Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
But since when have we only insisted on that? Often, when one says we ought not do something it is because we have been doing it; it is a corrective statement. I grant that this is not always the case. “Sally, we shouldn’t eat dessert before dinner.” This implies that Sally was going for the pie or something. So when somebody says something like that, it implies that that has been happening. It is not an absolute, and it is not always the case, but it often, more often than not, is. Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but I am left asking why he would say that if that is not the case.Here are the actual related statements: (nowhere are we obsessed with abortion)
“We cannot insist **only **on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. … … The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time."
“only on” does not mean we do not insist on these issues … it means we do still insist on these issues, but, that there are other issues … just not** “only” **these issues…
“The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. **It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.” **
It just strikes me as odd that he would say that, because of the usual implications of this sort of phraseology.
