

I’m not falling for that. If I pick 1 then I sound cold-hearted and uncaring and if I pick 2 then I go against the Church-it would be a lose/lose for me… Therefore, we cannot give our consent to condom use AND it is NOT our fault if people get AIDS or give it to other people because of their irresponsibility.

My apologies: it was not actually meant to be a trap; it was meant to determine which you thought to be the lesser evil. Apparently, that is #1.

Going back to an earlier comment, you said, “Condom use is objectively sinful; thus it is not legitimate to recommend their usage even for a perceived good.” Have you considered what happens in Exodus 1:19-21? There, the midwives deliberately lie (commonly considered to be “objectively wrong”) to the Egyptians in order to save the lives of the Israelites. The midwives’ reward is announced immediately thereafter.

And you will fail if you put yourself up against God.

Inevitably, but the possibility or even the certainty of failure are not sufficient reasons to prevent me from acting. The Battle of Thermopylae did not happen because the Spartans imagined that they could win; it happened because they felt that it was something which needed to be done. While I do not hope to achieve anything as great, it is an example to which I aspire.

Abraham and Moses were faithful and obedient-not dissentful and disobedient. I don’t see how you figure that Abraham and Moses actually opposed God, as in went against God’s will.

Genesis 18:16-33 and Exodus 32:9-14: both opposed God’s stated intention, because they felt that God’s decision was incorrect. See also Zechariah 1:12, in which an angel similarly challenges the righteousness of God’s actions. In none of these cases is any disapprobation demonstrated by God. Rather than playing the tyrant who demands unquestioning obedience, God permits dissent which is motivated by a concern for a code of Justice which is not predicated upon God’s will or God’s word.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I would say that Truth only exists in God, and that all else is imperfect.

Well, I would agree with you with the addition that God’s Truth exists in the Church. So, on that point, we’d have to agree to disagree.

If the statistics themselves are accurate, then the problem remains. The Church does oppose something which does save lives. This is perplexing to me, because I cannot see that any doctrine should overrule mercy.

Answer me this, if I were to have some segment of the population killed in order to save the lives of others (like in my theoretical outbreak) is that merciful?

What good do we do if we were to save the body and kill the soul?

There is a semantic problem here. ‘Morals’ are consensus values. As such, nothing is ever “objectively immoral”. Some things may be “objectively wrong”, but defining whether or not a given action is so would require establishing objective criteria for righteousness. This would be an impressive feat for subjective humanity.

From the Catechism-

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

Again, I suppose we’d have to agree to disagree.

I am not so sure, given the difficulty which so many people have with merely dieting. It also raises the question of people who are addicted to sex. While I would certainly agree that some people can do this, I am just as sure that some people cannot.

Nothing changes the fact that certain acts are gravely sinful, however, the psychological predisposition of the person may deminish or remove the imputability of the grave act but that still doesn’t justify other sins to provide a “solution”.

I am saying that most people are fully able to control their passions-if they choose to. Many people CHOOSE not to do so.

Going back to an earlier comment, you said, “Condom use is objectively sinful; thus it is not legitimate to recommend their usage even for a perceived good.” Have you considered what happens in Exodus 1:19-21? There, the midwives deliberately lie (commonly considered to be “objectively wrong”) to the Egyptians in order to save the lives of the Israelites. The midwives’ reward is announced immediately thereafter

There are some instances when not revealing the truth is legitimate-

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. the good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. the duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

And from Humanae Vitae-

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Rather than playing the tyrant who demands unquestioning obedience, God permits dissent which is motivated by a concern for a code of Justice which is not predicated upon God’s will or God’s word.

Or that God was testing them. God is all-knowing and all-powerful-thus whatever He commands is right, how could Abraham and Moses know better than God?

 

[Mystophilus]

ComradeAndrei:

Answer me this, if I were to have some segment of the population killed in order to save the lives of others (like in my theoretical outbreak) is that merciful?

I would not describe as merciful, nor would I describe it as good. Sometimes, however, doing bad things is necessary. This is why I find the Catholic attitude to condoms so strange: allowing people to die is seen as less bad than giving them condoms.

Do you believe in supplying clean needles free of charge?

What good do we do if we were to save the body and kill the soul?

I do not believe that we can kill the soul, and especially not by saving the body. Pace.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. the good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. the duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

Nonetheless, this is not what the midwives did. They deliberately misrepresented the truth. They lied, and God rewarded them for it. This is not proof that the end justifies the means, but it is a demonstration that the (un)righteousness of a given action is not a simple issue.

And from Humanae Vitae-

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it —in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

This is very interesting, because it seems to me that it means that a Catholic could not distribute condoms (“do evil”), but could allow others to do so (“tolerate a lesser evil”), if condoms are a lesser evil than the suffering attendant upon the disease.

What is the Humanae Vitae? What degree of authority does this hold for Catholics?

Or that God was testing them. God is all-knowing and all-powerful-thus whatever He commands is right, how could Abraham and Moses know better than God?

I suspect that God was testing them, and that, considering God’s actions, both passed. However, both passes were achieved by confronting God and contesting the righteousness of God’s stated intentions. God led them into a position in which they had to distinguish unthinking obedience to a Higher Power from conscious adherence to righteousness. Only afterwards would they be led back to the understanding that God had it all under control. I find this especially vivid in light of the version of the story of Abraham in the Qu’ran (11:75-6), in which God tells Abraham not to bother his tiny mortal head about it, and Abraham shuts up.

This is, I believe, much in the same vein as God’s announcement to Satan of Job’s righteousness, in Job 1. God engineers the circumstances, and then allows the creature to stand or fall (but frequently ‘cheats’ by helping the creatures out).

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Sometimes, however, doing bad things is necessary. This is why I find the Catholic attitude to condoms so strange: allowing people to die is seen as less bad than giving them condoms.

It is never necessary, sometimes it happens though.

I don’t think you are getting the point, we are not allowing people to die-they do that to themselves. It is not like we are saying, “Go ahead, have all the sex you want-but to use condoms is anathema!” If that is what we were saying, that would be strange.

They have to keep themselves in line, distributing something that encourages promiscuity does not help.

Do you believe in supplying clean needles free of charge?

For what? Drugs? No, again, people shouldn’t be doing drugs in the first place and we shouldn’t be enabling them by giving them needles.

I do not believe that we can kill the soul, and especially not by saving the body. Pace.

So encouraging mortal sin is acceptable? That is how we kill the soul.

Nonetheless, this is not what the midwives did. They deliberately misrepresented the truth.

Reveal means tell. Don’t read like a fundamentalist. Read the whole passage of the Catechism together, such as that the safety of others is reason enough for discreet language. “Discreet” in that you can make something up in order to save someone. If the Gestapo came into your house during WWII and you knew where some Jews were hiding, would you say “They are 2km down the road, second house on the right” or would you make something up and/or plead ignorance? There are situations where you are not bound to tell the whole truth or even the truth at all.

This is very interesting, because it seems to me that it means that a Catholic could not distribute condoms (“do evil”), but could allow others to do so (“tolerate a lesser evil”), if condoms are a lesser evil than the suffering attendant upon the disease.

You pick and choose and make it say what you want. Read the sentence right before the one that you highlighted-

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these.

the Humanae Vitae? What degree of authority does this hold for Catholics?

I’m suprised you haven’t heard of it, it created quite a stir in the 1960s. It is an encyclical letter by His Holiness Pope Paul VI, of happy memory, that outlined the moral consequences of contraception.
As an encyclical, is is not an excercise of the extraordinary magisterium but it is an excercise of the ordinary magisterium-meaning that while the Pope did not define any dogma in it, it is still the constant teaching of the Church and binds all Catholics.

You can read the whole thing here. It is almost prophetic, they way the Pope predicts what will happen with the greater availability of contraception-and how things came to pass since the 1960’s.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[Mystophilus]

ComradeAndrei:

I don’t think you are getting the point, we are not allowing people to die-they do that to themselves. It is not like we are saying, “Go ahead, have all the sex you want-but to use condoms is anathema!” If that is what we were saying, that would be strange.

They have to keep themselves in line, distributing something that encourages promiscuity does not help.

[free needles]For what? Drugs? No, again, people shouldn’t be doing drugs in the first place and we shouldn’t be enabling them by giving them needles.

In both cases, I would supply the devices which will save lives first, and worry about their souls second. In part, this is because I view the fate of their soul as something entirely between them and God, something which I cannot directly influence. The fate of their body, on the other hand, is something which I can affect, and I will do so.

As for condoms encouraging sexual intercourse, that is the case, but I do not think that it is necessarily the point, in spiritual terms. As the Bible repeatedly teaches, sin occurs in the heart. Thus, if a man has no access to condoms, and is afraid of contracting a disease, and so avoids sex, and yet still looks lustfully upon a woman, he has committed fornication (Mt 5:28). The sin occurs with or without the physical action.

If he does commit the sin, this may also be another thing, in ‘sinning against his body’ (1 Co 6:18-9), but he has already fallen. Similarly, while she sins by having sex with him, she also sins merely by wanting to.

Reveal means tell. Don’t read like a fundamentalist. Read the whole passage of the Catechism together, such as that the safety of others is reason enough for discreet language. “Discreet” in that you can make something up in order to save someone. If the Gestapo came into your house during WWII and you knew where some Jews were hiding, would you say “They are 2km down the road, second house on the right” or would you make something up and/or plead ignorance? There are situations where you are not bound to tell the whole truth or even the truth at all.

While reveal has a very similar meaning to tell, what is revealed is uncovered; it must exist prior to the revelation, not be invented. The passage from the catechism does not advocate misrepresentation; it advocates “being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language”, i.e., selective revelation of the truth, not invention. This is not surprising, because support for actual misrepresentation would contradict the main passage on lying around chapter 2485.

Under the Catechism, telling the Gestapo that you did not know where the Jews were would be ‘wrong’. I would suggest, nevertheless, that it would be less wrong than disclosing the Jews’ location. Of course, if someone was determined to follow the Catechism, they could simply refuse to speak to the Gestats Polizei at all, and suffer the consequences.

The midwives misrepresented the truth; they did not merely selectively reveal. I cannot recall any other instances in the Bible in which lying is validated, which is what makes that one so interesting.

You pick and choose and make it say what you want.

Everyone does. It makes reading actually possible; otherwise, we would have to read every text ever written in the history of the world, and we would not have enough time for anything else. Nevertheless, what I meant was that a Catholic could, on the basis of that passage, permit the distribution of condoms so long as s/he did not argue that it was right and did not actually authorise it him/herself. It creates an interesting solution which allows for doctrinal orthodoxy and adaptability.

I’m suprised you haven’t heard of it, it created quite a stir in the 1960s. It is an encyclical letter by His Holiness Pope Paul VI, of happy memory, that outlined the moral consequences of contraception.
As an encyclical, is is not an excercise of the extraordinary magisterium but it is an excercise of the ordinary magisterium-meaning that while the Pope did not define any dogma in it, it is still the constant teaching of the Church and binds all Catholics.

So every Catholic is required to believe that this is true in all its details?

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Mystophilus:

So every Catholic is required to believe that this is true in all its details?

The “belief” required is “religious submission of the will and intellect”, as set out in Lumen Genitum (No.25) as follows:

“This religious submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authoritative Magisterium (authentico magisterio) of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra; indeed, that his supreme Magisterium be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him, according to his manifest mind and intention.”

Doesn’t seem to leave much room for quibbling over details.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[St_Benedict]

11: For it has been reported to me by Chlo’e’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren.
12: What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol’los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”

etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Rsv1Cor.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div1

 

[misterX]

Mystophilus:

Then He came to Capernaum. And when He was in the house He asked them, “What was it you disputed among yourselves on the road?” But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who would be the greatest. And He sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.” Then He took a little child and set him in the midst of them. And when He had taken him in His arms, He said to them, “Whoever receives one of these little children in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me, receives not Me but Him who sent Me.” (Mark 9:33-7)Does this remind anyone else of the “My church is better than your church” routine?

What will it take to lead enough Christians to tolerance?

nevermind