Thoughts on the gay cake case

[PRmerger]

Playing word games, eh? If you dare the question (disagree, deny) the validity of dogma you will be an anathema.

Really?

Can you point to the magisterial document which cites this?

And please, don’t cite something that uses words that are NOT synonymous with “question”, like “exception” and “deny”.

Please offer something that says that Catholics are excommunicated if they QUESTION dogmas.

And can you please offer evidence that all the Catholics here who have QUESTIONED dogmas are now excommunicated?

And can you please tell us what Theology depts in Catholic universities are doing if they can’t QUESTION the dogmas of the Church?

Can you please cite where this book was banned by the Magisterium?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...4IlpZMTcRhJRds9qWnYW9SKqxyka2pwGKXJ0&usqp=CAE

And this one?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...PSErbQwY2Xoj1L8GmsqcCg6AsUOY-Sv1NYi0&usqp=CAE

For someone who claims to believe only based on evidence, you surely do profess a lot of things based on faith alone!

(And the biggest one is that something can come from nothing! Not only is this based on faith alone, but it’s actually contrary to logic.)

 

[Bradski]

it’s actually contrary to logic.

As are many things. Already pointed out. The fact that something appears to be illogical is not an argument against it.

It is really not credible that I can tap my fingers on a piece of glass sitting here on one side of the planet and have you read my thoughts almost instantly half a world away. We have passed the point when even the most mundane aspects of life are beyond most people’s ability to comprehend them. It would only be a generation or so ago that these abilities would be classed as illogical.

 

[bjryman]

Playing word games, eh? If you dare the question (disagree, deny) the validity of dogma you will be an anathema. That is all there is to it. Sure you can question anything, but if you question a “de fide” revelation, then you will be excommunicated. Just like you are free to jump off the 10th floor of balcony… you just will not survive.

Just make sure the issue is about DOGMA, and not all the rest of the Traditions and Teachings of the Church. We are ecouraged by Vatcan II to develop our own informed conscience, and to use it to walk our own pathway to holiness. In the end the Church recognizes that our salvation is between each of us personally and God.

The Church does also state that the Teachings of it, coming down through the ages, is correct and that we should believe. In this regard the issue is more like if one wishes to belong completely to an organization, then one should assimilate all the teachings one can…thus the “in full communion” teachings.

The Church via Vatican II also states that there are major elements of the salvation message outside the Church, and these definitely can lead our fellow Christains to the ultimate goal of redemtion and live after death with Christ.

Thus, balancing the two sets of dialog is quite the task. Especially when speaking in Absolutes.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As are many things. Already pointed out. The fact that something appears to be illogical is not an argument against it.

Bradski…

If something IS illogical THAT IS EXACTLY what constitutes an argument against it.

If it isn’t, then we may as well stop trying to understand or discuss anything. Which itself depends on a certain logic – the futility of logic

It is really not credible that I can tap my fingers on a piece of glass sitting here on one side of the planet and have you read my thoughts almost instantly half a world away. We have passed the point when even the most mundane aspects of life are beyond most people’s ability to comprehend them. It would only be a generation or so ago that these abilities would be classed as illogical.

Inconceivable is not the same as illogical.

 

[stewstew03]

…

So are people justified in not baking a cake for a SSM? In my mind, absolutely not. But are people justified in making a stand for something in which they really believe? Most definitely yes.

…

I’m not sure how you reconcile those two statements. Is a baker, acting in good conscience, justified in refusing to bake a cake that celebrates something to which he or she is morally opposed?

.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m not sure how you reconcile those two statements. Is a baker, acting in good conscience, justified in refusing to bake a cake that celebrates something to which he or she is morally opposed?

.

The ONLY way to reconcile the two is to endorse as a fundamental moral principle that what other people want (especially in large numbers) - even if you can’t morally justify their wanting it to yourself - always trumps what you want.

In this case, what some gay couples decide they want supercedes individual conscience because… well… It is always right to do what others want you to do, regardless of whether you think it is right or not.

See how that works? If a man takes your cloak, he has a right to take your purse, as well and you have no right to resist.

This view certainly profits off of a misunderstanding and misapplication of Christ’s teaching. It’s like borrowing your club to attack you with it.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

And please, don’t cite something that uses words that are NOT synonymous with “question”, like “exception” and “deny”.

I think that the writers of the catechism assumed a minimum of intelligence of the readers, and did not feel compelled to bring the message down to the level of 4 years old, where everything needs to be spelled out. Rational people understand that when I question someone’s intellectual prowess or someone’s integrity, then I do not present a question about the meaning of intellectual prowess or their integrity.

Something for you to consider. There was a Vice President called Dan Qualye, maybe you remember him. He was not the sharpest “blade” around the block and said many stupid things. As such people made loads of jokes about him. Here is one of my favorites. "A journalist goes up to him and asks: ‘Mr. Vice President, does it bother you when you hear all those jokes about you?’. Qualye answers: ‘No, they do not bother me at all.’ Whereupon the reporter: ‘And when your children explain them to you?’…

I suggest that you ask your 12 years old kid so he or she could explain the huge difference between “questioning something”, and “presenting questions ABOUT something”.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m not sure how you reconcile those two statements.

I think those statements were being made to highlight a conflict that isn’t easily reconciled. People generally seem to express that the sentiment “stand up for what you believe” as being something positive. But thoughts on that seemed to be more mixed when people that are doing that have views that conflict with each other. IF a person is convinced that there is a moral problem with refusing to sell cakes for gay weddings then is such a person not acting in accordance with their convictions when taking an opposing position to those that refuse to sale?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I suggest that you ask your 12 years old kid so he or she could explain the huge difference between “questioning something”, and “presenting questions ABOUT something”.

Given that things (something) cannot answer to questioning, it would seem that in order to “question something” it is a requirement that those questions be posed to someone who “speaks for” the thing being questioned. So, “questioning something” logically entails “presenting questions” to someone “ABOUT” that “something.” I can make no sense of “questioning something,” otherwise, you seem to be advocating going around posing direct questions to the things we have questions about. Which seems nonsensical.

Not that I am questioning your logic or semantics here, but I reserve the right to present questions to you ABOUT both your logic and semantics, rather than to PR’s twelve year old. Although if s/he takes after PR I am pretty certain his/her logic and semantics would add clarity to the question.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think those statements were being made to highlight a conflict that isn’t easily reconciled. People generally seem to express that the sentiment “stand up for what you believe” as being something positive. But thoughts on that seemed to be more mixed when people that are doing that have views that conflict with each other. IF a person is convinced that there is a moral problem with refusing to sell cakes for gay weddings then is such a person not acting in accordance with their convictions when taking an opposing position to those that refuse to sale?

Not if having a moral problem with refusing to sell cakes for gay weddings means he therefore makes a unilateral decision to force everyone to comply with his view of the matter, especially since the issue is not a “slam dunk” moral decision. The fact is that large numbers of reasonable and well-formed consciences had and still do have a legitimate but contrary moral view. To unilaterally declare that the moral solution is to take his view and disparage the other is NOT, itself, a legitimate moral solution.

THAT is precisely what is happening because by using a legal club to force compliance on the issue - i.e., forcing those with the opposite view to compromise their conscience on the matter - the resorted-to solution is, itself, an immoral one.

 

[Bradski]

Bradski…

If something IS illogical THAT IS EXACTLY what constitutes an argument against it.

You are not reading what I’m writing. I said if something APPEARS to be illogical…

An effect without a cause appears to be as illogical as one thing being in two places at the same time. Or instantaneous cause and effect over distance. As such, calling it illogical carries no weight as an argument as to whether it is possible or not.

 

[Bradski]

I’m not sure how you reconcile those two statements. Is a baker, acting in good conscience, justified in refusing to bake a cake that celebrates something to which he or she is morally opposed?

They may well be irreconcilable. I disagree with the baker in this case only on the grounds that I don’t agree with his reasoning for not baking the cake. But I would find it very difficult not to support someone making a stand for what they believe in. As long as that belief was reasonable.

And there are reasonable arguments against SSM. I just don’t agree with them.

 

[thinkandmull]

It doesn’t state or imply “a majority of the time”. It says more “it more easily happens”. And take special note of the last sentence I extracted.

If there is text somewhere else in the document that talks about “most of the time”, please point it out.

I further point out that the issue of “responsibility” goes to the question of culpability, not morality. For those thinking that homosexual acts might somehow get a nod, that is a serious logical error - the nod can only be given if the act is not immoral.

“It more easily happens” means that it is very likely that the majority of the time there is not full consent to sin, maybe even venial. I can sympathize with the left if they are saying “look, you can’t judge another man’s conscience and this cake thing is like having people having only white or freckled people cake shops. It promotes hatred and judgmentalism. We can have disagreement on whether there is something ‘objective’ here or over whether that even means something. The thing is you don’t know if gays are following the light they have inside or not, so be Christian and don’t rashly judge.” In fact, old morality books call rash judgments mortal sins. So when Christian say about gays “love the sinner not the sin” are not they assuming there is a sinner there at all?

 

[Rau]

“It more easily happens” means that it is very likely that the majority of the time there is not full consent to sin, maybe even venial.

What “it more easily happens” means is that there is not free consent more easily than in cases of sins not of the sexual order. It is a statement about the relative ease of no free consent for sexual sins vs. non sexual sins. Nowhere does it ever state or imply that “most sexual sins are not of free consent”. I understand it may give comfort to believe that is says that, but it simply does not.

It is true that in sins of the sexual order, in view of their kind and their causes, it more easily happens that free consent is not fully given; this is a fact which calls for caution in all judgment as to the subject’s responsibility. In this matter it is particularly opportune to recall the following words of Scripture: “Man looks at appearances but God looks at the heart.”[25] However, although prudence is recommended in judging the subjective seriousness of a particular sinful act, it in no way follows that one can hold the view that in the sexual field mortal sins are not committed.
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…humana_en.html

I suggest you simply quote what the Pope wrote, leaving it to the reader’s judgement to understand, rather than providing your specific interpretation, as you did in Post #294.

Alternatively - perhaps you can find another magisterial source that says “most sexual sins are not freely consented”. And to avoid confusion, we are not talking about 13 year-old boys, since in that subset, I’d agree with the lack of full and informed consent.

 

[thinkandmull]

Do you agree with this logic:

It is easy to sin, therefore it is likely that sins happen often?

You’ve changed the meaning of Paul VI’s decree

 

[thinkandmull]

Paul VI simply gave his prudential pastoral opinion through the Holy Office in this case. It does not and could not say what was actually going on in people’s souls. But it plainly said it is most probable that sexual sins are usually not fully consented to. I don’t see how one can reconcile this with rhetoric like “gays are sinners (even though we love them)”.

It doesn’t seem right to judge something so quickly, something you’ve never experienced. Straight Catholics are getting their intimacy and release in marriage, but gay people often have the same needs but can’t get that in marriage. Is it not hypocritical for someone to have sex with your wife and then the next morning call active homosexuals sinners?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Given that things (something) cannot answer to questioning, it would seem that in order to “question something” it is a requirement that those questions be posed to someone who “speaks for” the thing being questioned. So, “questioning something” logically entails “presenting questions” to someone “ABOUT” that “something.”

I suggest you look up “questioning” on the many available on-line dictionaries. You will learn that there are (at least) two meanings, or usages. One is to “present a question to someone”, and the other one is to “doubt” or “reject” a proposition. Obviously when I said that the truth or veracity of the dogmas is “unquestionable” it meant that they must be accepted as true, that you are not “free” to doubt of “question” them.

Definition of questioning:

1. ask questions of (someone), especially in an official context.
   synonyms: interrogate, cross-examine, cross-question, quiz, etc.
2. feel or express doubt about; raise objections to.
   synonyms: query, call into question, challenge, dispute, cast aspersions on, doubt, suspect, have suspicions about, have reservations about, etc.

Definition of unquestionable:

1. not able to be disputed or doubted.
   synonyms: indubitable, undoubted, beyond question, beyond doubt, indisputable, undeniable, irrefutable, incontestable, incontrovertible, unequivocal… etc.

I can make no sense of “questioning something,” otherwise, you seem to be advocating going around posing direct questions to the things we have questions about. Which seems nonsensical.

That is your problem. Both PR and you started to shoot from the hip, without checking the “veracity” of your claim. In the age of the internet such laziness is “unpardonable” (synonym of “unpardonable” is “unforgivable”… in case you were wondering).

 

[SuperLuigi]

Paul VI sign a Holy Office decree that said that sexual sins are the majority of the time not fully consented to. Further, what other reason could there be for not selling condoms than that they will be used for sin. Catholics are on one side shouting about sin, while the gays on the other side are saying this is not their fault, and I think they are both right, for the most part.

As for the gravity of sin, this is debatable. Maybe a Catholic who eats gummy worms and smokes cigars is objectively sinning more than a gay husband. Who’s to say…

I’d be careful with that and leave that up to penitent, God and Confessor.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That is your problem. Both PR and you started to shoot from the hip, without checking the “veracity” of your claim. In the age of the internet such laziness is “unpardonable” (synonym of “unpardonable” is “unforgivable”… in case you were wondering).

So you’ve already impugned (called into question) the reasons for my apparent oversight (laziness) and judged that oversight to be unforgivable? You certainly are a pit bull. Would this be an absolute judgement you are making or merely a subjective one?

Seems rather dogmatic of you to proclaim this error in judgement on my part to be unpardonable. Ironic, really, since you claim to find the unquestionable truth or veracity of dogmas to be objectionable to you and yet here you are implying that your judgement on the matter must be accepted as true. “Unpardonable” leaves no room for dispute - no exceptions - as far as I can tell. So your dogmas are fine but the Church’s not so much. Is that what you are saying?

Your assessment is questionable, to say the least, since you have no idea of my situation - but never mind, we won’t go there.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You are not reading what I’m writing. I said if something APPEARS to be illogical…

An effect without a cause appears to be as illogical as one thing being in two places at the same time. Or instantaneous cause and effect over distance. As such, calling it illogical carries no weight as an argument as to whether it is possible or not.

Ah, I see. I’d better ponder this a bit and not get too lazy before answering.

Not reading what you are writing would make two negligent mistakes in one day. :blushing: Geez, that kind of lazy would be unforgivable under some dogmatic regimes. :dts:

I am greatly relieved that the dogma of my faith background asserts the only unpardonable offense is final impenitence or not seeking pardon. Laziness, at least according to the Church, even in this age of the Internet, is still forgivable.:imsorry:Whew!