You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
Dredgemate
Guest
While not a doctrinal teaching of the church, the entirety of JPII’s TOTB is so logical and in communion with natural law, it is difficult to dispute its truth. (although many try)
J
JustSomeGuy
Guest
i am not sure what the point if your post is. if you are asking whether the pope’s statements are part of the doctrinal teachings of the Church, the answer in this case is ‘no, not entirely.’ the pope’s remarks regarding giving food to the infirm are interpretive, and guide the faithful in understanding the teachings of the Church regarding the protection of human life. he is saying that, given Catholic teaching about extraordinary medical procedures, we cannot consider food and water as extraordinary. the teaching already exists. he is clarifying it. people need food and that’s that. he is basically saying ‘if you understand the teachings of the Church in their entirety, then you will reach the same conclusion.’ but because he didn’t proclaim that conclusion in an official way, he didn’t go the extent of saying that we must draw that conclusion. however, it is left to each of us to ask ourselves why we wouldn’t reach the same conclusion, if we understand the teachings of the Church.
IMO this article wasn’t written to portray the Church or the pope favorably. there is an underlying tone of disagreement and suspicion. “scratching their heads” about what? which theologians? the ones that previously saw starvation as reasonable? my experience with “america” is that support for rome would be extraordinary. while there may be perfectly good jesuits out there somewhere, for me, sj after someone’s name is a sign that says ‘approach with caution.’ and for the most part, i don’t trust most theologians any farther than i can throw 'em.
the title of your post referenced the “theology of the body”. John Paul II’s teaching “the theology of the body” is a particular and different thing than the Church’s doctrine of the value and meaning of human life. the theology of the body is only what it says, a theology. it is not doctrinal teaching. he offered it in order to further illuminate the truths of the faith. if you want to understand the fundamental truths of being human, the theology of the body offers that. there are other angles from which the truth can be viewed. the theology of the body is one of them. his teaching is very closely related to Catholic teaching on human life and in harmony with it. but they are not the same thing.
IMO this article wasn’t written to portray the Church or the pope favorably. there is an underlying tone of disagreement and suspicion. “scratching their heads” about what? which theologians? the ones that previously saw starvation as reasonable? my experience with “america” is that support for rome would be extraordinary. while there may be perfectly good jesuits out there somewhere, for me, sj after someone’s name is a sign that says ‘approach with caution.’ and for the most part, i don’t trust most theologians any farther than i can throw 'em.
the title of your post referenced the “theology of the body”. John Paul II’s teaching “the theology of the body” is a particular and different thing than the Church’s doctrine of the value and meaning of human life. the theology of the body is only what it says, a theology. it is not doctrinal teaching. he offered it in order to further illuminate the truths of the faith. if you want to understand the fundamental truths of being human, the theology of the body offers that. there are other angles from which the truth can be viewed. the theology of the body is one of them. his teaching is very closely related to Catholic teaching on human life and in harmony with it. but they are not the same thing.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.