M
manualman
Guest
Got your attention, huh?
I have a moral parable for your consideration.
There once was a deeply flawed man who often got drunk, came home and beat his wife. This was a pattern and went on for years until one day he beat her so severely that when he awoke from his stupor she was still unconscious on the floor. Something stirred in his damaged conscience and he realized that he could have killed her and that this possibility horrifed him. He cleaned her wounds, treated her injuries and she recovered (I have no idea why women stay with such men, but they often do). He resolved never to drink again and sought help (and succeeded). He never wanted again to risk killing her, but found that his temper still got the better of him sometimes and he struggled to control his rage. Instead of getting counseling, he sought out martial arts training. He asked to be taught how to cause hurt without permanent injury. He didn’t want her dead, but he still felt he had the right to “teach her a lesson” from time to time as “needed.”
Now the question. Did the man make a FIRST step towards morality? Did he recognize that his actions were incompatible with her human dignity and seek to make SOME kind of change to lessen the degree to which he wronged her? I think we all would agree that he DID, though a horribly imperfect one. Does acknowledging that first step imply that we ENDORSE his hitting to hurt (but not fatally)? Of course not!
So why is THIS situation so clear to everyone, but when the pope draws a similar moral picture with a male prostitute as the subject, the entire world goes nuts thinking he is ENDORSING the condom use? Perhaps the pundits see his reasoning very clearly. They just want to make sure YOU don’t. Food for thought.
I have a moral parable for your consideration.
There once was a deeply flawed man who often got drunk, came home and beat his wife. This was a pattern and went on for years until one day he beat her so severely that when he awoke from his stupor she was still unconscious on the floor. Something stirred in his damaged conscience and he realized that he could have killed her and that this possibility horrifed him. He cleaned her wounds, treated her injuries and she recovered (I have no idea why women stay with such men, but they often do). He resolved never to drink again and sought help (and succeeded). He never wanted again to risk killing her, but found that his temper still got the better of him sometimes and he struggled to control his rage. Instead of getting counseling, he sought out martial arts training. He asked to be taught how to cause hurt without permanent injury. He didn’t want her dead, but he still felt he had the right to “teach her a lesson” from time to time as “needed.”
Now the question. Did the man make a FIRST step towards morality? Did he recognize that his actions were incompatible with her human dignity and seek to make SOME kind of change to lessen the degree to which he wronged her? I think we all would agree that he DID, though a horribly imperfect one. Does acknowledging that first step imply that we ENDORSE his hitting to hurt (but not fatally)? Of course not!
So why is THIS situation so clear to everyone, but when the pope draws a similar moral picture with a male prostitute as the subject, the entire world goes nuts thinking he is ENDORSING the condom use? Perhaps the pundits see his reasoning very clearly. They just want to make sure YOU don’t. Food for thought.