tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post8570697624744438118..comments2024-03-23T12:05:23.537-05:00Comments on The Wild Reed: Why We GatheredMichael J. Baylyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-51877553498458814342007-12-08T14:04:00.000-06:002007-12-08T14:04:00.000-06:00Hi Gay Species,Thanks for your points of clarifica...Hi Gay Species,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your points of clarification. I always appreciate your informed and articulate contributions to <EM>The Wild Reed</EM>.<BR/><BR/>Where you once Catholic? I'm curious as you have a wealth of knowledge about the Church and its history. If you were once Catholic, what led to your moving away from the Church? If you've never been Catholic, how and why did you come to be so knowledgeable about Catholicism? <BR/><BR/>Anyway, feel free to respond to these questions here, or e-mail me at mbayly1965@yahoo.com.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-78023403728422749172007-12-08T13:38:00.000-06:002007-12-08T13:38:00.000-06:00"Cardinal" prefaces the surname, as in John Henry ..."Cardinal" prefaces the surname, as in John Henry Cardinal Newman. You properly cite Newman's great essay "On Consulting the Faithful," wherein the consensus of the faithful in the <I>sensus fidelium </I> is understood as an organic element of the faith. But Newman, no intellectual slouch, also appeals to the Vincentian Canon in his book, "On Development of Christian Doctrine:" <B>That which has been always believed, by everyone, everywhere.</B> In Newman's mind, the Church cannot repudiate doctrinal stances but may develop doctrine as the light of faith expands the <I>sensus fidelium.</I><BR/><BR/>Within these poles of standards, one can distinguish the Church's own standards in its hierarchical order of teaching. No moral behavior has been doctrinally established <I>de fide.</I> Thus, subjects such as the Trinity, Homouosuia, Incarnation, Resurrection, etc., which are <I> de fide</I> orthodox pronouncements of requisite faith are distinct from the Church's moral teachings, in that none have been solemnly defined by any council -- the historical venue of such pronouncements. Therefore, homosexuality, contraception, abortion, etc., while conforming to the Vincentian Canon and therefore integral to the <I>sensus fidelium</I> are not <I>de fide</I>, and subject to the development Newman espouses.<BR/><BR/>Recently, Rome seems to have latched onto the "Magisterium" or the Church's Teaching Office as definitive, but definitive of what? The Church presumably proposes, some propositions infallibly proclaimed <I>de fide,</I> while others merely integrated into its pastoral recommendations. Clearly, these two concepts, orthodoxy and orthopraxy, while not disjunctive, nor are they synonymous, either. Only beliefs, no practices, have achieved a <I>de fide sensus fidelium.</I> <BR/><BR/>In fact, the Church's moral theology is largely false, built on a misreading of Aquinas of Aristotle's physics and ethics, where Aquinas insists that human action (instrumental/practical reasoning) is like nature in having only one FINAL END (theoreticaly/deductive reasoning).<BR/><BR/>This significant and erroneous conflation of natural and human ends distorts and perverts Aristotle's distinctions between theoretical(Physics) and practice (Ethical) "ends." But this grievous error, called by the Church its Natural Law Theory, is dead wrong. Humans do indeed act for "ends," and not necessarily for any single final end. But Nature does not. This fallacy was exposed by David Hume in 1740, and Newman accepted his Scottish predecessor's is/ought divide as repudiating the Church's Thomistic natural law theory. G. E. Moore's <I>Principia Ethica</I> in the early 1900s reiterated the error in considerable detail as an error, and no intelligent individual continues to conflate these issues -- except Rome and some of it docile theologians. Both homosexuality and contraception were most recently banned by the reasoning of Thomistic Natural Law, which claims "sperm and eggs" have the same natural end as human coitus -- and only the same function. Thus, to deviate from this single "end" is immoral, claims the Church. Bull Puck.<BR/><BR/>Vaginae and Penises serve dual functions minimally, one sexual, another execretory. Which function does the Church demand we humans surrender, since the "end of a penis" is only one final end in their thinking? When HV included "unitive love" as well as "procreation" for coitus, <I>it</I> admits coitus serves more than one final end. But that violates the Church's own thinking.<BR/><BR/>To step back and witness the moral harms the Church inflicts on its members by its recalcitrance in not forfeiting the obvious errors of its Natural Law teaching is itself immensely immoral, inasmuch as it precludes the use of condoms for preventing the spread of pandemics. The Church is no longer merely irrelevant, it is fostering a crime against humanity no less significant that Nazi Germany.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-37789687648356041482007-12-06T23:25:00.000-06:002007-12-06T23:25:00.000-06:00Hi Timothy,Thanks for stopping by and leaving a co...Hi Timothy,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment.<BR/><BR/>I can see how "priestly celibacy" can be considered a "discipline," but surely it's a "teaching" of the church as well.<BR/><BR/>Are there not teachings associated with <EM>all</EM> of the various examples of change listed in this post? For example, the church teaches that only males can be priests.<BR/><BR/>Who gets to designate teachings as "dogmas," "doctrines," or just plain "teachings"? <BR/><BR/>When is a teaching considered a doctrine or a dogma and thus supposedly unchangeable?<BR/><BR/>Is clarification of a doctrine or dogma considered change? What about the historical development of understanding leading up to the declaration of a doctrine or dogma?<BR/><BR/>I take it that you agree that the church's teaching on homosexuality is just that, a "teaching" and not a dogma or doctrine? After all, the church doesn't talk about the "church doctrine on homosexuality" or the "church dogma on homosexuality," but rather the "church <EM>teaching</EM> on homosexuality."<BR/><BR/>Do you believe church teaching on homosexuality can change? If not, why not?<BR/><BR/>Can <EM>any</EM> teachings of the church change?<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-80761665839026014562007-12-06T22:21:00.000-06:002007-12-06T22:21:00.000-06:00>"It is false to say that the church’s teaching on...>"It is false to say that the church’s teaching on homosexuality cannot change. Teachings and dogmas of the Church can and have changed over the centuries."<BR/><BR/>No dogma or doctrine has ever changed in the history of the Church. Disciplines, such as priestly celibacy, can change as they are not doctrine or dogma.<BR/><BR/>None of the examles you cited constitute dogma, so yes they all could change<BR/><BR/>God bless...Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06992217665437521336noreply@blogger.com