Posted on 06/21/2013 4:07:10 AM PDT by markomalley
What about Christians who do not believe contraception is a “mortal” sin?
No “full knowledge”?
Did you enjoy it?
Yes, very much. All the characters we excellent, except the annoying lawyer guy. I would have liked to have the affair of the landlord and Lady Caroline wrapped up more completely, though. It was as if the author realized it was time to mail the manuscript to the publisher and suddenly said, “The End!”
It is even more unfortunate that many people don’t even look at what God has revealed through nature because if they did certain truths would become known to them without even having to pick up a Bible or Catechism. But people look to themselves for all knowledge and all discernment and embrace the twin follies of pride and ignorance.
God makes Himself and His commandments known to us in many ways with the law He has written upon our hearts. But too many people brush that still small voice aside to let in the din of noise produced by our attraction to sin.
Glad you enjoyed it!
You’ll come to like the annoying attorney in the movie.
Also, the castle where the movie is filmed is the same castle where the author wrote the book during the month of April, not sure of the year.
:-)
It will be neat to see that actual setting. If the lawyer is played by Michael Kitchen, I will for sure like him ;-).
No, Alfred Molina plays the attormey. He’s very good, though. The exploding bathtub scene is hilarious.
Michael Kitchen (adorable!) plays the landlord.
Joan Plowright is Mrs. Fisher - she’s perfect!
Michael Kitchen is a cutie-pie. I’ve seen all the “Foyle’s War” episodes at least twice! But Alfred Molina is bien chulito, too ...
Maybe I’ll watch it tomorrow morning while my husband is at a race. The little boys can play a computer game, and the girls will say, “Ugh, what’s this?” but end up watching the whole thing anyway.
I’m betting that the girls will like it.
And the costumes - lol! The fashions of the twenties, well, at least they were probably comfortable!
The girls like Costume Drama more than they care to admit. Have you seen “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”? Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, and a setting in India ... my absolute ideal!
No! Never even heard of it!
Sounds beautiful - I’ll take that as a recommendation and watch it asap!
(Please let me know what the girls think of Rose’s greenish hat that she wears at the castle! Lol! It’s hideous!!!)
Perhaps I'm not understanding you clearly enough...
All dissenting view is mindless relativism? Tell that to [some of] the Jesuits perhaps? Here's John F. Kavanaugh in an America magazine (the Jesuit's own publication) article from Dec.15, 2008 Abortion Absolutists; though he himself says he hold the view that life begins at conception, also asks,
"Do you think there might be people of good faith and conscience who think a human life does not begin until implantation? If there are, are you proposing that we impose our position on them?. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implantation_%28human_embryo%29
Going back further, please recall Avery Dulles (later made Cardinal by John Paul II in 2001) wrote of difficulty concerning Humanae Vitae near to the time of it's publication. From his first paragraph he writes guardedly, but does touch upon possibility that the teaching not be fully without without flaw...or beyond possibility of later development;
As every thinking Catholic is aware, the present polarization of opinion regarding the encyclical Human Ufe has created a dangerous situation in the church. Enthusiastic proponents of the papal position, using repressive measures in order to enforce a consensus, might unwittingly detonate a widespread revolt among intellectual Catholics, both clerical and lay. On the other hand, opponents of the encyclical, by speaking in an intemperate way, might undermine the respect that ought to be given to the teaching office in the church. In the long run, both these courses of action would produce harmful effects.In the September, 1968, issue of Stimmen der Zeit, Karl Rahner, probably the most prestigious Catholic theologian of our day, has published some reflections that may well point a way out of the present impasse. Instead of taking a position for or against the substantive doctrine of Human Life, he addresses himself to the question of how the various groups within the church should conduct themselves in view of the present undeniable diversity of opinion. In a brief and selective summary such as this, one can only suggest a few of Rahner’s incisive observations.
In the first place, Rahner points out that Human Life cannot reasonably be considered irreformable doctrine. But this does not mean that it may be ignored. Since Catholics believe that the magisterium ordinarily operates under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the presumption should be in favor of the Pope’s declaration. Any such presumption, however, must also allow of the possibility that a Catholic can arrive at a carefully formed and critically tested conviction that in a given case the fallible magisterium has in fact erred. Nobody today denies that there are cases in which official, reformable teaching of the Holy See has in fact been erroneous. As examples, Rahner cites the views of Gregory XVI and Pius IX on liberal democracy, and various statements about the Bible issued in the aftermath of the Modernist crisis. It cannot therefore be assumed that a Catholic who conscientiously opposes the non-infallible doctrine of the magisterium, as it stands at a given moment, is necessarily disloyal. (In this connection an American Catholic might think of the long struggle of John Courtney Murray to obtain revision of certain papal pronouncements on Church-State relations.)
In the present case, Rahner continues, the complexity of the issue is such that no one opposed to the encyclical can claim absolute certainty for his own stand. But it is normal and inevitable that some should be unable to accept the pope’s doctrine. The encyclical, although it claims to be an interpretation of the natural law, does not in fact give very persuasive intrinsic arguments. The encyclical seems to look on human nature as something static and closed--not open to modification by free and responsible human decision. But for some time many moral theologians have been teaching that what is distinctive to human nature, as distinct from plant and animal life, is precisely man’s power to modify his own nature according to the demands of a higher good. The pope, in fact, seems to allow for a measure of rational manipulation of human fertility in permitting the practice of rhythm and the use of the "pill" to regularize the menstrual cycle. Undoubtedly this differs somewhat from the use of the pill for directly contraceptive purposes, but in some instances the distinction is so subtle that many will regard it as hair-splitting. Since a notable majority of the Papal Commission is known to have come out against the position later taken in the encyclical, one can hardly expect the majority of Catholics to find the reasoning of Human Life convincing.
On the basis of these general observations, Rahner then discusses what conduct is proper for various classes of persons within the church--bishops, priests, moral theologians and married couples.
Robert J. McCormick, in 'Humanae Vitae' 25 Years Later for which there is simply not space here to quote in full, a quote from him quoting Avery Dulles, before moving on towards further excerpt;
Summarizing in these pages (AM., 9/28/68) what had been said by several European hierarchies, Avery Dulles, SJ., issued this warning:[bolding for emphasis, my own]"In view of the American tradition of freedom and pluralism, it would be a serious mistake to use the encyclical as a kind of Catholic loyalty test. Nothing could so quickly snuff out the spirit of personal responsibility, which has done so much to invigorate American Catholicism in the past few years."
"For instance, Archbishop Quinn noted that the problem of many theologians is not that they view contraception as "simply something good, desirable or indifferent." The problem is the usage of "intrinsically evil" to apply to every contraceptive act. Realistic--because Archbishop Quinn was absolutely correct in saying that "this problem is not going to be solved or reduced merely by a simple reiteration of past formulations or by ignoring the fact of dissent." Courageous--because the suggestions were made in the presence of the Pope, whose views on this matter were well known and who therefore could not be thought to have called the Synod to have them questioned. I say "questioned" because Archbishop Quinn did refer to "doctrinal development" in areas such as biblical studies and religious liberty. In these contexts development meant change."[snip] The Tablet referred to "foregone conclusions virtually imposed on a so-called consultative body" (1980, p. 1059). In a word, the Synod was orchestrated, and perhaps that was a sign of things to come.What things? The well-known fact that for some years now acceptance of Humanae Vitae has become one of the litmus tests for episcopal appointment. The fact that theologians who question it are excluded from speaking in some dioceses and seminaries, and are regularly denounced by the right wing press as "dissidents" and "disloyal." The fact that great numbers of Catholics no longer look to the church for enlightenment in the area of sexual morality. The fact that bishops do not feel free to state their opinions honestly.
At the present, therefore, we are far from Archbishop Quinns proposed worldwide dialogue between theologians and the Holy See, and from Cardinal Humes listening "to all the points of view." Rather, the atmosphere in the church on the matter of birth regulation is one of coercion. Bishop Kenneth Untener of Saginaw, Mich., adverted to this at the November 1990 U.S. bishops meeting. Of the churchs teaching on birth regulation, he said: "Many would compare us [bishops] to a dysfunctional family that is unable to talk openly about a problem that everyone knows is there."
[snip] "Indeed, the Sovereign Pontiff raises the stakes by tying the teaching to central truths of the faith (e.g., Gods goodness), a move often described in Germany as "dogmatization" (Dogmatisierung). This was protested by 163 theologians from Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Switzerland in the so-called "Cologne Declaration" (Jan. 27, 1989). The concemsof this declaration were subsequently endorsed by 130 French theologians, 60 Spanish theologians, 63 Italian theologians and 431 members of the Catholic Theological Society of America (Origins, Dec. 27, 1990).Bernard Haring, C.SS.R., the eminent moral theologian, has pointed out that there are in the church today two schools of thought (Commonweal, Feb. 10, 1989)".
[snip] "These positions have hardened over the years, and reasoned discourse has often been replaced by the accusatory rhetoric of intolerance, especially by proponents of the first school of thought. The inability--or refusal--of the magisterium to deal with this problem except by repetition has resulted in a debilitating malaise that has undermined the credibility of the magisterium in other areas.[snip] "...At this point it would be helpful to emphasize what is not the issue. Certain apologists for Humanae Vitae assert that those who disagree with its central assertion "promote contraception" and by implication denigrate natural family planning. That is seriously to misplace the contemporary debate. ..."
It's a long article, one written by a theologian respected among his own peers as being something of an authority upon Catholic moral theology.
If you not consider these other voices, the "two opinions" McCormick summarized that were in his own view both extant, and legitimate; even as they conflicted....well then...should I, or better still some Catholic other than yourselves, look towards those who gape open mouthed at themselves, knowing they are thought of as "wishful thinking" "mindless relativists" and somehow if not passing out copies of the likes of above but still knowing full well of that and more...not then wonder what this "intellectual" quoting that is seemingly sought for be?
What will satisfy the requirement? Is such even possible?
What I mean by “mindless relativism” is the view that everything is “okay” if a person thinks it is and doesn’t intend any harm. What I mean by “wishful thinking” is a view of, say, economic issues or gun control, that fails to consider the data on the demonstrated outcomes of various policies.
Life is too short to read your cut-and-paste thingie. Sorry you went to the trouble, have a nice weekend.
The overall conversation pertaining to the question of "Catholics in America going to hell"? otherwise seemed to include contraception at that point. Having some tabs open I could begin from, I chased that stuff down. It wasn't simply just "copy/paste".
So I guess you meant it when you said;
“This was protested by 163 theologians from Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Switzerland in the so-called “Cologne Declaration” (Jan. 27, 1989).”
Read about the cologne declaration here!
Surely there were no slack jawed relativists among this prestigious and orthodox group?
“As divisions inside the Roman Catholic Church appear to deepen, dissident theologians across Western Europe have begun openly challenging the conservative teachings and highly centralized leadership of Pope John Paul II.”
“Church experts here said that while there is a long history of dissidence within Catholicism, the unusually harsh language used in this and similar pronouncements by French, Belgian, Spanish and Italian theologians underlined the depth of animosity felt by liberal sectors of the church toward the Vatican.”
“They added that the focus of church infighting had now switched from Latin America, where the Pope has restricted the political activities of advocates of so-called liberation theology, to Western Europe, where John Paul believes the church should be more forceful in defending traditional Christian morality in increasingly secularized societies.”
My thought is that anyone who buys into this declaration has a better than even chance of being a flaming mindless relativist. For sure those who don’t dig the Church’s take on BC tend to be liberal, and thus more likely a relativist. I mean try to find a slack jawed Catholic relativist theologian who digs abortion, ‘gay marriage’ and priestesses who also really likes the Church’s take on birth control.
By the way, it’s Richard McCormick, not Robert. Robert is a CEO or something.
Freegards
Why qualify with a “some”? Why not say outright like our frequent snake charmer dime store theologians posit that ALL go to Hades?!
(Tell you what, if the humourless Harold Campings of FR are going to Heaven, I’ll voluntarily take the ticket to the other place!)
My conversation was mostly about books and movies and minding one's own business. "Top Jesuits" are completely not my problem.
Thanks for playing, though.
Catholics and other Christians, especially the ‘evangelical’ black ‘Christians’ who voted for Obama in 2008/2012 are destined for hell. Some are already starting to live in the hell that is being orchestrated by the evil usurper in the White Hut. Scorn God, find hell.
I would think that any Christian would know that interfering with God’s plan is sinful.
I guess it may have been better to introduce the information along lines of possibility of being able to better understand others, with this being applicable in this context, first to Catholics understanding others Catholics, then possibly onwards from there.
My own editing of the sources is not what is important in that regard...but the links to the three different articles, all written by highly regarded Jesuits, one in '68, one '93, and the last in 2008, do indicate the subject matter is not going away. Those articles, taken all together, can be informative, with each supporting one another to a large extent, particularly as to factions now within the RCC.
As one of the men noted...the lack of there being much in the way of open discussion also brought with it as unintended side-affect, a weakening of regard/and or respect for "authority" within the RCC itself, not to mention further diminishing of that same sort of thing without the narrow confines of Roman Catholicism. So I posted what I did (in part) as a favor to Catholics in general.
If I interrupted the turning of this thread into a chat thread --- excuse me.
If any wish to better understand "the other" even those in their own midst, perhaps those three articles can help, and assist also in the answering of Mr. Akin's question.
By now...it may have been a zero sum game time-wise, to have just gone ahead and checked out what was laid in front of more than a few here. I pinged several persons, including one whom said in regards to contraception, practicing such;
saying so while crossing out "Catholics", and aiming the comment at non-Catholics.
The Jesuits, admittedly in part, and not without some equivocation, still MUCH refute that woman's statement (ya' wanna talk about copy/past?...sheesh!) as does yet another Jesuit, here;
as was previously mentioned and linked to on this thread, but somehow seems inconvenient for some to consider...though that sort of lack, I get the impression would NOT all that much apply to yourself.
Mr. McCormick, again;
I view the matter of the churchs teaching on birth regulation as dominantly an authority problem. By that I mean that any analysis, conclusion or process that challenges or threatens previous authoritative statements is by that very fact rejected. Any modification of past authority is viewed as an attack on present authority. Behind such an attitude is an unacknowledged and historically unsupportable triumphalism, the idea that the official teaching authority of the church is always right, never errs, is always totally adequate in its formulations. Vatican II radically axed this idea in many ways, but nowhere more explicitly than in its November 1964 "Decree on Ecumenism": "Therefore, if the influence of events or of the times has led to deficiencies in conduct, in Church discipline, or even in the formulation of doctrine (which must be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself), these should be appropriately rectified at the proper moment"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.