tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post8370825198238252777..comments2024-03-29T18:16:16.530+11:00Comments on The Social Pathologist: Papal Developments.The Social Pathologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-9655180083427946242013-07-12T08:42:12.087+10:002013-07-12T08:42:12.087+10:00@SP,
As I've said before on this blog, the co...@SP,<br /><br /><i>As I've said before on this blog, the collapse of Catholic practice following V2 should not have happened if the faith was strong. </i><br /><br />Perhaps it was simply repeating the lines, and maybe the faith needed to shrink back to a remnant of true believers. But I get the sense that the Pre-V2 Church was not just a faith, but an entire social system. I get the sense that V2 was inspired by the same rebellious, revolutionary spirit seen in Paris in 1790, with a desire to sweep clear the decks and start over. What has been lost, at least in America, is that sense of religion married to social system, with a result of collapsing vocations, charities, parochial school attendance, and empty parishes. Pre-V2 RCC seemed to recognize that faith was not enough to build a community.<br /><br />I would think that the last major upheaval before V2 was the Council of Trent. In the 50 years following that council, did the Church suffer as much defection as it has since V2? ElectricAngelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-91570047112961704922013-07-12T08:29:27.028+10:002013-07-12T08:29:27.028+10:00@SP,
The tradition of the Church is that the purp...@SP,<br /><br /><i>The tradition of the Church is that the purpose of coitus is reproduction and yet, what we see from empirical observation, is that coitus is only able to achieve that end only during a limited period of a woman's menstrual cycle. During the infertile phase of a woman's menstrual cycle and post menopause, coitus is deliberately frustrated from it's "natural end" by the design of God. This would appear to be theologically contradictory and is an area where I think further theological work needs to be done.</i><br /><br />The tradition of the Church is in conflict with the Theology of the Body, JP2's work. Now, there might be some Trads who regard him as a raging liberal (sedevacantists, I think), but most accept him as a good pope.<br /><br />Following this theology, one sees the special nature of the Sacrament of MArriage. It it the only sacrament not administered by priests, but by the married couple, to each other. Sex is the method of celebrating that sacrament. If this were not so, the Church would forbid couples with post-menopausal women from the act.ElectricAngelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-64515464238405404302013-06-17T01:59:37.546+10:002013-06-17T01:59:37.546+10:00"Political tags - such as royalist, communist..."Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."<br /><br />Robert Heinlein<br />kurt9https://www.blogger.com/profile/02101147267959016924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-37370817963515982952013-06-17T01:45:44.244+10:002013-06-17T01:45:44.244+10:00The problem is: The Church, when speaking authorit...The problem is: The Church, when speaking authoritatively, cannot ever <i>have been</i> wrong... and so it is also the Solution. It will take at least another century to get an authoritative interpretation of Vatican II—how the Church wasn't wrong in it... or before... or since. In the meantime, any further doctrinal "development" would make that job even harder... Therefore we ought not expect any... we'd be quite blessed to not get any.<br /><br />Something that is, objectively, a grave evil is not going to be suddenly tolerated. Certainly if doctrine "develops" in this way, you can be quite certain that trads will leave "the church" in droves... to try to find the <i>actual</i> Church which was <i>never</i> wrong.<br />Nick B. Steveshttp://nickbsteves.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-19867606171952391162013-06-17T00:40:58.976+10:002013-06-17T00:40:58.976+10:00@SP, I've been strongly influenced by Stanovi...@SP, <i> I've been strongly influenced by Stanovich's view of the nature of intelligence. In many cases it isn't stupid as much as it is willful obstinacy in denying facts which conflict with temperamental preferences.</i><br /><br />Want to read this post. It's already got me stewing: is it merely part of my personality that I'm not bothered only amused by willful obstinacy, or am I simply rational like I think I am? <br /><br />Heck I'm even <i>envious</i> of willful obstinacy. Like enjoying kids who believe in Santa...mdavidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-79528617139063670102013-06-16T17:36:26.275+10:002013-06-16T17:36:26.275+10:00@mdavid
I think it has a lot to do with IQ,
I t...@mdavid<br /><br /><i> I think it has a lot to do with IQ,</i><br /><br />I think it has less to do with IQ than temperamental dispositions. I've been strongly influenced by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysrationalia" rel="nofollow">Stanovich's view of the nature of intelligence.</a> In many cases it isn't stupid as much as it is willful obstinacy in denying facts which conflict with temperamental preferences. I hoping to do a post on this in the future.<br /><br /><i> it's like worrying about unjust wages in the middle of a world war...</i><br /><br />Cue <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o00K7sC24is" rel="nofollow">Harry Lime.</a>The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-70001448807274127242013-06-16T10:31:16.499+10:002013-06-16T10:31:16.499+10:00@SP: Interesting. I agree with you, pretty much. P...@SP: Interesting. I agree with you, pretty much. Points:<br /><br />1) Regarding resistance to proper theological change: I think it has a lot to do with IQ, and thus I have a hard time taking it seriously. Look at resistance to God's plan for human evolution, for example. I often tell trads I know that that <i>there is only one God, and Darwin is his prophet</i> when discussing the demographic disaster of the West. The smarter the person, the more they laugh, but many are so gun shy and reactionary they can't think clearly. But this is a minor problem, since most power brokers in the Church are higher IQ. Unfortunately, lots of these morally rotten, not stupid.<br /><br />2. SP, <i>...but an understanding of the teleology of coitus</i><br /><br />This is more like people in the past thinking that masturbation was murder. Not bad theology, just bad science. But my word, you are deep in the weeds here: it's like worrying about unjust wages in the middle of a world war...mdavidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-90678123044835765312013-06-16T08:31:26.486+10:002013-06-16T08:31:26.486+10:00@Nova
I think there is some possible wriggle room...@Nova<br /><br />I think there is <i>some</i> possible wriggle room in the contraception debate. Whilst I think "doing the act wrongly" will always be condemned, I think there may be some scope for allowing the "regulation" of ovulation. i.e the pill may be able to gain some legitimacy.<br /><br />The other area where there may be a change is in the way how divorcess are treated in the Church. Both Francis and Benedict are sympathetic to the plight of divorcess in the Church but more theological groundwork needs to be done on this issue.<br /><br />With regard to premarital sex , I think the Church's position on that will not change. Nor will it change on adultery and other permutations where sex occurs outside the context of marriage.<br /><br />@Mdavid.<br /><br /><i>Doctrinal development shouldn't erase the prior beliefs, only develop them more fully. So...exactly what doctrine(s) are you thinking about?</i><br /><br />Correct. <br /><br />But in order for doctrinal development to develop you've got to allow change to happen. If you've got a lobby that says no to everything it's a bit hard to change.<br /><br />I mean the medieval prohibition against usury was not negated by recognition that there were morally legitimate instances where interest could be charged. Though, I imagine at the time, it would have been hard for some people to accept.<br /><br />I think with regard to sexual ethics, the Church's understanding of the nature of the sexual act needs to be rethought. I'm not talking about contraception here, but an understanding of the teleology of coitus. The tradition of the Church is that the purpose of coitus is reproduction and yet, what we see from empirical observation, is that coitus is only able to achieve that end only during a limited period of a woman's menstrual cycle. During the infertile phase of a woman's menstrual cycle and post menopause, coitus is deliberately frustrated from it's "natural end" by the design of God. This would appear to be theologically contradictory and is an area where I think further theological work needs to be done.<br /><br />As for the trad obsession, I tend to concentrate on them a bit more because whilst everyone recognises that the liberals are toxic, trad "toxicity" tends to go unnoticed. <br />And I do mean toxicity.<br /><br />As I've said before on this blog, the collapse of Catholic practice following V2 should not have happened if the faith was strong. Catholicism had become a sect and a habit, something which the more perceptive theologians recognised at the time. People forget that Ratzinger was one of the moderate <i>liberals</i> who felt that the Church needed to change.<br /><br />However, needing to change <i>and</i> the direction in which change is made are two separate issues. The trad's error is in not recognising that change was necessary and blame the liberals for changing, not for changing in the <i>wrong direction</i>.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-11820250355622036052013-06-15T21:00:05.342+10:002013-06-15T21:00:05.342+10:00Pope Francis is a progressive. In due course, mar...Pope Francis is a progressive. In due course, marriage will not be a sacrament. Not long after that, abortion will be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-593379293529520492013-06-15T02:58:15.636+10:002013-06-15T02:58:15.636+10:00Sidenote: I always find it amusing, this obsession...Sidenote: I always find it amusing, this obsession with trads. They must be the least socially powerful people on the planet. They don't even have power <i>within their own churches</i>; heck, gays and '60's hippies have a bigger punch within the RCC than trads, for example. They can be safely ignored, politically. They are so reclusive, staying within their own family circles, it's hard to actually define what a trad is. Personally, I find trads, by any definition, quaint, amusing, and harmless, sort of like the prevailing media view of the Amish.<br /><br />The fact that any angst exists against this nearly powerless group says a lot more about the people talking about trads than the trads themselves. Maybe they must be created so the dominate thread of religious liberalism can muster energy. Or perhaps moderate conservatives need trads as a scapegoat to make themselves feel more moderate.<br /><br />I do agree if trads are merely defined down to religious people with large families, they certainly are are making inroads into the culture, merely in a Darwinian sort of way, and could be hated for this. Large families often make others feel judged for having a smaller families, as well as creating a sort of fear larger families are taking over the next generation. But I really don't know what drives the anti-trad meme, and am merely grasping as straws.mdavidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-62010047200397054332013-06-15T01:34:29.139+10:002013-06-15T01:34:29.139+10:00...it is my feeling that should the Church liberal...<i>...it is my feeling that should the Church liberalise some of its teachings, not in response to societal pressure but doctrinal development, it will be the Trads who will abandon it in droves.</i><br /><br />Doctrinal development shouldn't erase the prior beliefs, only develop them more fully. So...exactly what doctrine(s) are you thinking about?<br /><br />Methinks the Church will get less mainstream in the next 100 years. This will attract trads, not repulse them. Sooner or later, the church leadership will, under persecution, get more trad themselves. Liberalism comes from easy times, and trads are a response to liberal overreach. Depending, of course, on how one defines trads.mdavidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-81639397775592359362013-06-15T00:31:00.850+10:002013-06-15T00:31:00.850+10:00What do you think in terms of sexual ethics? Reth...What do you think in terms of sexual ethics? Rethinking about artificial contraception? perhaps rethinking rules on extra-marital sex?Novaseekernoreply@blogger.com