|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 1, 2023 17:59:24 GMT
www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/francis-is-the-pope-of-relativism-and-catholics-have-a-duty-to-correct-him/This, from a priest who is a person of color, from the part of the Global South that is sub-Saharan Africa. These concerns stand quite independently of the Traditional Latin Mass and Traditionis custodes. Indeed, I have to think that there are many Protestants who would take issue with the Abu Dhabi declaration, let alone conservative Catholics who prefer the Novus Ordo. Battle lines between traditional Christianity and relativistic modernism are being drawn all across the Christian world. The recent split within Methodism in the US is a case in point.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 3, 2023 6:41:01 GMT
The problem with this is that much of the Global South allows for divorce, and only two places don't: the Vatican and the Philippines. Meanwhile, more are joining the Church, especially from the same Global South. Connected to that is the issue of what to do now: does one follow what Pope Benedict XVI once referred to as "a smaller, 'purer' church would better guard Catholicism’s traditions and teachings": www.politico.eu/article/benedict-xvi-pope-rallying-point-division-catholic-church/or does one follow the past, where a Church had been historically adjusting from the beginning to various circumstances in order to evangelize?
|
|
bluekumul
Full Member
Christian humanist, democratic socialist, world citizen
Posts: 200
|
Post by bluekumul on Jul 3, 2023 11:04:13 GMT
Some thoughts on the article: www.britannica.com/topic/situation-ethics"Situation ethics holds that moral judgments must be made within the context of the entirety of a situation and that all normative features of a situation must be viewed as a whole." I agree that situation ethics can lead to relativism when carried too far, but some amount is necessary. For example killing a human being is normally recognized as evil, but there are situations where it becomes a duty. If a suicide bomber wants to blow himself up in a crowded shopping mall, killing him will save many innocent people. "Since you are not married, are you willing to struggle to avoid sexual relations?" Doesn't seem difficult for me. If someone seriously believes in spending infinite time in Heaven, abstaining from something as paltry as sexual intercourse isn't a big price. Still, imagine an African girl married off by her father at 15 to some middle aged guy. Two years later she runs away and meets the love of her life. Should she be forced to remain celibate?
Definitely we should strive to eliminate situations which lead like dilemmas like the above.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 3, 2023 15:38:19 GMT
Some thoughts on the article: www.britannica.com/topic/situation-ethics"Situation ethics holds that moral judgments must be made within the context of the entirety of a situation and that all normative features of a situation must be viewed as a whole." I agree that situation ethics can lead to relativism when carried too far, but some amount is necessary. For example killing a human being is normally recognized as evil, but there are situations where it becomes a duty. If a suicide bomber wants to blow himself up in a crowded shopping mall, killing him will save many innocent people. "Since you are not married, are you willing to struggle to avoid sexual relations?" Doesn't seem difficult for me. If someone seriously believes in spending infinite time in Heaven, abstaining from something as paltry as sexual intercourse isn't a big price. Still, imagine an African girl married off by her father at 15 to some middle aged guy. Two years later she runs away and meets the love of her life. Should she be forced to remain celibate?
Definitely we should strive to eliminate situations which lead like dilemmas like the above.
"Killing a human being" is not intrinsically evil. Murder (something a bit more focused than simply "killing a human being") is the taking of innocent human life. A suicide bomber is far from "innocent". When you kill him, you are not committing the sin of murder. WRT the 15-year-old girl who is in an arranged marriage, the question is then whether that marriage was valid ( ergo indissoluble) or not. If it was, sadly, she is indeed "stuck" and cannot remarry while the older husband is still alive. If the marriage were forced, and she married against her will, then that would be grounds for invalidity and annulment. I seriously have to doubt, in today's world where a 15-year-old is still basically a child, with a not-yet-developed cerebral cortex (but didn't cerebral cortices develop as they do today throughout human history?) and so on, on top of that, whether a teenager is even capable of contracting a valid marriage at all. And WRT having to remain in a marriage, putative or otherwise, and remain celibate for a long period of time, that could happen for any number of reasons. One spouse could have an illness incompatible with sexual intercourse (such as being in a coma) or could have had their genitals injured or removed in such a way that coitus is impossible. Sometimes spouses disappear. Sometimes there are circumstances where a pregnancy would kill a woman, or severely endanger her health. Such things happen. True, there are unnatural, mortally sinful ways to obtain the gratification that the body cries out for (a spouse engaging in self-love when the other spouse is absent or incapacitated, a couple engaging in various practices that are not mutually genital, and so on), and many couples would resort to this --- indeed, homosexual lovers have no other choice, not to be crude, but the parts just don't match up, and anything they do is mere improvising --- and that is when you have to decide whom you love more, Almighty God or each other. Celibacy is not always voluntary. As Chesterton said (and I'm paraphrasing), sex is so good that you should be thankful merely to have it at all, within the bounds of Christian morality. If you can't have it, then that is God's Will for you, and you can either commit mortal sin, abstain and be angry about it, or abstain and joyfully accept it as God's Will.
|
|
bluekumul
Full Member
Christian humanist, democratic socialist, world citizen
Posts: 200
|
Post by bluekumul on Jul 3, 2023 16:10:50 GMT
"Killing a human being" is not intrinsically evil. Murder (something a bit more focused than simply "killing a human being") is the taking of innocent human life. A suicide bomber is far from "innocent". When you kill him, you are not committing the sin of murder. Full agreement. I said Africa, and in many African countries underage marriage is still the norm according to local customs. If a local Catholic priest was involved, a higher ranking clergyman could declare the marriage invalid. It seems certain amount of nuance advocated by "situation ethics" is already present in traditional Church teaching. As for the "cerebral cortex", see the article below: drrobertepstein.com/pdf/Epstein-THE_MYTH_OF_THE_TEEN_BRAIN-Scientific_American_Mind-4-07.pdf
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 3, 2023 16:13:39 GMT
The problem with this is that much of the Global South allows for divorce, and only two places don't: the Vatican and the Philippines. Meanwhile, more are joining the Church, especially from the same Global South. Connected to that is the issue of what to do now: does one follow what Pope Benedict XVI once referred to as "a smaller, 'purer' church would better guard Catholicism’s traditions and teachings": www.politico.eu/article/benedict-xvi-pope-rallying-point-division-catholic-church/or does one follow the past, where a Church had been historically adjusting from the beginning to various circumstances in order to evangelize? I've never been crazy over Benedict's call for a "smaller, purer Church" --- that's just admitting defeat. Just a little dose of triumphalism --- "the Church shall proclaim the truth, regardless of how many or how few accept it, and we'll look to the Holy Ghost to lead as many people to that truth as possible" --- wouldn't be a bad thing. Jesus started out with a motley crew of twelve Jewish men, and one of them turned on him, and look how that turned out in spite of all odds. No sooner had half of Europe fallen away from the Church, than those numbers were largely replenished by aboriginal Mesoamericans who were converted. And so on. You might not think it from my other writings, but I am not quite as troubled by the 8th section of Amoris laetitia as are many traditional/orthodox/conservative Catholics. The traditional view has been "live in a Josephite marriage if you can, but if you can't without 'backsliding', then you have to separate". The reality for many invalidly married couples isn't that simple. Some such couples can't separate without doing grave damage to their children. Some women are "trapped" by poverty, lack of education, and so on, and can't leave. A spouse (usually a woman) may have another spouse who simply won't agree to celibacy, and at that point, it becomes something just a whisker away from rape. There's no "full consent of the will" there. (The same could obtain if a wife would be perfectly willing to use NFP, and can't think of getting pregnant, but her spouse insists upon coitus and won't practice abstinence. If she does have to resort to contraception, it's not because she wants to, it's because she has to, either that, or conceive a child whose father may be a layabout who refuses to work, or an alcoholic, or a drug addict, or a molester, what have you.) In such cases, there is very possibly no subjective guilt at all. If I were a priest, I would have no problem whatsoever giving the victimized spouse absolution and communion, there would be no more than venial sin there, and probably not even that. You have to admit, that is a pretty liberal stance for a TLM adherent and SSPX sympathizer to take.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 3, 2023 16:31:20 GMT
"Killing a human being" is not intrinsically evil. Murder (something a bit more focused than simply "killing a human being") is the taking of innocent human life. A suicide bomber is far from "innocent". When you kill him, you are not committing the sin of murder. Full agreement. It seems certain amount of nuance advocated by "situation ethics" is already present in traditional Church teaching. Of course there is. There always has been. The distinction here is between whether acts are intrinsically evil or not. I'm reminded here of the "trolley dilemma", which has never been particularly difficult for me to resolve. You have a train rushing down a track that can go one of two ways. There is a switch that can be pulled. If you don't pull the switch, a train with 100 people in it hurtles over a cliff and they all die. If you do pull the switch, there is a man on the other track, and he will die, but the 100 people will not go over that cliff, and they will live. Pulling the switch is not intrinsically evil. Not pulling the switch is an act of omission, and acts of omission can be sins --- we say as much in the Confiteor as it appears in the Novus Ordo Missae. (That is nothing new. The Church has always recognized the concept of sins of omission.) This is not complicated.
|
|
bluekumul
Full Member
Christian humanist, democratic socialist, world citizen
Posts: 200
|
Post by bluekumul on Jul 3, 2023 18:10:46 GMT
I arrived at the conclusion that situation ethics should be a stage of reasoning, leading to more precise formulation of moral rules. If it becomes an end in itself, it is a form of relativism.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 3, 2023 18:53:39 GMT
I arrived at the conclusion that situation ethics should be a stage of reasoning, leading to more precise formulation of moral rules. If it becomes an end in itself, it is a form of relativism. I think of it more as casuistry --- applying immutable, absolute moral principles, to individual circumstances, while taking care not to violate those principles --- than situation ethics. My example of a victimized spouse (and it would almost always be a woman) who is being forced to have sex by an illicit husband who insists upon it, or a spouse perfectly willing to use NFP --- this part is very important (licit or illicit doesn't matter for purposes of this argument) --- with a husband who will not practice abstinence (with grave consequences for her if she refuses), and it's a case of use contraception or get pregnant, sometimes improvidently so (grave reasons for not having a child at that time), would be examples of such casuistry. In the first case, she does not want to have sex at all, and in the second case, she really doesn't want to use contraception, but she has to. There's no "full consent of the will" there. "Gun to her head", figuratively speaking, would be more like it. Or to use a more mundane example of casuistry, a penitent asks their confessor if they can smoke while they are praying ( nota bene, smoking is not intrinsically evil), to which the confessor replies "look at it this way, can you pray while you are smoking?". Of course you can. So there's your answer.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 4, 2023 2:00:30 GMT
The problem with this is that much of the Global South allows for divorce, and only two places don't: the Vatican and the Philippines. Meanwhile, more are joining the Church, especially from the same Global South. Connected to that is the issue of what to do now: does one follow what Pope Benedict XVI once referred to as "a smaller, 'purer' church would better guard Catholicism’s traditions and teachings": www.politico.eu/article/benedict-xvi-pope-rallying-point-division-catholic-church/or does one follow the past, where a Church had been historically adjusting from the beginning to various circumstances in order to evangelize? I've never been crazy over Benedict's call for a "smaller, purer Church" --- that's just admitting defeat. Just a little dose of triumphalism --- "the Church shall proclaim the truth, regardless of how many or how few accept it, and we'll look to the Holy Ghost to lead as many people to that truth as possible" --- wouldn't be a bad thing. Jesus started out with a motley crew of twelve Jewish men, and one of them turned on him, and look how that turned out in spite of all odds. No sooner had half of Europe fallen away from the Church, than those numbers were largely replenished by aboriginal Mesoamericans who were converted. And so on. You might not think it from my other writings, but I am not quite as troubled by the 8th section of Amoris laetitia as are many traditional/orthodox/conservative Catholics. The traditional view has been "live in a Josephite marriage if you can, but if you can't without 'backsliding', then you have to separate". The reality for many invalidly married couples isn't that simple. Some such couples can't separate without doing grave damage to their children. Some women are "trapped" by poverty, lack of education, and so on, and can't leave. A spouse (usually a woman) may have another spouse who simply won't agree to celibacy, and at that point, it becomes something just a whisker away from rape. There's no "full consent of the will" there. (The same could obtain if a wife would be perfectly willing to use NFP, and can't think of getting pregnant, but her spouse insists upon coitus and won't practice abstinence. If she does have to resort to contraception, it's not because she wants to, it's because she has to, either that, or conceive a child whose father may be a layabout who refuses to work, or an alcoholic, or a drug addict, or a molester, what have you.) In such cases, there is very possibly no subjective guilt at all. If I were a priest, I would have no problem whatsoever giving the victimized spouse absolution and communion, there would be no more than venial sin there, and probably not even that. You have to admit, that is a pretty liberal stance for a TLM adherent and SSPX sympathizer to take.
Meanwhile, there are also views that husbands and wives who hate each other might also do grave damage to their children. If so, then those who are critics of Pope Francis' document can look at what is happening in the only country in the world (this time, I'm not including Vatican City) where divorce is still not allowed, and as a bonus, is populated by a majority who are Catholic. How are they doing?
Polls reveal that most Filipinos support divorce but most of the clergy and politicians don't, which is notable because most Filipinos are Catholic and it's a democracy, which means most elected officials should be representing them. Some believe that the Catholic Church there is a major politicial force (although one that grew weaker from the late 1980s onward) such that politicians don't want to anger her.
Meanwhile, most (but it's a plurality) argue that one should not resort to divorce right away:
Other points from the study:
More appear to be cohabiting outside marriage because they see marriage as a possible trap.
The only other means for permanent separation is an annulment, and it's very expensive.
Some asides to consider because they might be connected to issues concerning divorce, but from other sources (and I don't have time at the moment to share all of them):
The Philippine government also doesn't promote the use of artificial contraception or even focus on birth control without meet the wrath of the Catholic Church:
The results, among others, are some of the highest cases of teenage pregnancies in the world.
Filipinos have among the lowest test scores in reading/writing, math, and science worldwide, as seen in PISA, TIMSS, etc. In their own national tests, they score only around 45 pct. Their teachers do even worse: 40 pct or lower for various subjects in licensure exams.
Because the country follows U.S.-style neoliberalism, it barely industrialized unlike its Asian neighbors. Instead, it took the quick way out and followed what is essentially a labor export model: it allows its own people to find jobs abroad and then send back money to families. The result is that what it earns from remittances is even larger than what it gains from its top export, electronic components, when one subtracts imports from exports.
This is important because it implies that it can't follow birth control policies, either (the Church is strongly against it and not just artificial contraception, and because of that no family planning measures are promoted significantly).
One can see the connections: with too many people, there isn't enough money for funding public education. With a labor export model, one is forever dependent on foreigners for work and one that has no long-term benefits because it's mostly contractual labor. There's no multiplier effect in new businesses rising, as seen in industrialization via manufacturing and mechanized agriculture. Instead, the policy is have more babies, let people fend for themselves, and for those who find work abroad, send back money.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 4, 2023 15:45:05 GMT
I've never been crazy over Benedict's call for a "smaller, purer Church" --- that's just admitting defeat. Just a little dose of triumphalism --- "the Church shall proclaim the truth, regardless of how many or how few accept it, and we'll look to the Holy Ghost to lead as many people to that truth as possible" --- wouldn't be a bad thing. Jesus started out with a motley crew of twelve Jewish men, and one of them turned on him, and look how that turned out in spite of all odds. No sooner had half of Europe fallen away from the Church, than those numbers were largely replenished by aboriginal Mesoamericans who were converted. And so on. You might not think it from my other writings, but I am not quite as troubled by the 8th section of Amoris laetitia as are many traditional/orthodox/conservative Catholics. The traditional view has been "live in a Josephite marriage if you can, but if you can't without 'backsliding', then you have to separate". The reality for many invalidly married couples isn't that simple. Some such couples can't separate without doing grave damage to their children. Some women are "trapped" by poverty, lack of education, and so on, and can't leave. A spouse (usually a woman) may have another spouse who simply won't agree to celibacy, and at that point, it becomes something just a whisker away from rape. There's no "full consent of the will" there. (The same could obtain if a wife would be perfectly willing to use NFP, and can't think of getting pregnant, but her spouse insists upon coitus and won't practice abstinence. If she does have to resort to contraception, it's not because she wants to, it's because she has to, either that, or conceive a child whose father may be a layabout who refuses to work, or an alcoholic, or a drug addict, or a molester, what have you.) In such cases, there is very possibly no subjective guilt at all. If I were a priest, I would have no problem whatsoever giving the victimized spouse absolution and communion, there would be no more than venial sin there, and probably not even that. You have to admit, that is a pretty liberal stance for a TLM adherent and SSPX sympathizer to take.
Meanwhile, there are also views that husbands and wives who hate each other might also do grave damage to their children.
No doubt. In some marriages, whether valid or invalid, there can be dysfunction between the husband and the wife, and if it can be done, it might be better for the spouses to separate, and not expose the children to this. (Separation and divorce are two different things --- does Filipino law allow for bed and board separation without divorce? I don't know. You would know better than I would.) In other marriages, as I alluded to (but possibly didn't bring out sufficiently), the putative husband and wife, or even a cohabiting couple without benefit of any kind of marriage at all, valid or invalid, may get along famously, and the children benefit from being in such a home. To break up the home would take something away from the children that, in and of itself, is good --- a mother and father together, regardless of any questions of the liciety of the relationship. In such cases, the couple simply has to make up their minds, for the good of the children if nothing else, to abstain from sexual relations, a "Josephite marriage". They may foresee that they will possibly fail at total continence. That is where sheer will power comes in. You make up your mind that, in spite of everything, you will abstain, but if you don't --- if you "backslide" --- you just do like the old Nat King Cole song says, "pick yourself up, brush yourself off, and start all over again". And in the midst of this, there is the Grace of God, what you think may not be possible, becomes possible. That aspect of Amoris laetitia, I have absolutely no problem with. But if AL is suggesting --- IF AL is suggesting --- that conjugality with no intent of abstaining, with both spouses agreeing upon this course of action, is somehow acceptable, then, yes, that's a big problem. Does AL suggest that?
|
|
bluekumul
Full Member
Christian humanist, democratic socialist, world citizen
Posts: 200
|
Post by bluekumul on Jul 4, 2023 15:53:12 GMT
Prior to modern technology teenage pregnancies and teenage marriage were the norm worldwide. It only became a problem because modern tech made most people's work more complex, requiring longer education.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 4, 2023 16:04:21 GMT
Prior to modern technology teenage pregnancies and teenage marriage were the norm worldwide. It only became a problem because modern tech made most people's work more complex, requiring longer education. Yes, people are going to do what they are going to do, and many, many, a marriage was entered into, to legitimize the child. There was even the mindset that "the man despoiled her, therefore he ought to marry her", or "if they think that much of each other, to 'do that' with each other, then they simply need to get married". There's the homely old expression "he needs to make an honest woman of her". Birth control has made it possible for unmarried people to have sex with each other with impunity (purely in the temporal realm, though it remains a mortal sin and always will)... that is, unless the birth control fails. Then the fornicators do one of two things, either have the child, or don't have the child. And our society attaches little if any stigma to being a single mother anymore.
|
|
bluekumul
Full Member
Christian humanist, democratic socialist, world citizen
Posts: 200
|
Post by bluekumul on Jul 4, 2023 16:32:18 GMT
Prior to modern technology teenage pregnancies and teenage marriage were the norm worldwide. It only became a problem because modern tech made most people's work more complex, requiring longer education. Yes, people are going to do what they are going to do, and many, many, a marriage was entered into, to legitimize the child. There was even the mindset that "the man despoiled her, therefore he ought to marry her", or "if they think that much of each other, to 'do that' with each other, then they simply need to get married". There's the homely old expression "he needs to make an honest woman of her". Birth control has made it possible for unmarried people to have sex with each other with impunity (purely in the temporal realm, though it remains a mortal sin and always will)... that is, unless the birth control fails. Then the fornicators do one of two things, either have the child, or don't have the child. And our society attaches little if any stigma to being a single mother anymore. Birth control is a part of modernity, but I was thinking more about the social changes coming from the necessity for education. 200 years ago most people's work was manual and required little learning. Even in the early 20th century most people received vocational education. Now jobs are complex and most people are ready to fully enter the job market as late as mid-20s. Africa however didn't make the transition to a modern economy, which means teenage pregnancy is not a big problem there and is still viewed as the norm.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 4, 2023 16:56:40 GMT
Yes, people are going to do what they are going to do, and many, many, a marriage was entered into, to legitimize the child. There was even the mindset that "the man despoiled her, therefore he ought to marry her", or "if they think that much of each other, to 'do that' with each other, then they simply need to get married". There's the homely old expression "he needs to make an honest woman of her". Birth control has made it possible for unmarried people to have sex with each other with impunity (purely in the temporal realm, though it remains a mortal sin and always will)... that is, unless the birth control fails. Then the fornicators do one of two things, either have the child, or don't have the child. And our society attaches little if any stigma to being a single mother anymore. Birth control is a part of modernity, but I was thinking more about the social changes coming from the necessity for education. 200 years ago most people's work was manual and required little learning. Even in the early 20th century most people received vocational education. Now jobs are complex and most people are ready to fully enter the job market as late as mid-20s. Africa however didn't make the transition to a modern economy, which means teenage pregnancy is not a big problem there and is still viewed as the norm.I'm not following your reasoning here. If it's not a big problem, how can it be viewed as the norm?
|
|