Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:01, 26 July 2005

Church doctrine and personal theology

I'm reposting my query from the Benedict main page:

Dear all,

I feel somewhat uneasy about a lack of distinction between Ratzinger's personal emphasis and stances as a theologian and his pronouncements as head of the CDF. Not that there is a disagreement, but I don't think it appropriate to e.g. list his condemnation of Boff or of female priests as a personal view. This is why I moved these two to the CDF section. But this might be appropriate for other paragraphs as well, e.g. the Homosexuality paragraph (but needs rephrasing to start with statement, not with critics) or the abortion paragraph.

Also, if anyone has greater knowledge about the theological writing of Ratzinger please post it.

Of course the creation of the subpage makes it more complicated. Maybe we should put in some passage here, distinguishing the two. Str1977 09:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thats fine with me. Though I do apologize if this sub-page put a wrench in anyone's plans, but if yall want to link to the main page in the various passages, thats cool with me. I am mainly just watching the page for vandalism. Zscout370 (talk) 18:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear all again, I moved some stuff over from the main page. It still needs some editing, as some things are now double. I will look into it again, but also feel free to edit and add what you think right. Str1977 20:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Controversial Uganda Study

Dear all,

I am removing the Uganda reference as it is disputed, in the AIDS section, if one looks at the letters responding to the washington post/times? article, it is claimed that the study cited was only done in the Rakai district which accounts for 2% of the population, and is not representative of the general trends in Uganda.

This article should be an encyclopaedic report on what BXVI's theology actually is. The citation by any of us of any outside studies, events, etc. to support or refute his theology represents inherent impartiality. Let us report what the theology is, pure and simple, and let the readers decide for themselves. Reports and studies, whether flawed or not, reference to shore up theology, can be better placed on an article about contraception/abstinence, etc. Misplaced Pages is abused when treated as a political vehicle. If BXVI can be quoted, directly, as saying that the Uganda study supports Church teaching on contraception/chastity, let us cite that - as a quote, not ipse dixit.

Condoms and Moral and Ecclesiastical Law

The BBC tried questioning Primate Cormac Murphy O'Connor before his journey to demonstrate at Edinburgh recently , about the Catholic church's attitude to prevention of Aids through the greater use of Condoms His unsatisfactory , nigh evasive , answers provoke a further questioning .

Humanae Vitae states that no member of the church can possibly deny that the church is competent in her magisterium to interpret natural moral law. The encyclical further states that God has wisely ordered laws of nature . However ,as we all know , there is a new biological "law" of infectivity which states that human bodily intercourse can of itself be a death sentence . God's law previous to this new law of cause and effect might have or did appear to be wisely ordained , but the situation now is completely ovetaken by what presumably (in inversion of God ) would be classed as a 'devilish' law but which medically is recognised as being an infective human immuno-deficiency syndrome .

We know that in fact this infectivity is not limited to humans . We know that the result of the infectivity is mortal destruction , irrespective of morality or belief , or, indeed, species . We know that the church's response thus far is to solely countenance abstention from intercourse between humans as solution , whereas we know that the simplest of protective plastic film is enough to protect life ,already in existence ,from this mortal danger .

Here we have a plain contradiction in the natural law trumpeted under the aegis of the Magisterium by Humanae Vitae and ,doubtless, throughout this faith's teaching . The natural law has changed ,however a faith may wish to deny this - the mortality is present and its virulence exceeds any inverse of God's will (such as the fallen Angel's name earlier mentioned describes-but which we should not use except in this particular theological analysis ).

The belief in Hum. V. is that each man through the exercise of his conjugality is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator . Indeed so, and irrefutably , the design is subject now to AIDS (whether through God's will or not is in comparison a theological as opposed to real discourse) . The church -which has always insisted on the inverse of God -the unrepeatable name , is well-placed to therefore recognise that a duality exists now within natural law .

However it appears that the members of the church Hierarchy are in natural and hence , from the above, moral confusion . As natural law has changed and the duality has entered within the very chain of ministry that is conjugality , we see that there is a complete up-ending of the socio-moral order of society . Death is overtaking wide sections of humanity , simply because of their natural adherence to the previous natural order . Marriage is no bar to infectivity , intention is no bar . The Primate's only advice is towards abstinence by all from the most instinctual natural functions of the body , which is an equal up-ending of the natural law , and one which we see financially bankrupting the church following the human failure of its own ecclesiastics even with their magnificent support system of the Mother Church, providing them with nourishment and care to the grave.

It is not here the intention to simply point to hypocrisy , because this will not further understanding or provide advance. Nevertheless I have to relate this central subject of world concern back to a similar moral problem , that implicated by the teachings of romans 3,8 . This is necessary because the central argument of humanae vitae rests upon the same magisterial or divine law tenets. These state that whilst a lesser evil may be tolerated to prevent a greater evil , that yet , evil shall never be chosen in order to promote a good . HV states though it is sometimes lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good ,"it is never lawful even for the gravest reasons , to do evil that good may come of it ,-in other words to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order...even though the intention is to protect ... an individual .. or society in general .

Laudable injunctions, which I note at length throughout the relevant pages , were broken by Pope Pius XII, Hitler's Pope and his predecessor Pope PIus XII . That is a subject of dispute here on wikipedia and elsewhere . It appears to many historians that indeed the Catholic Church as led at the time , chose actively (in 1932 and 1933 ) to consider Nazism a lesser evil than Communism and was therefore culpable in upending the moral order of society .

The church , in so far as it can operate to defend itself from the accusations and the historical realities (through apologists ) should now recognise that just as it chose then to avail of the lesser evil policy , now it should see the damage considered resultant upon the use of protective condoms to marital structure and promiscuity and actual conception to be clearly the lesser evil given that God (let us use the word) has now inserted the dualism of death into this conjugal ministry of life .

(Ye who would cavil at my use of these pages to raise these issues, as those who cavil at the additions to the historical pages, should deeply consider the morality of your complaints before carping at these words...) FAMEKEEPER SOMETIME SOMEDAY

FK, those that cavil are those wikipedians that don't consider themselves above the (wiki) law. But I digress. Apart from the fact that your evaluation of the Pius XII situation is wrong, now you are also inconsistent: Only a few lines above this post you called on BXVI to go to the UN make what you call "the Law" a.k.a. as the principle "don't do evil to achieve good", to make this principle international binding law. I considered this simplistic, unrealistic and unpractical. But now, in this post, you are calling on the same BXVI to do the complete opposite, namely to declare an evil, though a lesser evil, good. Yes, I agree using condoms are a lesser evil than spreading AIDS and IMHO the late and the current Pope agree. But it's still evil, according to Catholic morality - and I hope you can muster enough tolerance to at least let us be and follow our consciences.

Very confusing is your remark that "natural law has changed" - no, natural law has not changed, it cannot change, otherwise it wouldn't be natural law. And natural law doesn't change because of the appearance or spreading of a disease. There were other STD here before anyone could spell AIDS.

However, for those you seriously consider the Pope responsible for the spreading of this pandemia, please read the following, non-Catholic articles:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA993.htm

http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/7406.shtml

Str1977 20:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Sir , you have reverted a post which was a reply to your question . You add that it is factually inaccurate . Please specify the inaccuracies , and justify your statement that it was. Famekeeper 15:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

FK,

1) your post was not a reply to my previous post ("...those that cavil"). There was no question that needed an answer and you did not touch upon any of the issues I referred to in this post or related to the section title. Hence, your post was 'off-topic.

2) your posted exactly the same stuff (save for a introductory paragraph) over at Ludwig Kaas. Hence your post is a double post.

3) your claims about Hitler being "recommended as a good in himself" and about Pius XI and Pacelli's "anti-semitism" are unsubstantiated and clearly untrue. Hence your post is factually inaccurate.

4) again you're using a wiki talk page of an unrelated entry as a soapbox to spread your message. At this law-abiding wikipedians (not just me) cavil. Hence your post is mis-use of talk page.

I hope that's enough. Str1977 16:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)