Another Strawman
After reading the papal 'apology' (Australia) for the sexual abuse of children (he uses the less culpable term 'minors') by '...some clergy and religious...” I came upon John Allen Jr.'s article: “Searching for the how, whys of sex abuse” (July 18, 2008). The article really merits a careful read, I think.
The pope has created a new strawman: proportionalism. His advisors must have councelled him that his favourite term “relativism” (essentially a synonym for p'ism), his pseudonm for the devil, evil incarnate, contemporary godless self-gratifying individualism , whatever, no longer carries the heavy burdon of significance required to legitimize its nemesis, his standard: absolutism. He must have discovered that not only is the earth not the absolute against which the heavenly bodies move, but the heavenly bodies themselves move, relative to each other and indeed maybe the entire universe is in motion vis a vis we know not what. As Heraclitus said, I think:”omnia est in fluxu”.
He did it with the Regensburg speech, he did it with his letter on women, like an old-hand seminary professor he does the scholastic trick again: push a position to its implausable extreme by embellishment or diminution, fill it with all the significance he cares to demolish, renders it ridiculous or obviously untenable and then counters with the only valid alternative, his. For example, in the letter on women he defined 'feminism' by its extreme position of man-hatred as if it were its sum and scope and then went on as if his demolition of the reductio ad absurdum left the field clear for his carefully mapped out position of docile subservience.
For me, at least this reincarnation of relativism is out of the blue but obviously it has been in the production mode being readyed for the proper moment of introduction. He has defined it to his benefit, given it a time frame that encompasses the peak (or hopefully contained period) of clerical abuse of 'children' and judged it the source, cause, root of the scandal. So, blame proportionalism, absolve the traditionalists of guilt; abolish proportionalism, reestablish absolutism and all will be right with the ecclesiastical world. Q.E.D.
Now we can appreciate, as someone astutely asked in the cafe postings, why an impure thought (held for more than three seconds (as Sister interpreted Father's instruction), masturbation, pedophelia, homosexual act, use of a birth control pill, and the holocaust are all mortal sins. Why? Because “a rose is a rose, is a rose” and “a rose by any other name is still a rose”. The picket fence approach to catholic ethics and morality is essential and valid because each falls within the genus of “sin”, each falls within the category of 'intrinsically evil' acts, as Allen writes.
Once again the platonic mind-set of Benedict sees 'absolutes', real, out there embodiments of evil (Satan and intrinsically evil acts) against which all acts are either in or out; and real out there embodiments of good (God, truth) of which Roman Catholic Church dictates are the embodiment. All else seems irrelevant. All that is required is finding out what the Church says and follow. Except of course for the subtle distinctions between mortal and venial sins. Is the duration of 'entertaining' a dirty thought three seconds or five the bench mark for venial or mortal? I guess it depends. So, maybe its relative, relative to something....? That is the problem, as proportionalism has its intrinsic weaknesses as a total packgage, so does absolutism. Why? Because there are intrinsically evil acts and there are acts defined as intrinsically evil for utilitarian reasons which have little or nothing to do with good or evil. There are also acts which are intrinsically evil but for which the culpability of the actor is liminted because of his/her mental state. Reality is complex and I cannot but believe that the choice of absolutism is a hoax, a misbegotten sense that it is better to sacriface the minds and souls of some to preserve the controls over human behavior which the church feels is absolutely necessary.
Even the critics of 'proportionalism' imply that the papal statement goes beyond a credible appreciation of the position; even the critics of proporionalism suggest that the time frame for the sexual abuse peaking is a papal consturct; even the critics seem to agree that adherents of the position do not deny 'intriniscally evil acts'; even the critics observe that pedefelia is more than a class-room rooted dysfunction. One authority cited by Allen “...called it “unthinkable” that anyone fimilier with the theory could have used it to justify the sexual exploitation of minors. As a result...he's “totally unconvinced” of any connection between proportionalism and the abuse crisis”.
Once again Benedict is treating you and I and the whole big wide world as if we were young, wide-eyed seminary aspirants agog at the learning of the prof., in other words, willing to concede credence where credence is not due. The world is too important to let him or anyone else treat us as if we didn't have a brain in our head.
He didn't answer mine
He didn't answer mine either. Just closed "his" thread and moved on to another.
"He didn't amswer mine
"He didn't amswer mine either"...AnnieO~ I had a couple of other for him also which he simply ignored then took offence and said I was being personal and that he would no-longer respond to me. Interesting. Yet he hounded another regular on another thread.
Yes, Annie - that thread was
Yes, Annie - that thread was becoming too complex and confused. If the question left unanswered is important to you still, please ask it here if it can fit into the conversation. (Before this thread similarly becomes unmanageable.)
Thomas
"Before this thread
"Before this thread similarly becomes unmanageable", I would suggest that Benedict's attribution of proportionalism as the root of the sexual abuse of children by clergy is even less credible than justifying the invasion of Iraq on 'weapons of mass destruction'
Dennis, the best way I can
Dennis, the best way I can respond to "proportionalism" and your very wise insight, as well as Marie's, is to write a poem about it. This new ism certainly struck a relative chord when I first read about it.
STRAWMAN'S SHADOW
The blame game
is such a shame
Only one side it sees
The dark, the lonely seas
Of reasons, to snatch thee
An ism through the teacher's hollow prism
Flashes in the night as dark as coal
Where angels fear not to go.
The blame game
is such a shame
It leads not to life
But additional strife.
A pie unbaked
Said to have spake
'Tis done' but not
And it sits and rots
In a word, in a view
In it's black and blue
that's lacking truth's full dimension
creating a lot of shadowy tension.
The blame game
what a shame
Like the albatross
Or the poet's cross
It's shot down and killed
as the truth of it spilled
Into the mighty seas of dispute
of wrangling words that toot
in relative minor keys
in a forest of many trees.
The blame game
what a shame
rather than minister
prefers isms to administer
especially to hers and to hims
suspicious of isms absolute whims.
The good soul needs to wonder
Think, pray on it, speak a thunder
when lightning passes clearly through
in answers of life directly back at you.
The blame game
what a shame
It cries out crashing along the shore's sands
Sifts through the words without any hands
Supported by its own shadow and nothing less or more
Here comes proportionalism knocking at the door
Like a thief it made some do things they ought not
That word, that idea, was the only thought
And in this am I supposed to believe
Of all the concepts one could retrieve or conceive
The very reason for such ghastly horrid despicable deeds
Is an ism; never from the fruits of its own buried seeds.
Hello butterfly, Do you
Hello butterfly,
Do you really, honestly think that the Pope is that superficial? That he really thinks that any "ism" can, as your poem charges, "made some do things they ought not"? I can hardly believe that any literate person - anyone who has read some of his profound theological writings (and he has been prolific!) - could judge him to be so unintelligent.
That (unfair) charge aside, I hope you realize the strong influence that group acceptance of some evil has upon the enacting of that evil by members of the group. When an individual who is tempted to some evil is in a group that accepts, or sees as justified, that evil, the tendency to commit that evil becomes more favored, more probable. I think that such a prediction of group psychology is basic and obvious.
Proportionalism gives persons tempted toward ANY evil, a framework that could in principle justify doing that evil. Proportionalism could in principle conclude that the evil is not in fact wrong to do, under the circumstances and given the options in place. Thus a proportionalist Nazi might conclude that the holocaust was a lesser evil than the "social infection" that Jews brought to their Aryan/Arian race. Thus a secular modernist might conclude that an abortion or infanticide could be lesser evils than an inconvenient or unwanted child.
Sexual sins could be similarly re-evaluated, under proportionalism, and found to be "goods" compared to the options of not committing those sexual acts. It would be far worse to not express such powerful desires! How could it be wrong, if it feels so good?! And so on. Compared to self-suppression (what a horrible thought, in today's permissive world! Why DENY oneself such a strong desire?), maybe it is not really REALLY wrong. etc.
Some influential Catholic moralists in the past have promoted this lie, and it has been presented in some seminaries, so I understand anyway (I have no first-hand experience, but I have heard stories of very poor seminary courses in morality back then).
Thank the good Lord that the seminaries are being cleaned up.
Thomas
Thomas, you stated: "Thus a
Thomas, you stated: "Thus a proportionalist Nazi might conclude that the holocaust was a lesser evil than the "social infection" that Jews brought to their Aryan/Arian race."
might??? That may not have been a good example. There really is no such thing as a proportionalist Nazi. Nazi philosophy was that the Jews (etal) were vermin that were infesting the human race, an infestation that needed to be exterminated. There was no proportionalism in their philosophy.
Your abortion example was a better choice.
How hypocritical. Thomas
How hypocritical. Thomas attempts to explain 'proportionalism' as a supporting argument for Benedict's rationale with a pernicious admixture of pseudo-logic and extranious adjectives. To paraphrase him "I can hardly believe than any literate person...could judge..." us "...to be so unintelligent as to swallow his bumph.
"I hope you realize the strong influence that group acceptance of some evil has upon the enacting of that evil by members of the group", he writes. So, because everybody else is molesting children, I guess it's alright....??? That, is the logic he proposes that proportionalism lent to the abusers and, I guess to the coverups. No,sir that prediction of group psychology is not basic and not obvious. And in a seminary yet! If any seminary taught such ethics it bespeaks of some reckless accreditation and supervision.
"Proportionalism gives persons tempted toward ANY evil, a framework that could in principle justify doing that evil", etc. Sir, free will gives persons tempted (or not) toward ANY evil, such a framework. Wake up and search for intellectual honesty.
"Sexual sins could be similarly re-evaluated...and found to be "goods" compared to the options of not committing those sexual acts."
One could reasonably question whether the 'three second' rule for entertaining a sexual thought makes any sense whatsoever, but to consider such a traevsty of reasoning with regard to molesting a child and even the slightest introspective and theological exposure to the abusive use of sacrament, sacramental or priestly respect is specious to say the least.
Dennis, I am surprised that
Dennis,
I am surprised that your persisting attitude toward me of personal insult is allowed here. I will no longer respond to your insulting and demeaning attacks - nor to any reasonable thoughts you may have hidden in the mix. If you decide to behave in a more mature fashion, maybe this can change in the future.
In the meantime, may the good Lord bless you.
Thomas
Quite the contrary. My
Quite the contrary. My comments are not personal they are attempts at analytical revelation of your postings. I challenge you to compare your statements with common sense reality and with at least an average person's critical expectation of realism as opposed to clerical'like authoritariann paternalism.
That may be why my posts are not usually censored, while I do believe at least one of yours to me was.
You might also, in good faith, reflect on some of your admonitions to contributors and reflect that attempting to convince us with your arguments is insulting to our faith and intelligence.
You might consider answering my question. If not I, and other readers might well presume that you do judge that proportionalism is at the root of the sexual abuse of children by priests and that you agree with Pope Benedict.
Thomas, First of all, I’m
Thomas,
First of all, I’m not judging the Pope. It’s a poem with a little sarcasm to lighten things up. The Pope and I actually have much in common: a shared interest in the arts, music, piano playing, the love of God and Jesus Christ, reading, writing, love for the communion of Saints, we were both Baptized Catholics, our parents have passed on and we love and miss them, we have siblings, we are desirous to see more love in the world and not war or euthanasia, or the death penalty or abortions or marriages falling apart or children molested or abandoned, or poverty, or disease, or lack of medicine to those who need it. My work is not to judge, but discern with the truth of Jesus Christ. This is what I was taught by my Church, to love my neighbor as myself, to not judge others. I am a witness to all that is going on like the Pope and yourself. What I witness, I tell in truth.
I'm discerning a straw-man.
I am well aware of the criminal sort of mind who will use any reason to justify sin. We might add proportionalism to the list of possible suspects, but it does not resolve everything, nor does it get to the heart and substance for how in the world Catholic priests got away with sexually molesting children for so long. It’s a blame game that does not get to the root of the problem. No wonder people don’t go to Church or have left the Church. I would suspect that many cases of abuse were not even reported. If there is any reason for falling numbers of Churchgoers it would be to protect one’s children from such evil in the Church. Do you think there is any basis to believe that a lot of people are turning away from the Church because of this scandal and how our Bishops handled it?
If we only consider that people are sinning and label and identify certain ideas that are possibly problematic in teachings in the seminaries, we're not resolving much in the entire scheme of things, the way I see it.
In discerning this methodology of teaching by identifying an ism "proportionalism" as the culprit or reason for pedophile priests to abuse children, you open the opportunity to teach about something, mainly proportionalism, but not to learn about what you need to learn about the entire issue and how it affects the future of the Church and how the Church relates to people and ministers to the world.
Pedophilia is possibly a more severe and deadly sin than abortion in that a perfectly innocent child with a memory and a consciousness is violently molested sexually by a Priest who is supposed to represent someone divine, Jesus Christ. Not only are they wounded with a life-long scar of the memory and their childhood taken away, but scarred in the spirit. Obviously, they weren’t representing the Jesus Christ I know. This crime was not committed by a secular modernist, but by a member of the Catholic clergy. We are talking about pedophile priests here, not the abortion issue or the issue of secular modernist, whoever they are. You are changing the subject. That's why proportionalism can be considered a straw-man, because the subject changes.
I would like to ask you if there are any follow-ups by the Church to victims to see how they are doing? Are they still Catholics? Some are committing suicide. How are they doing if they have not killed themselves? What are the statistics for suicide, drug & alcohol abuse, sexual issues for the victims? What do we know? Is there any after-care for the victims? Are they still being told to be silent about what happened to them as part of the Church's reconciliation with the victims? How are the families of the sexually abused doing? How were they negatively affected as witnesses to their child's sexual abuse experience and its affects? Does the Pope have anything in place to assist such people, or is the same system of denial, doubting the victim, prolonging cases, hiding or moving the pedophile priests around, or re-victimizing the victim and their families taking place? This is what I feel needs to be addressed and is not. And why are they not excommunicated, but a nun is barred from receiving or doing her ministries in service to the Lord for believing differently than the men? Do you not see this as injustice or proportionalism or relativism?
The Pope needs to address the clerical system that allowed bishops to cover up sexual crimes against children, ask why victims were not ministered to properly, ask why Bishops were moved to the Vatican and promoted after they were accessories to crimes against children. There's much more to it than proportionalism.
This introduction to the teachings of proportionalism by the Pope and by you is actually spreading the idea, not eliminating the idea of proportionalism. It is probably having a more deleterious affect than would creating positive energy to improve our Church and make it less polarized, less focused on sin and more focused on healing. The article quotes what the Pope said, and what he doesn't say is rather annoying. He doesn't say anything about the hierarchy's behavior, but seems to pass the buck on some theologians as the scapegoats, the fall guy, the straw-man. He needs to take a look at the entire male priesthood and re-think a celibate priesthood and how that might be the major problem, not proportionalism or feminism or relativism. There is no reason to insist on an all-male priesthood, and if he would take the time to hear others, meet with the women priests, perhaps we could get past this stalemate and polarization.
I don't doubt the Pope's sincerity in being sorry for what the pedophiles did, nor his intelligence, but he needs to take the subject in its entirety and listen to what the People of God, the laity and victims are saying, and you should not be so defensive because I have a different view on this than you, nor should you accuse me of making charges when they are not charges but honest discernment. I think you are a smart man too Thomas, but it wouldn't hurt you or the Pope to stop the polarization of our Church and open your heart further to what people are really trying to say. The tendency to want to blame and critique others, judge others, is going to render the Church useless, and very soon. People are needing God, but all we are hearing from fundamentalist orthodox cliques in the Church is how evil everyone is, how evil sin is, how they want the Latin Mass as if that were the cure-all, and lots of blaming and negative charges against fellow Catholics and ecstatic over excommunications. On the one hand you talk about the sanctity of life, but the life of those you don't agree with is coldly and harshly condemned and rejected and aborted from the Church. You seem to want to agree that the Church should micro-manage everyone’s conscience.
There already exists a group psychology in the US that it is ok to conduct a preemptive strike against Iran and that it was ok to invade Iraq. Proportionalism? Could be. What do you think? The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were due to the proportionalism concept that it was better to nuke them than lose more men fighting conventionally to end the war. Moral to incinerate unarmed civilians? Proportionalism is not really a new idea.
Yes, there's lots of sin around Thomas. We can blame and blame, but that is not our work, nor what Christ taught us to do. If we can get past the blame and labeling, we can forgive and love. The choice for the Church is blame and label or forgive and love. Which Church do you choose for the future?
BTW: If you really want to clean up the seminaries, invite women.
Butterfly: You asked: " are
Butterfly:
You asked: " are any follow-ups by the Church to victims "
the answer is "not enough" and too often the answer is "none"
The magisterial authority seems to be more concerned with how they are going to continue to justify "infalliblity" than they are with providing appropriate pastoral care for the flock they are charged with. And oh my, dont they have such an interesting plethora of excuses.
The fact of the matter is, the Magisterium is responsible for the scandal.
They may or may not have participated, but as leadership, they are responsible
for the actions of those in their chain of command.
They are also responsible for insuring that the laity is properly served.
A few have stepped up and acted responsibly. The vast majority have not.
As far as I am concerned, those who have not are criminals, criminals of the
same caliber as the pedophile priests, criminals who have violated the sacred
trust we gave them, criminals who have NO business being in any position of
authority within our church.
There was an article today about the Cleveland diocese wondering why donations
are down over $1M. duh!!! The diocesan leadership is not acting responsibly. I believe the article or perhaps one of the blogs used the word "corrupt". Do you suppose that it could be their inappropriateness that is being reflected in the donations.
Do you suppose that if they put some integrity back into the leadership that prosperity might return? Do you suppose that it is possible that the problems the church as a whole is having could be directly related to the level of impropriety in our church leadership? Do you suppose if the leadership was cleaned up, cleaned out, purged of the "bad seed", that perhaps the church as a whole would start to flourish again?
Col55 wrote: "Butterfly: You
Col55 wrote:
"Butterfly:
You asked: " are any follow-ups by the Church to victims "
the answer is "not enough" and too often the answer is "none""
Butterfly also wrote:
"The choice for the Church is blame and label or
forgive and love.
Which Church do you choose for the future?"
In a recent post on another thread speaking of Repentance which is an expression of Forgiveness and Love as Butterfly says and can be combined with making reparations or doing something to ease the suffering of those we as a Church have harmed.
"I'm surprised my brother. You strike me a person who would want to live a Life dedicated to God and ideas of the Church. And yet sometimes I sense that while your mind is sharp, I wonder where your heart is my friend. A few years ago I was deeply moved in studying Louis de Montfort's devotion to the Virgin Mary. I began my Spiritual preparation in my dedication of my family to the Immaculate Heart of Mary following Montfort‘s example. I was barely less than a week into the preparation when I had a dream and realized how lacking I was. I cried profoundly, but was comforted by Our Mother that what ever I could do would be good enough. Further in the study I read of the Pope's involvement and dedication to Montfort's preparation and Pope JPII's love of the Virgin Mary and most profoundly Hid connection to Our Lady of Fatima.
I learned through the secrets of Fatima the recognition and being of Our Lady as the Co-Redemptrix. And I learned from her as did the Pope the importance of our participation in Repentance NOT just for our own sins but for ALL the Sins of Humanity. We have our part to play Chris in Repentance.
I find it so unusual that you would seem so cavalier about our part in Repentance. Like when you say: "I have no guilt in these murders of which to repent." I would expect you and other traditionalists and Conservatives to at least be on board for that. It's not for "guilt" that Our Mother urges us to repent.
It's for Love. Love of God and Love of our fellow human beings.
I join you brother and Our Mother and I beg God’s forgiveness for my sins and the sins of my fellow human beings especially for all those who committed atrocities like burning women to the stake. I Beg you Lord who suffered for my sins and My Father for mercy for my sins and those of my fellow human beings. Amen.
http://www.georgiabulletin.org/local/2005/04/07/mary/
The Pope’s Love For Mary Is A Spiritual Legacy
KATHRYN BYRNE, Special Contributor
Published: April 7, 2005
….It was through the writings of St. Louis de Montfort that he found what he was seeking. “... I came to understand that true devotion to the Mother of God is actually Christocentric, indeed, it is very profoundly rooted in the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and the mysteries of the Incarnation and Redemption.�
Pope Paul VI’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, had obviously not yet been written. Yet its words echo the sentiments of young Wojtyla’s enlightened discovery, “The maternal duty of Mary toward men in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power.� Pope John Paul referred to this document often in his writings, and kept this focus to the forefront in most of his own writings and homilies about Mary during his pontificate.
When he was first chosen as pope in 1978, he borrowed from de Montfort’s writings in choosing as his motto for his papacy, “Totus Tuus,� meaning “Totally Yours.� As his love for Mary grew, his love for Jesus grew, and he enthusiastically shared this with the world.
An event which greatly impacted his relationship with his heavenly Mother was the assassination attempt on his life on May 13, 1981. The fact that it took place on the anniversary of the first apparition of Mary at Fatima was not lost to him. He requested reading material on Fatima while still recovering in the hospital, and credited his survival to “a motherly hand which guided the bullet’s path.�
Many recall his subsequent visit to his attacker, Mehmet Ali Agca. In the drudges of a prison cell,
the pope was carrying out the basic message of Fatima and of Christ Himself—
a continuous call to conversion, REPENTANCE and peace.
The press crowded in, unsuccessfully attempting to pick up on his private conversation with the man. Yet his public declaration of forgiveness had to touch the most hardened of hearts."
May God Forgive us for all the wrongs we have committed on others as a Church. And help us make continuous Repentance and Reparations until our sins as a Church have been forgiven by those whom we’ve injured. Amen.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Joer: I'm have a difficult
Joer:
I'm have a difficult time following your post. I'll respond as best I can to what I think you are trying to communicate.
You wrote: "You strike me a person who would want to live a Life dedicated to God and ideas of the Church.
--- I am living a life dedicated to God, however, for personal reasons, I choose
--- to keep that part of my life private in these posts.
And yet sometimes I sense that while your mind is sharp, I wonder where your heart is my friend."
--- My heart is in pain. I see what the church could be, could easily be, and
--- and I see what it is, and it distresses me. Dishonesty within the clergy
--- in any form distresses me. Perhaps I am too idealistic, but I believe that
--- the clergy should be working to set the example for us. I'm not talking
--- about the oops, I messed up and forgot to ... or that wasnt such a brilliant
--- thing to do mistakes. We all do that, and I have a great deal of compassion
--- around those things. But there are other things, such as lying to protect
--- criminal behavior that is inexcusible in any forum, but especially within
--- the clergy. For that I have a very low tolerance.
--- I see a lack of leadership within the Magisterium. One of the principle
--- tenets of good leadership is accountability. The pope is accountable and
--- responsible for the actions of the bishopric. The bishopric is accountable
--- and responsible for the actions of the priests in their dioceses. That
--- quality seems to be lacking more often than not. As near as I can discern
--- there is no accountability at that level. History has shown us over and
--- over that this is a formula for all levels of abuse.
You wrote: "you would seem so cavalier about our part in Repentance"
--- I'm not sure what you mean here. I was always taught that sincere repentance
--- has two components, and acknowledge of wrong doing and a sincere and
--- heartfelt and appropriate act of contrition. From that perspective,
--- repentance seems to be lacking in our leadership. The spend time looking for
--- excuses, such as proportionalism, or something to blame, such as vatican II
--- when the appropriate response would be "we messed up - how do we fix it"
--- It appears to me that the leadership is more concerned about protecting the
--- appearance of infallibility, than they are about living the principles and
--- practicing the precepts that they are supposed to be teaching us. This is
--- hypocrisy, and has no place within a spiritual leadership. What it says to
--- me is that the leadership is unrepentant. That is unacceptable.
The rest I'm unclear as to what you are communicating.
I'm sorry for the confusion
I'm sorry for the confusion Col. I was responding to the excellent points you and Butterfly were making. The response I was quoting was to Here Today in another thread where we we're discussing the witch hunts and I was making a point of what you so compassionately and appropriately laid out in your candid honest response to the questions I was asking HT in the long quote I posted here. The point being exactly what you and Butterfly were referring too. As a Church we've done many wrong and destructive things to our human brothers and sisters. And while HT and often the hierarchy in the church feel we have no residual culpability (as a Church) and thus no responsibility and making amends for those wrong acts, I was trying to impress upon him (HT) and others of similar POV's as he that we do in deed have a responsibility to make amends for those actions which caused suffering to so many.
And I used the urging of our Co-Redemtrix and the compassion of Pope Paul II and his example of repentance and making as you put it, amends through his acts of contrition as reparations for our wrong doings and errors as humanity as well as a Church.
I'm am moved by your compassionate response Col. God Bless you Col and us all as we join in your compassion to ask for forgiveness for our errors as human beings and in our mistreatment of one another.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
joer, This issue of
joer,
This issue of pedophile priests and the Church cover-up needs to be addressed with real compassion for the victims. I invite you and everyone to please go to the link below and read "Really Enlightened Words from Fr. Tom Doyle."
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com/
Thanks Butterfly, That was a
Thanks Butterfly, That was a good link. In addition to extending the statute of limitations on Child Sexual Abuse for priests. I think we should do the same thing for all pedophiles in THE USA regardless of Religious denomination or none at all. It an issue that needs to be exposed and confronted morally by ALL. IMHO. :-)
God Bless you Butterfly and your compassion for humanity.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Hello butterfly, I think
Hello butterfly,
I think that the pope is seeking neither to blame and label, nor only to forgive and love - but beyond forgiveness, we need to learn from our mistakes and our errors. A huge error was in the inadequate and erroneous theology that was taught in some Catholic schools, universities and seminaries in our recent past - including the flawed moral theology of proportionalism.
Thomas
Oh, Thomas, no. Nobody ever
Oh, Thomas, no. Nobody ever sexually assaulted a child because of a theology lesson. Some pedophiles are psychopaths who unable to form relationships in the world chose to hide in the priesthood. These men are usually charming and intelligent, trusted favorites among the clergy. Others are psychosexual children whose immaturity and fear of adult sexuality made the priesthood the best place for them to establish relationships with their psychosexual peers. Others are weak men thrown into crisis by some outside event who are desparate to establish some sense of control in their lives and the abuse of children calmed their fears. These are only three paths to abuse. But none found their genesis in theology class.
I would suggest to you that
I would suggest to you that yours is an insufficient understanding of education and academia. Fortunately, it is a problem that is correctable.
Butterfly~ Thank you, thank
Butterfly~ Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Hello Dennis, I think your
Hello Dennis,
I think your identification of proportionalism with relativism blurs the significant distinctions between them. Probably most if not all proportionalists use subjective evaluations of the relative good and evil that are anticipated in a moral decision, but a moral relativist need not use a proportionalist balance to try to discern outcomes. Perhaps you are oversimplifying the matter.
It is a fact that proportionalism was a popular moral calculus in the recent past, and I don't doubt that it found its way into seminaries, as it did into pulpits and confessionals. It is a poisonous perspective, and it did much harm. It is not totally dead, although it has been much discredited - perhaps most authoritatively by Veritatis Splendor.
The Catechism rejects proportionalism:
CCC 1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
-------------------------------------------------------
The closing line sums up the rejection of proportionalism by the faithful Catholic: we may not do evil so that good might result. This is entirely Scriptural:
Rom 3:8 And why not do evil that good may come?--as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.
-------------------------------------------------------
Could proportionalism be used to wrongly justify sexual sin? Certainly. Any number of intrinsically evil acts could be justified as proportionally acceptable or even good, and such distorted logic is being used today.
Thomas
Actually I think that any
Actually I think that any distinction between relativism and proportionalism in this instance is irrelavant. The point is that Benedict seems to have dug up another strawman in his attempt to confound the reality and seek credence for his "blame anything but the system". Relativism seems to be no longer a term which of itself conjurs up visions of chaotic uncertainty.
The papal attribution of responsibility for the sexual molestation of children and minors to 'proportionalism' has no validity. Period.
How does "moral
How does "moral proportionality" fit in the thinking here. For example, the Genesis mandate to the First Parents to reproduce life, and the mandate not "to consume the fruit of the middletree", seem in the present time to be in moral, diametrical opposition to each other.
Population (birth) control and abortion are rejected absolutely, whereas, the exploitation of eco-systems to their death (also, a "real abortion") is given no proportional, moral weight in Church thinking. Surely, the abortion of Earth's ecozoic system is a direct consequence of the smothering presence of humankind and its mindless exploitation of other life. Isn't some "proportional" moral thinking urgently needed here?
Does this sense of moral proportionality fit Pope Benedict's scheme of thinking on "proportionalism"?
Ecology problems are not
Ecology problems are not caused by obedience to God! Just the opposite. Selfishness and greed are better candidates for blame.
Ah, so, thomas, in the
Ah, so, thomas, in the history of the Church's prejudicial hyping of faith and suppressing of reason (the cult of Trent & Vatican I), "her"(?) misguidance causes the "faithful" to do wierd and mindless things, e.g., participate in institutional colonialism, suppress indigenous faith and culture, and rape ecologies of their natural resources — all in God's name, of course. Not to mention that these resources handsomely adorn the churches of Rome and elsewhere. "Obedience to God"?
Fideistic religious culture (male) justifies "selfishness and greed" in "his" blind self-justification. Church ("he") needs to become more "organically friendly". This is a "mortal sin" of Church "it" needs to awaken to!
Sylvester, You are confusing
Sylvester,
You are confusing faith with sin. Do you associate everything done "in the name of faith" to be faith? If so, you need to apply more mature discernment.
Faith is a spiritual reality. Faith in not a mere "religious" word to be applied to any "religious" context. Faith is real.
Sin is a fact of human existence, that infects much human activity including some activity in the Church and by members of the Church. But you would be very foolish to throw out the beautiful baby with the dirty bathwater.
Thomas
Thomas, it will probably
Thomas, it will probably come not as a surprise that I take exception to your judicial conclusion that I confuse faith and sin.
I think I have a keen sense of their difference. Faith is conscious gravity that treasures the hard earned lessons of truth, the cumulus wisdom of experience and reason. Informed faith is a true grounding that guides conscience in its recognition of the requirements of love.
Sin is a falling short of faith's (love's) expectations. This "falling short" is either culpable or not culpable depending on the culpability (state of being informed) of the sinner.
Ignorance may excuse culpability, until the evidence of experience and the general availability of information renders ignorance inexcusable. Such, in my opinion, is the culpability of church "men" who insist on fixation in a discredited worldview. The sins of culpable ignorance, done under pretexts of fidelity to medieval understandings, remain unrepented — not only unrepented, but are still committed on premises of "religious" beliefs long discredited.
I recognize and champion the beautiful baby of living faith, but I lament and excoriate the deception of dead fideism which presumes to assume the place of vital, updated faith. May I suggest you take the pulse of the baby in you bathwater
Thomas, I agree with Dennis
Thomas, I agree with Dennis that proportionalism is a strawman.
You cite the catechism to say, "It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context."
I don't know of any Catholic ethicist who has ever taught that we can judge the morality of acts by considering ONLY the intention or circumstances in which acts occur.
I also don't know of any really highly regarded Catholic ethicist who teaches that we can judge the morality of acts without taking into consideration the intention or circumstances in which they occur.
Your final references to sexual sins that are intrinsically evil acts illustrates the problem of using acts ALONE to judge the morality of an act. In traditional Catholic moral teaching, what makes a homosexual act wrong is not the act itself but the circumstance in which the act occurs.
If you would think carefully about why the church condemns homosexual acts, I think you'd see that it is impossible to arrive at the conclusion that the acts are immoral on the basis of the act alone--without taking the circumstances into account.
The church is, to my mind, excessively preoccupied with what happens in acts of sexual intimacy--excessively preoccupied with what happens when, how it happens, almost to the point of clinical absurdity. Here's my understanding of why the church condemns a homosexual act: the act itself is precisely the same act as the act of legitimate and morally defensible intercourse between a man and a woman in married. But it is a non-procreative act, and thus not morally legitimate. It is non-procreative because the circumstances make procreation impossible, when the act occurs.
To be graphic in the extreme (which church teaching sometimes is, unfortunately): suppose two men engage in a sexual act together. The act that is mortally sinful is the ejaculation of semen by one or both men outside a vagina. It is mortally sinful because of the circumstance in which it occurs: outside the vagina and thus without the potential to be procreative.
When a man and a woman have intercourse in marriage, precisely the same act--the ejaculation of semen--is morally correct if the semen is ejaculated in the woman's vagina and there is no artificial barrier preventing the possibility of conception. If ejaculation occurs outside the vagina, the act of ejaculation--which is the same act in all three examples, is sinful, because it is not ordered to procreation. Though I doubt that a competent pastor or moral theologian would encourage a married man to feel that such an ejaculation is mortally sinful unless the man intended the ejaculation to occur outside the vagina--that is, the intention of the person engaging the act HAS to be taken into account as much as the circumstances, in order to arrive at a full moral assessment of the act.
As I say, I find this way of thinking about human sexuality and its morality unconvincing and unhelpful. Nonetheless, it's the time-honored way of thinking about sexuality in the Roman Catholic tradition.
And it is a way of thinking that, while it focuses on acts, necessarily also includes circumstances and intention in moral analysis. To place all the weight of moral analysis on the act alone is really to depart from the Catholic tradition in moral theology.
William D. Lindsey
William, In my first
William,
In my first response to this post, I did not comment on part of your message. You discuss the morality of a sexual act, in which you label the act as "the ejaculation of semen". However, in a traditional Catholic consideration of sexual activity, "the ejaculation of semen" could not be the moral object, and the intention and circumstances then be decided for a homosexual or a heterosexual circumstance. This would be an erroneous application of the moral theology.
The moral object is not merely a physical act - such as ejaculation of semen. The moral object is the free human (rational) act that has moral implications. For example, a bycicle ride in the park for relaxation is a proper (good) moral object. A bicycle ride to the bank to rob the bank is a (bad, evil) moral object. A bicycle ride in itself has no moral content. So also for an ejaculation.
To be a moral object, one must consider an act with moral content: as examples, masturbation is a proper moral object (which is wrong always). Marital intercourse is a proper moral object which in itself is a good - however, if the intention is wrong, the act would be wrong. If the circumstances are wrong, the act would be wrong.
Genital activity between two of the same sex is a proper moral object, which is always wrong and cannot be made right by any intention or circumstance.
Thomas
What about masturbation
What about masturbation instead of entering into a marriage just to relieve one's sexual urges? I can see where taking up masturbation as a hobby might be wrong, but surely there is some allowance, even in Catholicism, such that an occasional act of masturbation does not result in eternal damnation.
Hello Marie - and I hope
Hello Marie - and I hope Annie reads this also, since she has a misunderstanding about this matter -
The Catechism teaches that the act is gravely disordered - but personal culpability can vary greatly. I quote - and especially note the second paragraph:
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.�
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that can lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
(end of Catechism quote).
Thomas
The catechism states:The
The catechism states:The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose. This is the core of Catholic sexual morality. From it flow the condemnations of contraception, homosexuality, masturbation and any sexual act that does not end in intravaginal spousal ejaculation.
But the 800 lb gorilla in the room is mastubating. Masturbation is an almost universal practice among Catholics and nonCatholics alike. It has a myriad of positive effects. It is self-comforting (Love others as you love yourself.) It is useful in pain management and control of inflammation. It releases hormones that slow the aging process. (An example : endoginous estrogen protects against osteoporosis) It is a soporific.
Pastoral practice has led confessors to ease up on the hell-for-all-eternity response to penitents. The sensus fidelium has already declared mastubation morally neutral. Homilists treat it with benign neglect. But the official church cannot act positively to redress the teaching. Because as the first sentence states, all Catholic sexual morality hangs on that single statement. If masturbation were licit, then the whole structure falls and a new more nuanced morality would have to be developed. And what would suffer from such an improvement? The authority of Rome. We're back to Galileo and the cycle continues to unwind.
Hello frannie, What you call
Hello frannie,
What you call "the core of Catholic sexual morality" is somewhat misleading, because what you have quoted is out of context. The way you present this "core" (out of its context) makes the "core" seem to be a mere legal assertion - a mere positivist absolute. Such a mischaracterization seems to gain approval in this neighborhood, where most anything signed "Vatican" is seen as a mere positivism, amid other pesky legalisms and other insults to our dignity and adulthood.
Human sexuality cannot be understood outside of its proper context as an sacred expression of love, reserved to the covenant of marital love - matrimony. If you want to find the "core of Catholic sexual morality", you must look to the imperatives of love - and these derive not from canon lawyers, but from God the Holy Trinity. It is from our divine image of God the Holy Trinity that human moral law proceeds.
Thomas
Not invested with much time
Not invested with much time at the moment, but what you are not understanding, thomas, is that proportionalism can be seen as a way of bringing the pastoral (subjective, OH YES!) into the moral manual that you prefer. It was essentially saying to the folks out there: you can figure out some of the thinking of the pastor as you do your ethical decision-making. If you want, you can bring us a list from the moral manual you've given us and we'll think all this through for you, or you can grow into the maturity of an adult catholic, in which you use pastoral (subjective, OH YES!) thinking to both make moral decisions and to discuss that with your confessor. A better way. For whatever flaws proportionalism may have, it is an advancement over a moral manual, and the synthesis or better way may still lie ahead rather than in grabbing to the behind (get those?) :-)
"the moral sense of the faithful" isn't something that the vatican can decide on its own...
Honestly, Thomas, what is
Honestly, Thomas, what is the point of these detailed prohibitions? I know you are only repeating what others have written, but doesn't what they have written strike you as a bit off the mark with regard to what Christianity is all about? Is it really useful to base your discussions of good and evil on things as minor as someone somewhere sometime stimulating his genital organs?
However, for the sake of argument, isn't the variance in moral culpability a version of proportionalism? Don't you think that a young man becoming overly concerned with avoiding "deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure" might become so inhibited that he becomes incapable of "mutual self-giving" in marriage, and that therefore, masturbation might be a good and necessary thing rather than, as you indicated earlier, always wrong?
Hello again Marie, and also
Hello again Marie, and also Annie whose concerns seem to be similar: a concern that traditional Catholic moral theology somehow ignores the subjective person, in an excessive adherence to objective norms.
No, a theology that can deduce a "variance in moral culpability" is not a version of proportionalism. This is crucially important: traditional Catholic moral theology cannot ever condone an objective moral evil. Evil is not ever - ever - good. The blame rightly assigned to a subjective person BY GOD will depend on circumstances and intention - but evil cannot ever be anything but evil. Evil is not ever made good by circumstance or intention.
What is written above concerning traditional Catholic moral theology is radically, essentially different from a theology that is concerned not with good and evil, and possible shades of personal culpability that might be assigned by God to that person - but rather, proportionalism is concerned with shades of right and wrong in the act itself. Proportionalism can lead to a negation of the Ten Commandments, for example, replacing them with "Ten Preferences". Example:
"Thou shall not commit adultery"
could be changed to
"In some situations it is better to commit adultery than not."
Such is moral insanity.
YOU stand before God and tell HIM that you have revised His Law! I would not. Adultery remains objectively evil, under any circumstance or intention. Man is not free to redefine such a law: it is immutable. Again, individual personal culpability remains in the hands of God, who knows circumstance and intention - which may mitigate judgment - but the act remains evil.
It is helpful, I think, to realize a commonly understood significance of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" in the midst of the garden, forbidden to man in the beginning. The meaning of the fruit of this tree has been suggested as the power/authority to decide for oneself, what is good and what is evil - an authority held only by God Himself. In eating this fruit, this interpretation holds, Adam and Eve were taking upon themselves (so they thought) full moral autonomy - the authority to define moral goodness and/or evil for themselves, being then "like God." Can you see this temptation in modern moral theologies - maybe even proportionalism?
Thomas
thomas, you said: "Marie,
thomas, you said:
"Marie, no, you are mistaken: the commandment against killing is not without exception. The Commandment is better stated, "Thou shall not murder", than simply against killing. "Murder" carries the implication of the unjust killing of an innocent person. Killing in reasonable self-defense or in reasonable defense of an innocent person is not forbidden, nor is killing an unjust aggressor against one's country, or in time of war. The Commandment is not violated in any of these exceptions."
Now I certainly will grant that I don't know the language, interpretative history, etc. of the Ten Commandments as we know them, but it would seem to me that you are herein your own post to Marie doing what you are expressly forbidding of others--changing the words to add in the proportionality you prefer or you think the church prefers (still not fair, call the church out for that one!).
There is so much more I could say, but short on time, although I'll be happy to catch it later. BTW, I stand before God without fear and trembling at all over the issue of whether or not I should think for myself or talk about it with anyone I so wish. If you have fears about that, I'm sorry, but please don't presume those are or should be my feelings. Sounds like you are a bit too sceeeeeeeeered of God to me.
Thomas, God did not say thou
Thomas, God did not say thou shalt not commit "deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure". To infer that from the commandment against adultery is worse than changing the ten commandments to ten preferences. It is essentially changing the ten commandments to innumerable commandments, as if everything to do with sex, other than the specific command in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply, has been prohibited by God based on this one commandment. This is weird.
I don't think I will have to stand before God to tell God that I have revised His law. I think people who have taken his commandments to extremes will be doing that.
Determining variance in moral culpability is how proportionalism originated. Proportionalism can be made to go wrong by declaring that there is no good or evil inherent in anything and that the only criteria for judging is the effect. However, this would be nonesense also, since judging effect is highly subjective.
Please refer to my comment below regarding the fifth commandment, the Catechism, and proportional reasoning.
Thomas you wrote: "This is
Thomas you wrote:
"This is crucially important: traditional Catholic moral theology cannot ever condone an objective moral evil."
No, but in accordance with the teachings of Jesus it (The traditional Catholic moral theology) can forgive it.
Unfortunately those attempting to practice “traditional Catholic moral theology�, like yourself Thomas, contrary to the general bent of Jesus’ teachings, put more credence into blame, culpability and punishment then they do into the New Testament qualities of God as delineated to us by the Son Of God, tolerance, understanding and forgiveness.
"Evil is not ever - ever - good." That's a Given.
Thomas also wrote:
"The blame rightly assigned to a subjective person BY GOD"
I’m afraid this is where part of the problem of one's understanding of God exists. Human’s Blame. God doesn’t blame. God Judges.
Thomas wrote:
“What is written above concerning traditional Catholic moral theology is radically, essentially different from a theology that is concerned not with good and evil, and possible shades of personal culpability that might be assigned by God to that person - but rather, proportionalism is concerned with shades of right and wrong in the act itself. Proportionalism can lead to a negation of the Ten Commandments, for example, replacing them with "Ten Preferences". Example:
"Thou shall not commit adultery"
could be changed to
"In some situations it is better to commit adultery than not."
Such is moral insanity.�
This certainly is unclear and confusing and doesn’t seem to have anything at all in common with, “What is written above�. What does adultery have to due with Masturbation? Are you trying to create of situation of culpability by association of one act with another?
Then you Thomas write:
“YOU stand before God and tell HIM that you have revised His Law!�
What an exaggeration and disassociation with the question at hand. I think God would be much more concerned with a professed penchant to condone killing other Sons and Daughters of God in certain situations then He would be with someone’s act of softly manipulating flesh below the navel.
You say Evil is not ever Good. But who’s deciding what is Evil and what is Good? You could say God determines what is Good and Evil. But then How do we know what God’s determination is.
Regardless of what ever teachings about Good and Evil we as individuals receive, Individuality due to the sovereignty of our Free Will we decide what we believe to be Good and Evil. And ultimately NO ONE ELSE can tell us what GOOD and EVIL is. Only God is the ONE TRUE JUDGE. So there really isn’t a concrete Right or Wrong, Good and Evil that any one can teach us. The best they can do is relate God’s instruction to us as Jesus, the Prophets and Spiritual teachers like Doctor’s of the Church without definitive determination of what God’s True Judgment is Because ONLY IN GOD CAN THAT JUDGEMENT EXIST.
Perhaps it is for that reason that Jesus taught us to practice Love, Forgiveness and Tolerance and striving to do the Will of God as best as we can individually with the help of all those concerned (Jesus and Prophets and Spiritual teachers like Doctor’s of the Church, etc.). Knowing full well that ONLY GOD IS THE JUST JUDGE.
Anyway Thomas may God be Our Just and Merciful Judge and Guide us in our thoughts and actions here on Earth as well as in the life to come. Amen. :-)
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
"Proportinalism can lead to
"Proportinalism can lead to a negation of the Ten Commandments, for example, replacing them with "Ten Preferences." Annie and Marie, if you haven't already read it, I think that John Allen Jr.'s July 18 article "Seeking for the how, whys of sex abuse" is a more balanced and reliable precis (with references)of what proportionalism is/isn't and the papal attribution.
Dennis, Thanks for directing
Dennis, Thanks for directing me back to this article. I had read it before the many responses to it had posted, and I am pleased to see there that most people recognize that the problem was not that a particular philosophy was developed or taught in the 1970's.
Since the only philosophy course I took in the 1970's was a legal reasoning course, in which we reviewed various well-known cases and studied the reasoning and arguments given by the two sides, I do not have a strong background in philosophy. However, I find that common sense is enough to see through the arguments with which Thomas tries to discredit any position that is not slavishly in accord with every utterance emitted by someone in the Church heirarchy. Given Pope Benedict's interest in intellectual debate, I would hazard to say that even the Pope is insufficiently in line with Catholic thinking by Thomas's standards.
Yes, I was fascinated that
Yes, I was fascinated that thomas picked up the discussion on masturbation with such relish, but declined to look at that of killing another, just for all the sundry reasons we've seen on here in terms of just one current war. Doesn't that catechism have all the 'answers' (as someone said) to the killing questions?
You make me feel like the
You make me feel like the son with a mother fond of the "manipulation-by-guilt" method of keepi
Thomas~ you haven't answered
Thomas~ you haven't answered my question.