Conservative Catholic Domer blog Being! Or Nothingness has a very interesting post (quoting Sando Magister of the Italian magazine L’Esspresso) about the possible elements of Benedict XVI’s agenda. In light of all the discussion around here about birth control, this excerpt is particularly noteworthy:
The encyclical of Paul VI forbidding artificial contraception produced one of the most serious ruptures between the papal magisterium and the practice of the faithful in recent decades. But today the focal point of the Church’s preaching has shifted: more than the pill and the condom, the Church’s attention is concentrated on the defense of every life from the moment of conception. The result is that even at the summit of the Church’s leadership calm discussions have begun again about the prohibition of “Humanae Vitae” as not definitive or rigid, but open to future corrections. Cardinal Georges Cottier, official theologian of the papal household, gave an authoritative first sign of a shift one month before John Paul II died: he admitted the use of the condom as a defense against AIDS, under accurately described special conditions. It is possible that the new pope will take further steps in the same direction.
I don’t know how reliable this blogger’s account is, but it’s at least food for thought.
While we’re on the topic, I’m still waiting for an answer to my question: Suppose there are two married couples, neither of whom wants to have children at this particular point in their marriage, but both of whom want to continue having sex. Couple #1 uses artificial birth control; couple #2 uses natural family planning. Let us stipulate that the following elements are true of BOTH couples:
1. Both couples hope to avoid getting pregnant; they have a “non-procreative intent.”
2. Both couples are specifically, purposefully gearing their actions toward accomplishing their shared goal of having sex without getting pregnant. In other words, their actions match their intent.
3. Both couples are aware, however, that pregnancy is possible; they are “open to the possibility of life,” even though they hope to avoid it.
4. If they inadvertantly conceive, both couples would welcome their child into the world with open arms.
According to Catholic doctrine, the couple using artifical birth control is sinning, while couple using “natural” birth control is not. But WHY? Since we’ve eliminated both intent and action (mens rea and actus reus, as it were) as the possible difference between them (see #1 and #2, above), and we’ve also eliminated “openness to life” as the difference (see #3 and #4, above), we are left with a limited number of remaining possible explanations (that I can think of) for why couple #1’s actions would be sinful but the couple #2’s wouldn’t:
Possibility #1. Artificial birth control is bad because it’s artificial. Natural birth control is okay because it’s natural.
Possibility #2. Taking artificial birth control is a positive act, whereas refraining from sex during fertile periods is a mere omission to act. The intent is the same, and both choices of behavior are geared to achieve that intent (and have a good chance of doing so)… but perhaps the Church believes that the latter is okay simply because of the technical fact that it’s an omission rather than a positive act?
Possibility #3. Artificial birth control is “an objective evil” or “instrinsically evil” because… well, because Church doctrine says it is.
Regarding #1, I believe Mike would call this the “naturalist fallacy.” I don’t think it has any moral relevance; at any rate, its moral relevance is certainly not self-evident.
Regarding #2, didn’t CrimLaw teach us that omissions can be acts? So WHY should this be a morally important distinction? Again, the answer to this question is not self-evident; if this is the reason, the “why” requires further explanation.
Regarding #3, if all of the other arguments fall apart upon close scrutiny (as it seems to me that they do), this one alone simply isn’t good enough. “Because I said so” is not a sufficient justification for anything, in my book.
So, tell me, what am I missing? Is some portion of my premise faulty? Am I leaving something out?
I really want to know. And so does Bea, I hear. :)
|
Categories: The Pope & Catholicism
|
April 22nd, 2005 at 2:02:54 pm
Hey, glad I found your blog . . . I just want to point out (without commenting on whether I agree or disagree with what has been said) that the above quote is not “mine.” The post was a quote from Sando Magister of L’Esspresso, the Italian magazine.
April 22nd, 2005 at 2:24:03 pm
What, are you and Bea in a hurry to have hot wild Catholic sex? Is there something you guys should be telling us about? I’m not sure Becky and I are okay with this….
April 22nd, 2005 at 2:25:58 pm
Option 4: Because the Catholic church wants more Catholics and they are more likely to get them with “natural” birth control than they are with “artificial” birth control. although, lest we forget, sheep intestine and various plants have been used for thousands of years (long predating the church) to “artificially” avoid pregnancy. And both the Greeks and Romans used a much more brutal form of abortion (exposure) than we use today. If these were abomination in the eyes of the Lord, Jesus certainly could have said something about it.
April 22nd, 2005 at 2:39:41 pm
Dane, how about thou shalt not kill? Surely that applies to, at the VERY least, born children.
April 22nd, 2005 at 2:53:39 pm
Oh, well they were arguably not killing them, because of course Greek and Roman plays are full of kids that were exposed coming back and causing trouble. The idea was that you were not really killing them so much as leaving it up to fate weather or not they lived. So in that sense it is less murderous than abortion, but far more brutal.
April 22nd, 2005 at 3:17:43 pm
Okay Dane, but I’m glad to see that you, too, see very little difference between infanticide and abortion.
April 22nd, 2005 at 3:21:19 pm
Close. Option 1 is something that could be considered a form of the naturalistic fallacy. Then again, that fallacy is basically an attempt to infer what is (im)moral from what is (un)natural. I’m not yet convinced that natural family planning is in any way natural, whatever the name given to it. As far as natural fertility goes, there’s traditionally been a period of lessened-to-virtually-no fertility caused by the nutritional stress of nursing a child, but with greater food availability that’s largely disappeared among women in the developed world. So, if something isn’t natural but people think it is, and then try to argue that it’s therefore morally OK, are they commiting the naturalistic fallacy in addition to being incorrect about what’s natural, or are they just plain wrong?
April 22nd, 2005 at 3:45:36 pm
Andrew, I actually have no solid position regarding abortion, it is one of those things that I have a lot of trouble with when I think about it, the result is I don’t think about it much. But as I am a bit more libertarian than authoritarian I think that the choice should be left to the individual and not the sate. The other way to put it would be, I really wish that there were not circumstances where it was necessary — sort of the safe, legal, and rare argument. But that is about as far as I get.
April 22nd, 2005 at 4:03:13 pm
Dane,
Ummmmm, okay.
April 22nd, 2005 at 5:03:22 pm
For Brendan and Bea: I, too, do not understand the Catholic church’s teachings on birth control. I don’t think natural family planning is bad for those who want to use it, but I simply don’t believe that those who want to use birth control are committing an intrinsicially evil act.
I do, however, think it’s interesting that most Protestant churches have no qualms with birth control. Most Christian denominations (at least all the ones I’m familiar with) have common beliefs regarding sexually morality as the Catholic chruch - no premarital sex, abortion is bad, etc. I don’t, however, know of any major Protestant denominations (can’t speak for the fringe groups) who think that married people using birth control is wrong. Even the Mormons are OK with birth control, and I would argue that they are even MORE conservative than the Catholics on sexual issues.
I look at BC as a technology that God wants us to use properly. Should it be a license for teenagers to have promiscuous sex with multiple partners? No. Should it be a way for a married couple to enjoy sexual intimacy while managing the size of their family? Yes.
I know that doesn’t answer you questions of WHY the Catholic church finds BC so evil, but I just thought it was worth noting that on this issue, the Catholic church seems to be the outlier of Christian groups.
And for Joe: I corrected the spelling of my name. :)
April 22nd, 2005 at 5:12:36 pm
Thanks Dirty Prod, I noted the same thing (and discussed Jewish views too since they’re relevant) in an earlier thread.
April 22nd, 2005 at 5:14:58 pm
Well “Sando Magister” sounds pretty Authoritative to me, Stephen. :)
The Naturalistic fallacy is the persistent superstition that anything Invented, Fashioned, Built, Manufactured, or otherwise Done, by the species homo sapiens (but no other) is ipso facto “unnatural”.
(Now the Naturalist fallacy, by way of distinction, is the ideology asserting that [a] …mile Zola is God and [b] one must kiss all the Butterflies in Earth Day.)
We have Spoken. :)
(Now where do We exit this here cathedral, anyways… :)
April 22nd, 2005 at 5:18:53 pm
hee hee Thanks, Dirty :) and may the Cat Lick ye in approval. :)
April 22nd, 2005 at 6:41:55 pm
As to the chance of the Church changing the birth control policy and the alleged admission by JPII as to the condom as a defense against AIDS, I have one comment: GET REAL. The Church ain’t changing. That’s why Benedict XVI was chosen.
April 22nd, 2005 at 7:02:54 pm
Hey, glad I found your blog . . . I just want to point out (without commenting on whether I agree or disagree with what has been said) that the above quote is not “mine.” The post was a quote from Sando Magister of L’Esspresso, the Italian magazine.
April 22nd, 2005 at 7:20:55 pm
I hope you’re wrong, Patrick. We’ll see.
I’m still waiting for an answer, BTW. :)
April 22nd, 2005 at 7:24:03 pm
What, are you and Bea in a hurry to have hot wild Catholic sex? Is there something you guys should be telling us about? I’m not sure Becky and I are okay with this….
April 22nd, 2005 at 7:25:58 pm
Option 4: Because the Catholic church wants more Catholics and they are more likely to get them with “natural” birth control than they are with “artificial” birth control. although, lest we forget, sheep intestine and various plants have been used for thousands of years (long predating the church) to “artificially” avoid pregnancy. And both the Greeks and Romans used a much more brutal form of abortion (exposure) than we use today. If these were abomination in the eyes of the Lord, Jesus certainly could have said something about it.
April 22nd, 2005 at 7:26:08 pm
Thanks Stephen — I’ll correct the post.
April 22nd, 2005 at 7:39:41 pm
Dane, how about thou shalt not kill? Surely that applies to, at the VERY least, born children.
April 22nd, 2005 at 7:53:39 pm
Oh, well they were arguably not killing them, because of course Greek and Roman plays are full of kids that were exposed coming back and causing trouble. The idea was that you were not really killing them so much as leaving it up to fate weather or not they lived. So in that sense it is less murderous than abortion, but far more brutal.
April 22nd, 2005 at 8:17:43 pm
Okay Dane, but I’m glad to see that you, too, see very little difference between infanticide and abortion.
April 22nd, 2005 at 8:21:19 pm
Close. Option 1 is something that could be considered a form of the naturalist<i>ic</i> fallacy. Then again, that fallacy is basically an attempt to infer what is (im)moral from what is (un)natural. I’m not yet convinced that natural family planning is in any way natural, whatever the name given to it. As far as natural fertility goes, there’s traditionally been a period of lessened-to-virtually-no fertility caused by the nutritional stress of nursing a child, but with greater food availability that’s largely disappeared among women in the developed world. So, if something isn’t natural but people think it is, and then try to argue that it’s therefore morally OK, are they commiting the naturalistic fallacy in addition to being incorrect about what’s natural, or are they just plain wrong?
April 22nd, 2005 at 8:45:36 pm
Andrew, I actually have no solid position regarding abortion, it is one of those things that I have a lot of trouble with when I think about it, the result is I don’t think about it much. But as I am a bit more libertarian than authoritarian I think that the choice should be left to the individual and not the sate. The other way to put it would be, I really wish that there were not circumstances where it was necessary — sort of the safe, legal, and rare argument. But that is about as far as I get.
April 22nd, 2005 at 9:03:13 pm
Dane,
Ummmmm, okay.
April 22nd, 2005 at 9:20:29 pm
As a side note, I really don’t care whether something is natural or not in my evaluation of whether it’s an inherently good thing. Literacy, for example, is clearly not natural, yet it’s something which I strongly support. That being said, as an evolutionary biologist I feel quite confident in stating that true genetic monogamy in mammals is virtually unknown, and thus arguments about natural family planning that presume the existence of a naturally monogamous pair of humans may not be built upon the most solid of foundations when evaluating whether or not such planning is, in fact, natural.
April 22nd, 2005 at 10:03:22 pm
For Brendan and Bea: I, too, do not understand the Catholic church’s teachings on birth control. I don’t think natural family planning is bad for those who want to use it, but I simply don’t believe that those who want to use birth control are committing an intrinsicially evil act.
I do, however, think it’s interesting that most Protestant churches have no qualms with birth control. Most Christian denominations (at least all the ones I’m familiar with) have common beliefs regarding sexually morality as the Catholic chruch - no premarital sex, abortion is bad, etc. I don’t, however, know of any major Protestant denominations (can’t speak for the fringe groups) who think that <i>married people using birth control</i> is wrong. Even the Mormons are OK with birth control, and I would argue that they are even MORE conservative than the Catholics on sexual issues.
I look at BC as a technology that God wants us to use properly. Should it be a license for teenagers to have promiscuous sex with multiple partners? No. Should it be a way for a married couple to enjoy sexual intimacy while managing the size of their family? Yes.
I know that doesn’t answer you questions of WHY the Catholic church finds BC so evil, but I just thought it was worth noting that on this issue, the Catholic church seems to be the outlier of Christian groups.
And for Joe: I corrected the spelling of my name. :)
April 22nd, 2005 at 10:12:36 pm
Thanks Dirty Prod, I noted the same thing (and discussed Jewish views too since they’re relevant) in an earlier thread.
April 22nd, 2005 at 10:14:58 pm
Well “Sando Magister” sounds pretty Authoritative to me, Stephen. :)
The Naturalistic fallacy is the persistent superstition that anything Invented, Fashioned, Built, Manufactured, or otherwise Done, by the species <i>homo sapiens</i> (but no other) is <i>ipso facto</i> “unnatural”.
(Now the Naturalist fallacy, by way of distinction, is the ideology asserting that [a] …mile Zola is God and [b] one must kiss all the Butterflies in Earth Day.)
We have Spoken. :)
(Now where do We <i>ex</i>it this here <i>cathedra</i>l, anyways… :)
April 22nd, 2005 at 10:18:53 pm
hee hee Thanks, Dirty :) and may the Cat Lick ye in approval. :)
April 22nd, 2005 at 10:57:32 pm
I read an article in the paper about voles; it said they were one species of only 3% of mammals that are/tend to be monogamous.
Humans are funny that way; you could go either way on whether they would count as part of that 3%.
April 22nd, 2005 at 11:41:55 pm
As to the chance of the Church changing the birth control policy and the alleged admission by JPII as to the condom as a defense against AIDS, I have one comment: GET REAL. The Church ain’t changing. That’s why Benedict XVI was chosen.
April 22nd, 2005 at 11:46:40 pm
I know Patrick is busy with finals, and David and Kate want us to read a whole book on sinful sex :) and ASpiring Lawyer Nun, to whom my question was intially addressed has not chipped in. But if you are going to ask me to get real, then offer me an argument and an explanation for the inconsistency of the argument, or else you go get real, because I am not going to understand the argument until someone explains what Brendan and I have cleary explains is our issue with the argument.
April 23rd, 2005 at 12:20:55 am
I hope you’re wrong, Patrick. We’ll see.
I’m still waiting for an answer, BTW. :)
April 23rd, 2005 at 12:26:08 am
Thanks Stephen — I’ll correct the post.
April 23rd, 2005 at 12:34:12 am
That last comment was me
April 23rd, 2005 at 1:10:35 am
Bea, its not a book about sinful sex, thats the whole point of the book, that sex is a gift from God and can and should be enjoyed, but for the right reasons. Just as any part of our free will works, there are good uses and bad.
The reason I keep suggesting it is because I don’t feel I can give you an adequate explanation of the teaching. I understand it ok enough, but I don’t want to make things worse by being unable to construe the full meaning. And since I am letting a good friend read it at the moment I don’t have it available to quote. If I get a chance and can find a better explanation online I’ll try and post.
April 23rd, 2005 at 1:17:21 am
Since this is the current Catholic post, I wanted to bring up the Cult of Mary again, because I agree that there is a Cult of Mary, but I do not understand it, even though I grew up around it, I cannot explain it, and I can barely describe it, so maybe those who have travelled abroad might be the only ones who understand what I am talking about. From my earlier comment:
In latin countries, the Virgin Mary is not just held in high regard, she is revered and worshiped like a saint, and in some communities she receives even more attention than Jesus himself. Take for example Mexico, where the Virgen de Guadalupe is a national icon like nothing we have in this country for me to comepare it to. In Colombia, the different virgins, because there is different ones for every time she has been sighted, are worshiped ardently in different parts of the country, one example is the Virgen del Carmen. Also, Virgen de Fatima who was sighted by three children somewhere in Europe and supposedly told them some phrophecy.. The Virgin Mary is many and one at the same time. I sound more confusing by the minute, so imagine the confusion when you’re ten! You would we amazed at the Cult of Mary outside of this country.
Interestingly enough, there is also different Christs. Well it’s not like there is different ones, it’s always Him, but, well, don’t ask me to explain it, I can barely describe it. The Lord of the Miracles, a very famous basilica in the state I was born in, is visited by probably hundreds of thousands yearly, by those who have prayed to Him for this or that and go there to worship him and thank him.
I have not been succesful with my other Catholic question on birth control, but maybe this one will get an answer..
April 23rd, 2005 at 2:14:30 am
Brendan/Bea,
I can’t pretend to be an expert on moral theology, and I think the question is a worthy and difficult one, but I think Option #2 comes pretty close.
As to the moral distinction between act and ommission in this case, I also remeber something about that from CrimLaw. Doesn’t there have to be an affirmative obligation before an ommission can be a crime/sin? As far as I know, the Church doesn’t claim we have to have sex at any particular point in time, so why would there be an affirmative obligation that could give rise to a morally culpable omission?
I doubt very much that the above is adequate to explain it all, but I think it is at least the right question. The other two options leave us either trapped in a silly discussion over what is “natural” and what is “artificial” that doesn’t have much to do with the primary orientation of catholic sexual ethics, or unable to have any discussion.
I’ll leave the cult of mary answer to someone with a better understanding of such things, but I think semiotics (the study of signs) could shed some light on it. There are many languages with different ways of communicating the same basic ideas, and I think a similar principle can be applied to the various manifestations of Mary throughout the world/centuries.
I’m also not sure what any of this has to do with contract law, which I am supposed to be studying now.
April 23rd, 2005 at 2:20:29 am
As a side note, I really don’t care whether something is natural or not in my evaluation of whether it’s an inherently good thing. Literacy, for example, is clearly not natural, yet it’s something which I strongly support. That being said, as an evolutionary biologist I feel quite confident in stating that true genetic monogamy in mammals is virtually unknown, and thus arguments about natural family planning that presume the existence of a naturally monogamous pair of humans may not be built upon the most solid of foundations when evaluating whether or not such planning is, in fact, natural.
April 23rd, 2005 at 2:37:41 am
I thought you have to have sex after you get married, and if you do not, your marriage can be nullified. I remember hearing something like this when I was growing up, and how if the marriage was never consumated (that is my possibly poor translation from Spanish), meaning there was no sex, then you could actually get out of it. Also, with all this emphasis in procreation, sounds to me like the Church probably tells us somewhere that married couples should try to procreate. Let the educated Catholics take over from here.
April 23rd, 2005 at 2:46:32 am
Let the educated Catholics take over from here.
Just to preemptively jump to your defense, Bea, lest anyone be misled: I think you were implicitly satirizing yourself, not Steve, as the uneducated Catholic… right?
April 23rd, 2005 at 3:26:56 am
Bea,
You are quite right as to the effect of consummation (and your translation from the Spanish is at least as good as the Church’s translation from Latin). I’ve provided the relevant sections from the 1983 Code of Canon Law below (probably much more than you’ve ever wanted to know anyway).
Also, as far as I know, there is an obligation to have sex with your spouse as a general matter. Since marriage is a sign of God’s grace and a reflection of his love and sex is a unique expression of marriage, this seems to make sense.
What I meant was that the Church does not tell us when and where to have sex, so there is no obligation to have sex at any particular moment. Abstinence is OK for good reasons, and before the approval of the rhythm (and later NFP) method it was the only permissible way to avoid conception with any certainty (tell that to Mary). Even this was only allowed for good reasons (economic hardship, health problems, etc.). NFP is, I believe, supposed to be just an extension of this. If my wife and I can abstain from sex for 4 years so that we don’t get pregnant, why can’t we just abstain for the time around ovulation?
And yes, the Church is big on procreation. If you think about all the symbolism tied up in the affair (marriage/sex–God’s love, creation–procreation, etc) its a really beautiful idea. Which is why the abstention methods are only supposed to be used with good cause.
Not sure if that all made sense, as its rather late.
Peace
—
Can. 1061 ß1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.
Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.
April 23rd, 2005 at 3:32:44 am
Yes, part of whether a marriage is actually valid or not involves whether it is consumated. In fact if you don’t consumate the marriage that is easy grounds for an annulment. This is actually a tradition that is in many many cultures throughout history.
As for the cult of Mary, I think that some people treat her as overly important, but I also think that Protestants don’t treat her importantly enough. I think however that official Catholic teaching on her however is just fine. She is probably the most important female in history, other than maybe Eve, but as the mother of Christ I would say she is more important. And I think as such putting her on equal, or higher footing than the Saints is justified. Obviously Jesus is higher, Mary should be honored but not worshipped. But unfortunately the line gets blurred, not out of bad intentions but out of overzealousness. But in alot of those cultures mothers are allready revered and so Mary is easy for them to make a connection with.
As for birth control, the best I can do is say that the reason it is considered wrong is that it is actually messing with the conception itself, where as NFP revolves around using God’s creation of fertile and infertile periods. Yes I understand that this can be construed as natural/unnatural argument, but I don’t think its that so much as taking action against contraception. I wish I could give a clearer impression.
April 23rd, 2005 at 3:57:32 am
I read an article in the paper about voles; it said they were one species of only 3% of mammals that are/tend to be monogamous.
Humans are funny that way; you could go either way on whether they would count as part of that 3%.
April 23rd, 2005 at 4:11:50 am
Sorry, the Bible has very little to say about Mary. What we do know is that she gave birth to Christ through a miracle of seedless conception, and that she (and her husband) stuck with it despite the social hardships and judgment that entailed. She apparently succeeded in raising Yeshua and his brother(s) (and sisters?) very well, so that also is commendable. However, there are a lot of examples of obedient, admirable, and commendable people in the Bible (Abraham, David, the prophets, Job, Paul, Timothy, and so on), and I don’t see anything that justifies a unique and special status for Mary. That she gave birth to Jesus is reason to praise God, not Mary.
April 23rd, 2005 at 4:44:36 am
You just never get it do you Andrew? No one is talking about praising or worshiping Mary, just honoring her. And people say Catholics are putting down women. Here is the most important woman in the Bible. A woman who allowed God to perform an amazing miracle with her, despite everything that would go along with it. And she was one of his most devoted followers, she was in fact with the Apostles in the looked room when Jesus first appeared to them. She is an example to us all and proof that men and women play key roles in God’s plan of salvation.
But fine, you don’t want to accept the importance of Mary, no one is asking you too. Last time I checked you weren’t Catholic. Perhaps you should spend more time working on your own faith then denigrating that of others.
Of course Jesus is the most Holy and the one worthy of worship. But that doesn’t mean you can’t also honor and respect the contributions of holy men and women like Mary. Its not my fault you can’t see how these people only contribute to our understanding and appreciation of God’s grand plan. Its not my fault you are so narrow minded that your idea of Christian charity is to jump into a conversation between people trying to understand each others position with attacks and denigration. Try showing a little respect and try keeping your loud and obnoxious mouth out of decent conversations just once.
April 23rd, 2005 at 4:46:40 am
I know Patrick is busy with finals, and David and Kate want us to read a whole book on sinful sex :) and ASpiring Lawyer Nun, to whom my question was intially addressed has not chipped in. But if you are going to ask me to get real, then offer me an argument and an explanation for the inconsistency of the argument, or else you go get real, because I am not going to understand the argument until someone explains what Brendan and I have cleary explains is our issue with the argument.
April 23rd, 2005 at 5:34:12 am
That last comment was me
April 23rd, 2005 at 6:10:35 am
Bea, its not a book about sinful sex, thats the whole point of the book, that sex is a gift from God and can and should be enjoyed, but for the right reasons. Just as any part of our free will works, there are good uses and bad.
The reason I keep suggesting it is because I don’t feel I can give you an adequate explanation of the teaching. I understand it ok enough, but I don’t want to make things worse by being unable to construe the full meaning. And since I am letting a good friend read it at the moment I don’t have it available to quote. If I get a chance and can find a better explanation online I’ll try and post.
April 23rd, 2005 at 6:17:21 am
Since this is the current Catholic post, I wanted to bring up the Cult of Mary again, because I agree that there is a Cult of Mary, but I do not understand it, even though I grew up around it, I cannot explain it, and I can barely describe it, so maybe those who have travelled abroad might be the only ones who understand what I am talking about. From my earlier comment:
In latin countries, the Virgin Mary is not just held in high regard, she is revered and worshiped like a saint, and in some communities she receives even more attention than Jesus himself. Take for example Mexico, where the Virgen de Guadalupe is a national icon like nothing we have in this country for me to comepare it to. In Colombia, the different virgins, because there is different ones for every time she has been sighted, are worshiped ardently in different parts of the country, one example is the Virgen del Carmen. Also, Virgen de Fatima who was sighted by three children somewhere in Europe and supposedly told them some phrophecy.. The Virgin Mary is many and one at the same time. I sound more confusing by the minute, so imagine the confusion when you’re ten! You would we amazed at the Cult of Mary outside of this country.
Interestingly enough, there is also different Christs. Well it’s not like there is different ones, it’s always Him, but, well, don’t ask me to explain it, I can barely describe it. The Lord of the Miracles, a very famous basilica in the state I was born in, is visited by probably hundreds of thousands yearly, by those who have prayed to Him for this or that and go there to worship him and thank him.
I have not been succesful with my other Catholic question on birth control, but maybe this one will get an answer..
April 23rd, 2005 at 7:14:30 am
Brendan/Bea,
I can’t pretend to be an expert on moral theology, and I think the question is a worthy and difficult one, but I think Option #2 comes pretty close.
As to the moral distinction between act and ommission in this case, I also remeber something about that from CrimLaw. Doesn’t there have to be an affirmative obligation before an ommission can be a crime/sin? As far as I know, the Church doesn’t claim we have to have sex at any particular point in time, so why would there be an affirmative obligation that could give rise to a morally culpable omission?
I doubt very much that the above is adequate to explain it all, but I think it is at least the right question. The other two options leave us either trapped in a silly discussion over what is “natural” and what is “artificial” that doesn’t have much to do with the primary orientation of catholic sexual ethics, or unable to have any discussion.
I’ll leave the cult of mary answer to someone with a better understanding of such things, but I think semiotics (the study of signs) could shed some light on it. There are many languages with different ways of communicating the same basic ideas, and I think a similar principle can be applied to the various manifestations of Mary throughout the world/centuries.
I’m also not sure what any of this has to do with contract law, which I am supposed to be studying now.
April 23rd, 2005 at 7:37:41 am
I thought you have to have sex after you get married, and if you do not, your marriage can be nullified. I remember hearing something like this when I was growing up, and how if the marriage was never consumated (that is my possibly poor translation from Spanish), meaning there was no sex, then you could actually get out of it. Also, with all this emphasis in procreation, sounds to me like the Church probably tells us somewhere that married couples should try to procreate. Let the educated Catholics take over from here.
April 23rd, 2005 at 7:46:32 am
<i>Let the educated Catholics take over from here.</i>
Just to preemptively jump to your defense, Bea, lest anyone be misled: I think you were implicitly satirizing yourself, not Steve, as the <i>un</i>educated Catholic… right?
April 23rd, 2005 at 8:26:56 am
Bea,
You are quite right as to the effect of consummation (and your translation from the Spanish is at least as good as the Church’s translation from Latin). I’ve provided the relevant sections from the 1983 Code of Canon Law below (probably much more than you’ve ever wanted to know anyway).
Also, as far as I know, there is an obligation to have sex with your spouse as a general matter. Since marriage is a sign of God’s grace and a reflection of his love and sex is a unique expression of marriage, this seems to make sense.
What I meant was that the Church does not tell us when and where to have sex, so there is no obligation to have sex at any particular moment. Abstinence is OK for good reasons, and before the approval of the rhythm (and later NFP) method it was the only permissible way to avoid conception with any certainty (tell that to Mary). Even this was only allowed for good reasons (economic hardship, health problems, etc.). NFP is, I believe, supposed to be just an extension of this. If my wife and I can abstain from sex for 4 years so that we don’t get pregnant, why can’t we just abstain for the time around ovulation?
And yes, the Church is big on procreation. If you think about all the symbolism tied up in the affair (marriage/sex–God’s love, creation–procreation, etc) its a really beautiful idea. Which is why the abstention methods are only supposed to be used with good cause.
Not sure if that all made sense, as its rather late.
Peace
—
Can. 1061 ß1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.
Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.
April 23rd, 2005 at 8:32:44 am
Yes, part of whether a marriage is actually valid or not involves whether it is consumated. In fact if you don’t consumate the marriage that is easy grounds for an annulment. This is actually a tradition that is in many many cultures throughout history.
As for the cult of Mary, I think that some people treat her as overly important, but I also think that Protestants don’t treat her importantly enough. I think however that official Catholic teaching on her however is just fine. She is probably the most important female in history, other than maybe Eve, but as the mother of Christ I would say she is more important. And I think as such putting her on equal, or higher footing than the Saints is justified. Obviously Jesus is higher, Mary should be honored but not worshipped. But unfortunately the line gets blurred, not out of bad intentions but out of overzealousness. But in alot of those cultures mothers are allready revered and so Mary is easy for them to make a connection with.
As for birth control, the best I can do is say that the reason it is considered wrong is that it is actually messing with the conception itself, where as NFP revolves around using God’s creation of fertile and infertile periods. Yes I understand that this can be construed as natural/unnatural argument, but I don’t think its that so much as taking action against contraception. I wish I could give a clearer impression.
April 23rd, 2005 at 9:11:50 am
Sorry, the Bible has very little to say about Mary. What we do know is that she gave birth to Christ through a miracle of seedless conception, and that she (and her husband) stuck with it despite the social hardships and judgment that entailed. She apparently succeeded in raising Yeshua and his brother(s) (and sisters?) very well, so that also is commendable. However, there are a lot of examples of obedient, admirable, and commendable people in the Bible (Abraham, David, the prophets, Job, Paul, Timothy, and so on), and I don’t see anything that justifies a unique and special status for Mary. That she gave birth to Jesus is reason to praise God, not Mary.
April 23rd, 2005 at 9:44:36 am
You just never get it do you Andrew? No one is talking about praising or worshiping Mary, just honoring her. And people say Catholics are putting down women. Here is the most important woman in the Bible. A woman who allowed God to perform an amazing miracle with her, despite everything that would go along with it. And she was one of his most devoted followers, she was in fact with the Apostles in the looked room when Jesus first appeared to them. She is an example to us all and proof that men and women play key roles in God’s plan of salvation.
But fine, you don’t want to accept the importance of Mary, no one is asking you too. Last time I checked you weren’t Catholic. Perhaps you should spend more time working on your own faith then denigrating that of others.
Of course Jesus is the most Holy and the one worthy of worship. But that doesn’t mean you can’t also honor and respect the contributions of holy men and women like Mary. Its not my fault you can’t see how these people only contribute to our understanding and appreciation of God’s grand plan. Its not my fault you are so narrow minded that your idea of Christian charity is to jump into a conversation between people trying to understand each others position with attacks and denigration. Try showing a little respect and try keeping your loud and obnoxious mouth out of decent conversations just once.
April 23rd, 2005 at 11:53:31 am
No one is talking about praising or worshiping Mary, just honoring her.
I thought I just explained that people are worshipping and praising her, and are falling all over her and in some instances paying more attention to her than to Christ. Colombia has a national holiday for Mary! Oh and people actually honor her on the holiday, not like most American holidays which just mean a day off. David, you would have a field day in Colombia :)
And yes, I was reffering to myself as the uneducated Catholic. I am, after all, the one asking all the Catholic questions :)
April 23rd, 2005 at 12:59:16 pm
David, your attack on Andrew seems unjustified — I fail to see how he’s being either loud or obnoxious in this case. He might be loud and obnoxious generally :) but that doesn’t mean he should be condemned for stating his opinion when he’s NOT being loud or obnoxious. I also don’t see how he’s attacking or denigrating anyone. In this case, he just disagrees with you. Again, this seems to me like an example of your hypersensitivity on Catholic-related issues, combined perhaps with your animosity toward Andrew (or perhaps I should see, your animosity toward Andrew’s comments, seeing as how you’ve never met Andrew, and I hold out hope that you two will get along splendidly at the wedding :).
Regardless, I don’t see how anything he has said on this thread justifies asking him to exit stage right from the conversation altogther. Also, as Andrew has pointed out, the fact that he’s Catholic doesn’t mean he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s done a lot of reading and knows more about Catholicism than a lot of Catholics. Being Catholic shouldn’t be a litmus test for participating in a discussion of Catholicism, any more than being Muslim should be a litmus test for talking about Islam or being American should be a litmus test for talking about American politics, etc. Knowing what the hell you’re talking about might be a good litmus test, but Andrew passes that test, even if you strongly disagree with his interpretations and thoughts.
April 23rd, 2005 at 1:45:49 pm
I won’t deny that there are probably plenty of examples of inappropriate “Mary worship” especially in places where proper catechesis is frequently lacking (for any one of a number of reasons). However, a couple of (fairly uneducated) points on the place of Mary in Catholic thought.
1. The term worship has a number of different senses. Sometimes it is used to refer to praise and adoration of the divine and other times it has a much broader meaning, e.g. “hero worship”. Understood properly (by those doing the “worshiping), worship of Mary (and other saints) falls much closer to this second sense (which is probably more consistent with the etymology of the word, but I’ll spare you the details of that, at least).
2. In Catholic litanies and prayers there is a clear distinction addressing Christ and addressing the saints. We ask Christ (and the Father) to “hear our prayer” and to “have mercy on us”, whereas we merely ask Mary and the saints to “pray for us”. This is not all that different than my asking one of you to pray for me, except that we Catholics believe that the saints, and particularly Mary, are pretty tight with God. This alone seems a pretty weak justification theologically (at least to me, but I probably don’t understand it very well anyway), but combined with the next couple of points it makes more sense.
3. Saints are generally associated with particular characteristics and areas of life. Their goodness reflects how God’s providence works in particular ways and at particular times in our lives. Mary’s virtues as mother and caregiver probably tend to transcend time and place much more than the virtues of other saints. By remembering and petitioning the saints in our prayers, we focus not only on virtuous ways of living, but on the way God works in the world.
4. This might be a bit out there, so if someone wants to correct/chastize me for bad theology, go ahead (at least, as of right now, there is no prefect for the CDF, so I probably won’t get censured). Closely related to #3, I think Mary (and the other saints) can be seen as images (icons) of particular expressions of God’s love and presence. Perhaps when we “worship” Mary (in sense #2) we actually “worship” God (in sense #1) at the same time. Since it is God’s grace that gives virtue to the saints, and not their own worth, the life of a saint reflects that grace, similar to how a cross or a crucifix reflects the transforming grace of the crucifixion. I realize that many protestants also take issue with the use/veneration of sacred images, but that’s a topic for another time (since (1) its only marginally related and (2) I actually know something about the theology of icons, and I believe there is a rule against talking about things you know about on the internet).
Additionaly, on Brendan’s point about civility in discussion, there is a sense in which we are all images of God, since we are created by him. While I don’t in any way propose that we should worship each other, I think there might be something to the whole notion of charity and civility.
I think that’s about all I wanted to say. However, it’s been a few minutes since I started writing this so I can’t really remember.
Peace
April 23rd, 2005 at 3:18:20 pm
I am going to defens my boyfriend now.
You just never get it do you Andrew? No one is talking about praising or worshiping Mary, just honoring her.
I already explained that many people all over the world are praising and worshipping Mary, not just honoring her. Fine by me generally, and as Steve Judge explains, we usually ask Mary and the saints to put in a good word for us before God. We also have guardian Angels, to help us out. Andrew also thinks the guardian Angel is a bunchof hooey, and I understand why, but I refuse to let go of my guardian Angel :) I am one of those Cult of Mary types. Growing up, the first prayer I learned was the guardian Angel prayer, along with every other kid in Colombia (Hi Brendan). I still do my prayer every morning and every night, because it is a tradition I cannot shake off, however Biblically and metaphysically impossible a guardian Angel might be. I can assure you, David, that the Cult of Mary is alive and well, even if you do not want to recognize it. I would link to articles to back up my point, but they would probably be in Spanish, so only Sean and me would know what I was talking about :) Mary is an important woman in the Bible, and I do not think Andrew would deny that. There are other important women, like Ruth and Esther, and there many men and women who are equally important.
And people say Catholics are putting down women.
Are you implying Andrew puts women down? Care to back that up, as you would say? That he thinks the Cult of Mary gets a little out of hand and has no Biblical basis is something we can argue about, but that does not mean he is putting Mary, or women, down. Andrew holds women and motherhood in very high regard. I know this because he is my boyfriend, and I would not be dating a guy who did not value women and motherhood.
But fine, you don’t want to accept the importance of Mary, no one is asking you too. Last time I checked you weren’t Catholic. Perhaps you should spend more time working on your own faith then denigrating that of others.
Andrew accepts the importance on Mary, he just thinks the Cult of Mary goes a little too far. Last time I checked, Andrew is not Catholic, but he knows what he is talking about, and that makes him qualified to pitch into the discussion.
Its not my fault you can’t see how these people only contribute to our understanding and appreciation of God’s grand plan. Its not my fault you are so narrow minded that your idea of Christian charity is to jump into a conversation between people trying to understand each others position with attacks and denigration. Try showing a little respect and try keeping your loud and obnoxious mouth out of decent conversations just once.
It it also not your fault that you cannot get past your annoyance with Andrew and you Catholic sensitivities and just refute Andrew’s comments and not Andrew’s character? You can start by doing both, not just the latter. Andrew knows a lot about scripture. I have learned a lot from him in this matter, because my Catholic upbringing did not emphazise learning from scripture but learning from the priest and other Catholic leaders. Andrew full well understands how the people from the Bible contribute to our understanding of God. You are taking is comments about the Cult of Mary and extrapolating that he then must not care about the other men and women of the Bible, when he explicitly tells us that However, there are a lot of examples of obedient, admirable, and commendable people in the Bible (Abraham, David, the prophets, Job, Paul, Timothy, and so on). Andrew is not jumping in to attack and denigrate Mary, he just said (he does not) see anything that justifies a unique and special status for Mary, meaning special status above all those other prominent men and women in the Bible. All Andrew is saying, is Mary is not above Moses or Abraham or any of those guys, and while you might disagree, how that is denigrating Mary is beyond me.
April 23rd, 2005 at 4:53:31 pm
<i>No one is talking about praising or worshiping Mary, just honoring her.</i>
I thought I just explained that people <i>are</i> worshipping and praising her, and are falling all over her and in some instances paying more attention to her than to Christ. Colombia has a national holiday for Mary! Oh and people actually honor her on the holiday, not like most American holidays which just mean a day off. David, you would have a field day in Colombia :)
And yes, I was reffering to <i>myself</i> as the uneducated Catholic. I am, after all, the one asking all the Catholic questions :)
April 23rd, 2005 at 5:59:16 pm
David, your attack on Andrew seems unjustified — I fail to see how he’s being either loud or obnoxious in this case. He might be loud and obnoxious generally :) but that doesn’t mean he should be condemned for stating his opinion when he’s NOT being loud or obnoxious. I also don’t see how he’s attacking or denigrating anyone. In this case, he just disagrees with you. Again, this seems to me like an example of your hypersensitivity on Catholic-related issues, combined perhaps with your animosity toward Andrew (or perhaps I should see, your animosity toward Andrew’s comments, seeing as how you’ve never met Andrew, and I hold out hope that you two will get along splendidly at the wedding :).
Regardless, I don’t see how anything he has said on this thread justifies asking him to exit stage right from the conversation altogther. Also, as Andrew has pointed out, the fact that he’s Catholic doesn’t mean he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s done a lot of reading and knows more about Catholicism than a lot of Catholics. Being Catholic shouldn’t be a litmus test for participating in a discussion of Catholicism, any more than being Muslim should be a litmus test for talking about Islam or being American should be a litmus test for talking about American politics, etc. Knowing what the hell you’re talking about might be a good litmus test, but Andrew passes that test, even if you strongly disagree with his interpretations and thoughts.
April 23rd, 2005 at 6:45:49 pm
I won’t deny that there are probably plenty of examples of inappropriate “Mary worship” especially in places where proper catechesis is frequently lacking (for any one of a number of reasons). However, a couple of (fairly uneducated) points on the place of Mary in Catholic thought.
1. The term worship has a number of different senses. Sometimes it is used to refer to praise and adoration of the divine and other times it has a much broader meaning, e.g. “hero worship”. Understood properly (by those doing the “worshiping), worship of Mary (and other saints) falls much closer to this second sense (which is probably more consistent with the etymology of the word, but I’ll spare you the details of that, at least).
2. In Catholic litanies and prayers there is a clear distinction addressing Christ and addressing the saints. We ask Christ (and the Father) to “hear our prayer” and to “have mercy on us”, whereas we merely ask Mary and the saints to “pray for us”. This is not all that different than my asking one of you to pray for me, except that we Catholics believe that the saints, and particularly Mary, are pretty tight with God. This alone seems a pretty weak justification theologically (at least to me, but I probably don’t understand it very well anyway), but combined with the next couple of points it makes more sense.
3. Saints are generally associated with particular characteristics and areas of life. Their goodness reflects how God’s providence works in particular ways and at particular times in our lives. Mary’s virtues as mother and caregiver probably tend to transcend time and place much more than the virtues of other saints. By remembering and petitioning the saints in our prayers, we focus not only on virtuous ways of living, but on the way God works in the world.
4. This might be a bit out there, so if someone wants to correct/chastize me for bad theology, go ahead (at least, as of right now, there is no prefect for the CDF, so I probably won’t get censured). Closely related to #3, I think Mary (and the other saints) can be seen as images (icons) of particular expressions of God’s love and presence. Perhaps when we “worship” Mary (in sense #2) we actually “worship” God (in sense #1) at the same time. Since it is God’s grace that gives virtue to the saints, and not their own worth, the life of a saint reflects that grace, similar to how a cross or a crucifix reflects the transforming grace of the crucifixion. I realize that many protestants also take issue with the use/veneration of sacred images, but that’s a topic for another time (since (1) its only marginally related and (2) I actually know something about the theology of icons, and I believe there is a rule against talking about things you know about on the internet).
Additionaly, on Brendan’s point about civility in discussion, there is a sense in which we are all images of God, since we are created by him. While I don’t in any way propose that we should worship each other, I think there might be something to the whole notion of charity and civility.
I think that’s about all I wanted to say. However, it’s been a few minutes since I started writing this so I can’t really remember.
Peace
April 23rd, 2005 at 7:05:17 pm
Bea, first all of my initial comments about Mary and her place were addressed at Andrew’s criticism of the Catholic Church’s position on Mary and the Cult of Mary. I readily acknowledge that some poeple may be taking it to far, and even groups, but the Church itself has never held her to be an object of worship.
As for my frustration and animosity towards Andrew in this case, it probably has to do with his ability to come in to a discussion and declare in as clear way as possible what the actual truth is, even though its actually just what he believes, and how wrong we all are who disagree with him. Perhaps this particular case isn’t as extreme as others, but I am tired of it happening again and again.
Certainly i disagree with you and Brendna on many of these issues we are discussing but neither of you hold out your view of things to be absolute truth either. In fact both of you have said what you think and explained what you think in addition to saying “Is there something I’m missing” or “can somebody please explain why the church teaches this”.
Time after time Andrew (and a few others) manage to turn what is in most cases a productive and interesting discussion of positions in to some kind of ideological war. And yes I understand we all sometimes write things in ways which might not be the most clear or non-inflamatory, but it is the consistent occurance of such behavior that has come to frustrate me so much.
April 23rd, 2005 at 7:06:46 pm
Brendan, I don’t anticipate any problems of at the very least detente at your wedding. I don’t think any of us would risk incurring the righteous wrath of Becky by stepping out of line.
April 23rd, 2005 at 7:56:53 pm
David, more than one commenter has related to me outside this blog their observation that the friction between the two of us almost certainly arises out of the fact that when we are discussing issues, we are both very sure of our own positions and our writing reflects that. In my case, this is certainly true: I believe in strong and forceful arguments, and I usually have the knowledge to string together those kinds of arguments. That alone ruffles feathers, but since I am also thick-skinned, I rarely back down once challenged, and that resilience also annoys. And since I’m usually right and can be borderline cocky, that just pours gasoline on the whole thing. So yes, David, I understand well why people get frustrated on here when they are in disagreement with me.
What you need to realize, though, is you are the same way in many ways. You also hold strong positions and take strong stands in your arguments. The problem is you’re more thin-skinned and sensitive, so when people counter your arguments and poke holes in them, you go ballistic. You seriously need to work on that, IMO.
As far as the topic of Mary goes, I think Brendan’s observation was spot-on. I have nothing more to say about it. We’re obviously not going to agree about Mary’s role in the Catholic Church, and that’s fine with me. I’ve already noted that my disagreements about issues such as Mary and birth control aren’t what keep me from becoming a Catholic, and I wouldn’t change my position on these issues if I did become a Catholic, so you might as well stick to the merits and stop attacking me as an “obnoxious” intruder. And there’s nothing ideological about this discussion–you either hold one position or you hold the other. In any case, the tolerance/borderline encouragement the Catholic Church has had for the cult of Mary is disturbing to me, that’s all I was saying.
April 23rd, 2005 at 8:18:20 pm
I am going to defens my boyfriend now.
<i>You just never get it do you Andrew? No one is talking about praising or worshiping Mary, just honoring her.</i>
I already explained that many people all over the world are praising and worshipping Mary, not just honoring her. Fine by me generally, and as Steve Judge explains, we usually ask Mary and the saints to put in a good word for us before God. We also have guardian Angels, to help us out. Andrew also thinks the guardian Angel is a bunchof hooey, and I understand why, but I refuse to let go of my guardian Angel :) I am one of those Cult of Mary types. Growing up, the first prayer I learned was the guardian Angel prayer, along with every other kid in Colombia (Hi Brendan). I still do my prayer every morning and every night, because it is a tradition I cannot shake off, however Biblically and metaphysically impossible a guardian Angel might be. I can assure you, David, that the Cult of Mary is alive and well, even if you do not want to recognize it. I would link to articles to back up my point, but they would probably be in Spanish, so only Sean and me would know what I was talking about :) Mary is an important woman in the Bible, and I do not think Andrew would deny that. There are other important women, like Ruth and Esther, and there many men and women who are equally important.
<i>And people say Catholics are putting down women.</i>
Are you implying Andrew puts women down? Care to back that up, as you would say? That he thinks the Cult of Mary gets a little out of hand and has no Biblical basis is something we can argue about, but that does not mean he is putting Mary, or women, down. Andrew holds women and motherhood in very high regard. I know this because he is my boyfriend, and I would not be dating a guy who did not value women and motherhood.
<i>But fine, you don’t want to accept the importance of Mary, no one is asking you too. Last time I checked you weren’t Catholic. Perhaps you should spend more time working on your own faith then denigrating that of others.</i>
Andrew accepts the importance on Mary, he just thinks the Cult of Mary goes a little too far. Last time I checked, Andrew is not Catholic, but he knows what he is talking about, and that makes him qualified to pitch into the discussion.
<i>Its not my fault you can’t see how these people only contribute to our understanding and appreciation of God’s grand plan. Its not my fault you are so narrow minded that your idea of Christian charity is to jump into a conversation between people trying to understand each others position with attacks and denigration. Try showing a little respect and try keeping your loud and obnoxious mouth out of decent conversations just once.</i>
It it also not your fault that you cannot get past your annoyance with Andrew and you Catholic sensitivities and just refute Andrew’s comments and not Andrew’s character? You can start by doing both, not just the latter. Andrew knows a lot about scripture. I have learned a lot from him in this matter, because my Catholic upbringing did not emphazise learning from scripture but learning from the priest and other Catholic leaders. Andrew full well understands how the people from the Bible contribute to our understanding of God. You are taking is comments about the Cult of Mary and extrapolating that he then must not care about the other men and women of the Bible, when he explicitly tells us that <i>However, there are a lot of examples of obedient, admirable, and commendable people in the Bible (Abraham, David, the prophets, Job, Paul, Timothy, and so on)</i>. Andrew is not jumping in to attack and denigrate Mary, he just said <i>(he does not) see anything that justifies a unique and special status for Mary</i>, meaning special status above all those other prominent men and women in the Bible. All Andrew is saying, is Mary is not above Moses or Abraham or any of those guys, and while you might disagree, how that is denigrating Mary is beyond me.
April 23rd, 2005 at 8:33:32 pm
Andrew should change his name to ‘Goliath’. That would make the biblical wars much more fun to watch.
April 23rd, 2005 at 8:45:16 pm
And since I’m usually right and can be borderline cocky
LOL! But you repeat yourself :)
April 23rd, 2005 at 10:22:25 pm
For what it’s worth, Andrew, I actually find arguing with you on this blog less frustrating than arguing with a number of the other commenters. Then again, I’m fairly sure a number of people here find arguing with me frustrating, even though we have rather different argumentative approaches. :) While you have a tendency to state things as forcefully as you can, I’m rather more likely to include phrases “it would appear”, “this tends to suggest”, “as I see it”, and the like. From my own experience, making arguments with qualifying clauses doesn’t necessarily weaken one’s stance.
April 23rd, 2005 at 10:48:09 pm
I hear what you’re saying Mike, but according to most grammar guides I have read, that’s bad writing, and I don’t particularly care for it either. I tend to reserve using those kinds of filler phrases for when I really am discussing an issue in which I am not particularly strong. So for instance, if we’re talking biogenetics, you’ll see a lot of, “Well I think I remember reading” and “I would think that this means”, etc. But if we’re talking about Social Security or religion, sorry, I’m not going to weaken my writing just so guys like David don’t have an ulcer because they disagree with me.
April 24th, 2005 at 12:05:17 am
Bea, first all of my initial comments about Mary and her place were addressed at Andrew’s criticism of the Catholic Church’s position on Mary and the Cult of Mary. I readily acknowledge that some poeple may be taking it to far, and even groups, but the Church itself has never held her to be an object of worship.
As for my frustration and animosity towards Andrew in this case, it probably has to do with his ability to come in to a discussion and declare in as clear way as possible what the actual truth is, even though its actually just what he believes, and how wrong we all are who disagree with him. Perhaps this particular case isn’t as extreme as others, but I am tired of it happening again and again.
Certainly i disagree with you and Brendna on many of these issues we are discussing but neither of you hold out your view of things to be absolute truth either. In fact both of you have said what you think and explained what you think in addition to saying “Is there something I’m missing” or “can somebody please explain why the church teaches this”.
Time after time Andrew (and a few others) manage to turn what is in most cases a productive and interesting discussion of positions in to some kind of ideological war. And yes I understand we all sometimes write things in ways which might not be the most clear or non-inflamatory, but it is the consistent occurance of such behavior that has come to frustrate me so much.
April 24th, 2005 at 12:06:46 am
Brendan, I don’t anticipate any problems of at the very least detente at your wedding. I don’t think any of us would risk incurring the righteous wrath of Becky by stepping out of line.
April 24th, 2005 at 12:56:53 am
David, more than one commenter has related to me outside this blog their observation that the friction between the two of us almost certainly arises out of the fact that when we are discussing issues, we are both very sure of our own positions and our writing reflects that. In my case, this is certainly true: I believe in strong and forceful arguments, and I usually have the knowledge to string together those kinds of arguments. That alone ruffles feathers, but since I am also thick-skinned, I rarely back down once challenged, and that resilience also annoys. And since I’m usually right and can be borderline cocky, that just pours gasoline on the whole thing. So yes, David, I understand well why people get frustrated on here when they are in disagreement with me.
What you need to realize, though, is you are the same way in many ways. You also hold strong positions and take strong stands in your arguments. The problem is you’re more thin-skinned and sensitive, so when people counter your arguments and poke holes in them, you go ballistic. You seriously need to work on that, IMO.
As far as the topic of Mary goes, I think Brendan’s observation was spot-on. I have nothing more to say about it. We’re obviously not going to agree about Mary’s role in the Catholic Church, and that’s fine with me. I’ve already noted that my disagreements about issues such as Mary and birth control aren’t what keep me from becoming a Catholic, and I wouldn’t change my position on these issues if I <i>did</i> become a Catholic, so you might as well stick to the merits and stop attacking me as an “obnoxious” intruder. And there’s nothing ideological about this discussion–you either hold one position or you hold the other. In any case, the tolerance/borderline encouragement the Catholic Church has had for the cult of Mary is disturbing to me, that’s all I was saying.
April 24th, 2005 at 1:33:32 am
Andrew should change his name to ‘Goliath’. That would make the biblical wars much more fun to watch.
April 24th, 2005 at 1:45:16 am
<i>And since I’m usually right and can be borderline cocky</i>
LOL! But you repeat yourself :)
April 24th, 2005 at 3:22:25 am
For what it’s worth, Andrew, I actually find arguing with you on this blog less frustrating than arguing with a number of the other commenters. Then again, I’m fairly sure a number of people here find arguing with me frustrating, even though we have rather different argumentative approaches. :) While you have a tendency to state things as forcefully as you can, I’m rather more likely to include phrases “it would appear”, “this tends to suggest”, “as I see it”, and the like. From my own experience, making arguments with qualifying clauses doesn’t necessarily weaken one’s stance.
April 24th, 2005 at 3:48:09 am
I hear what you’re saying Mike, but according to most grammar guides I have read, that’s bad writing, and I don’t particularly care for it either. I tend to reserve using those kinds of filler phrases for when I really <i>am</i> discussing an issue in which I am not particularly strong. So for instance, if we’re talking biogenetics, you’ll see a lot of, “Well I think I remember reading” and “I would think that this means”, etc. But if we’re talking about Social Security or religion, sorry, I’m not going to weaken my writing just so guys like David don’t have an ulcer because they disagree with me.
April 24th, 2005 at 1:20:02 pm
I guess that demonstrates a significant difference in our outlook, Andrew: to me, qualifiers aren’t filler, but are phrases included to make the rest of the sentence more precise and factually correct.
April 24th, 2005 at 6:20:02 pm
I guess that demonstrates a significant difference in our outlook, Andrew: to me, qualifiers aren’t filler, but are phrases included to make the rest of the sentence more precise and factually correct.