tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1015949969530867456.post1077998465350397293..comments2024-01-09T15:49:37.273-05:00Comments on THE TENTH CRUSADE: Condomplations and PurificationTTChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08738875888053745269noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1015949969530867456.post-71790652768563951472010-11-27T06:44:53.706-05:002010-11-27T06:44:53.706-05:00Jerry,
"I suspect it has to do with his mode...Jerry, <br />"I suspect it has to do with his modernist-leaning concept of how men come to know God."<br /><br />YES!!TheLastCatholicinBostonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1015949969530867456.post-55048009893043959432010-11-26T19:54:34.372-05:002010-11-26T19:54:34.372-05:00(part 2)
I was surprised to see, on angelqueen.org...(part 2)<br />I was surprised to see, on angelqueen.org, thoughts from saints regarding counseling someone who is planning an evil act, saying that it may be morally permissible to steer the man to a lesser evil act if nothing better can be achieved. If a saint like Alphonsus can admit this in theory, then I'll admit it for now. My point is to question whether this would apply to what the pope said. I think not, for two reasons. 1) The saints were addressing a single known person about to commit the evil act. However, the pontiff was speaking in hypotheticals to a general audience, many of whom might only be contemplating the sin but not dedicated to it. Hence, the pope's advice might actually provide a false excuse to someone, allowing him to commit the sin thinking he is being good at the same time. 2) The saints spoke of changing the sin to a categorically less grave offense, from murder to assault for example. There is nothing less grave about the pope's preferred outcome. In fact, contracting or spreading disease may may have the good effect of causing one to quit the life of sin and may keep others from entering it.<br /><br />What caused the pope to get so off base on this? I suspect it has to do with his modernist-leaning concept of how men come to know God. In the traditional way, "faith comes from hearing." The Word enters, the soul in darkness moves toward the light, which is conversion, and contrition and penance result. It is a conscious act. Modernism, however, speaks of an awakening of the unconscious interior, known as religious or divine immanence (see <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html%22" rel="nofollow">Pope St. Pius X</a>). Teilhard called it the "Christ consciousness." It is based on sentiment and is entirely independent of dogma. For the modernist, it is the awakening of this sentiment that is important, and not what one believes. Back to the pope. I think he leans toward the modernist idea of the interior awakening (immanence), and that he sees this awakening in the sinner as the overriding aspect of his example. This is why we see in his example no improvement in the sinner, no lessening of the enormity of his crime. It is the sinner beginning an awakening, a step in the <a href="http://www.waragainstbeing.com/parti-article12" rel="nofollow">evolution</a> of religious immanence. Again, this is not the traditional Catholic understanding.Jerrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1015949969530867456.post-31412655979166898022010-11-26T19:52:40.713-05:002010-11-26T19:52:40.713-05:00"There are very serious consequences to lives..."There are very serious consequences to lives and souls.<br /><br />Think of your own sons coming to us and asking if it is morally responsible ..."<br /><br />Carol, <br /><br />I think you are getting to the heart of the matter. I think the pope has made a grave mistake on several levels. There is the the planting of a horrible, dirty image in our minds. This I covered in another post. There's the questionable moral judgment, i.e., I think the pope is just plain wrong. And finally, there's the scandal of dumping this out from a book of speculations, leaving it to the world press (and us bloggers) to chew on it, possibly to the detriment of our souls, but certainly to the detriment of those in sin and those on the verge of sin.<br /><br />What the pope speculated on is a twofold benefit. One benefit is improved hygiene, which has no basis in science and should be discredited. The other benefit is of some supposed good in the soul of the sinner due to the intention of improved hygiene. The reader may pause to vomit, if necessary. I really don't want to dwell on the particular example of the Holy Father. The issue, though, is whether his example can be framed in terms of choosing a lesser of two evils. This is where I think the pope is off base.<br /><br />(continued)Jerrynoreply@blogger.com