Dear Theophilos,

That the social sciences in general have a solid dose of anti-Christian attitudes is a given.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't study them or appropriate the findings of their studies into human behaviour.

Sociology has been used to study organizational behaviour in the Church and why it can be resistent to change.

Organizational structures in the Church are not infallible nor were they established by Christ or the Apostles. There is a human element there that has historically liked to be considered above reproach or critique.

And we Byzantine Catholics are famous for our critiques of the Roman Catholic Church. We have always been the first to differentiate what is "essential" to the Faith from what is "incidental" in terms of organizational and theological issues that have tended to historically smother our Eastern patrimony.

If RC bishops had had a greater grounding in the social sciences, both psychological and organizational, perhaps they wouldn't have committed the grand screw-ups they have with respect to you-know-what.

To say that there is an element of subjective interpretation of the Scriptures, Tradition etc. that has resulted in shifts of emphasis on the same, unchangeable aspects of Faith is not to be a libertarian etc.

The Administrator himself has done as much on other thread when he emphatically stated that Eastern Catholics do not have the doctrine of purgatory.

In fact, our forebears did believe in it and were obliged to hold it - and still are.

We ourselves, as Eastern Catholics, in moving closer to the Orthodox, have tended to discard the Latin theology AND the name of that issue.

We still believe in prayer for the faithful departed. But change has occurred concerning what was once considered immutable.

Alex

Dear Administrator,

The issue of change with respect to moral culpability is what is under consideration here.

I'm not attacking your post. I'm asking you to reconsider your attack on mine because of your own (mis)interpretation of what I've said.

If you can show me where I said that the social sciences can completely "undo" a sin and make it a "non-sin" or even a virtue, then I will even submit to a penance imposed by you, despite the fact that this is Bright Week.

But canon lawyers, one of who is now a Bishop, have told me that, in confession, while taking all circumstances under consideration, they feel that what is objectively a grave sin, becomes less so as a result.

And you yourself have answered your own question here.

You've asked me to be "clear." And yet, if there is a doubt in your mind that I have not been clear about whatever, how can you then pronounce on me as you have?

Isn't pronouncing someone "wrong" et al., when in doubt - wrong in itself?

Anyway, I've had judgement passed on me, willy-nilly - so let's just forget it, shall we?

Alex

Alex,

Thank you for your post.

I stated that your post of disagreement suggested that you believed that there are times when such activity can be deemed as acceptable and not sinful because of socio-cultural and psychological factors. I also asked you clarify your point of disagreement with my post. My comments quite clearly stated that if that was your conclusion then it was a wrong conclusion and I clearly asked you to clarify your comments.

Since you stated that you disagreed with my post and that it was not in agreement with the CCC and yet agreed with my previously posted comments about the level of moral culpability of the particular immoral action possibly being mitigated by circumstances, what exactly is your disagreement with my posts? Please explain the purpose of your posts of disagreement.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

I think you've been hanging out with Dr. John too much.

You are starting to sound like a classical Jesuit!

As I said, I'm going to leave this whole thing alone.

But I will copy out your last paragraph and see if I can't learn some of your ingenious methods of getting around things . . .

And never mind about apologising or what-not.

I forgive you for anything culpable or non-culpable . . . it's Bright Week.

Alex

Alex,

Thank you for your post. Since you have not clarified your disagreement with my prior posts there is no way I can respond, expect to refer you to my above posts. I am sorry you have chosen not to respond.

Have a good Bright Week.

Admin

Dear Esteemed Administrator,

I would gladly respond if I knew what the heck you were talking about in your last post.

You are asking me to clarify a clarification of yours that is really an obfuscation of a former clarification that I thought I had made clear in the first place.

There.

Two can play at the Jesuit game.

Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam!

Thank you for your kind best wishes for Bright Week.

At least that is clear . . .

Alex

Alex:

Christ is Risen!

You said: "That the social sciences in general have a solid dose of anti-Christian attitudes is a given. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't study them or appropriate the findings of their studies into human behaviour."

I wasn't questioning the validity or applicability of the social or natural sciences to certain aspects of doctrine, theological anthropology, ecclesiology, and the rest.

What I was doing instead was suggesting that there may be limits to their use, given that their subject matter is the fallen world. They can certainly help us deepen our understanding of our fallenness and, in this sense, can help us move beyond our fallenness.

Of course, the fact of fallenness also limits our capacity for reason; hence the need for the Church.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Theophilos,

Christ is Risen!

Then I agree with you and I thank you for your clear post!

(I think the Administrator wants us all to be clearer in our posting. If so, perhaps his second to last post here could be entered in a "clarity contest.")

But you and the Administrator will have to forgive me. I'm barely alive today after those long Paschal services.

Doesn't the fact that I can even put a sentence together today count for anything?

As for future clarity in posts, have a bright week!

Alex

Alex:

Indeed He is Risen!

Given the "jesuitical" leanings of this thread, and reflecting the diversity of subjects treated, I propose that it be renamed:

"Ubi episcopi sunt? Being an extended and often disquietous reflection and dialogue on public discourse, sin, the law, and the applicability of the social and natural sciences to moral theology and praxis"

A.M.D.G.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Theophilos,

Now don't you go Jesuitical on me too here!

Two on one thread are more than sufficient!

As one Anglican bishop in the seventeenth century said, the Jesuits were more concerned with finding out how "far" one could go without sinning . . .

I think I'll go home now. With the headache I've got, I'll be seeing black-robed Jesuits any minute now.

God bless,

Alex

Dear Theophilos,

Good to hear from you.

It is a revelation to me also that Christain love essentially demands an anything goes.... worldview, as you described it, is being championed here. I was not aware that that was my worldview or that of the other posters who have contributed to this thread. If that is what was said, I missed it.

It seems to me that you are right on target in most of what you assert when you say that, "Ours is a prophetic Church, which asserts not only that we love the sinner but that we love him so much that we must do what we can to reform him."

For me, though, there is a slight , but essential difference in emphasis on who must reform the sinner. The work of reforming the sinner is God's and the sinners. We can act in Charity to help, indeed, we must do what we can to help him or her to reform. Sometimes when we take it upon ourselves to reform others it leads to obstinancy and resistance to the truth.

I am not sure why you have directed your search for "an an Orthodox justification of homosexual sodomy and/or an Orthodox defense of libertarianism...." to me.

I don't have one. But I am trying to more clearly understand this area; hence, my questioning of what current theological studies and studies in other areas might lead to in the future. Our reasons for looking for understanding here are quite similar. However, the cruelty and even outright persecution of gay and lesbians and the fact that young people are killing themselves because they think that they are gay give added weight to this discussion for me.

I am not sure that in a thread with the title it has, and with the meandering nature of discussion taking place in it, that there is a focus on the issue that you raise. If someone has not answered that question, perhaps there is no one who has an answer that he or she chooses to post.

Theophilos Posted:

"As for the idea that progress in the natural and social sciences might “help to expand our understanding of what the reality of sin is,” I wonder if Steve might answer this question: does the fact that such types of study (genetics/genomics, psychoanalysis, etc.) focus on postlapsarian man not limit their possible impact on the theological understanding of man and his history, resources, and destiny?"

Just off the top of my head, the short answer is yes.

Post-lapsarian refers to pertain to the nature of fallen man. Among the visions about fallen man is the idea that man is worthless and can do no good. As I understand it, this is reflected in the idea held by some Christians through the centuries that man is a dung heap and that salvation consists of covering the heap with Christ.

Another vision is reflected in the idea that fallen man is imperfect, yet capable of good. As I understand it, this idea is reflected in the Christian belief that Christ has come to save man ultimately helping him become God.

The question that you ask could be a worthy topic for a doctoral dissertation in philosophical theology. The results of that study would impact much and might create a new field of philosophical study, theological epistimology. In addition, it is unclear how the psyche, the biological structure of prelapsarian man is different from that of fallen man, the content of the body of knowledge is affected, it seems to me. So I'd venture to say that scientific certitude is not possible.

It would take a book and much more expertise than I have to deliver a concise answer. I suspect that you knew that when you asked the question. :rolleyes:

What I do know is that we are dealing with fallen man and a cosmos affected by that fall. We are also dealing with man and cosmos lifted up in the Resurrection of Christ. Based on that, we are challenged to use our mind and our learning tools to examine cosmos and man. We are also gifted with what God has revealed to us about man and cosmos and His relationship with each. We must use our minds enlightened by our Faith to learn.

That is what I am suggesting.
Based on what I do know, the answer to the question is yes. The fact that man is fallen does impact on his knowledge and way of knowing. How precisely it is different would require a study of prelapsarian man. Since there is a derth of samples of such man, the study is impossible!

So, essentially, you've asked me if the fact that the natural and social sciences study post-lapsarian man "limit their possible impact on the theological understanding of man and his history, resources, and destiny?"

Of course, but what we have is the only game in town. Given that we have no way to study pre-lapsarian man at this time, we'll not know what those limitations are.

In the meantime, in my opinion, attempting to learn more about the nature of sin, conditions for committing sin, and the causes of sin can only help. Such learning might be why so many families are granted the solace of burying their loved ones who've committed suicide in consecrated ground today, for example. It's one small example, but certainly not an unimportant one.

I hope that I've been able to address your question sufficiently.

Thanks for the mental challenge!

Steve

Alex,

O My!

OK, let me start from scratch. You seem to generally agree with the substance of my posts regarding the Church’s teaching on this topic, including my comments on the varying levels of culpability. You also indicated that my post as not in agreement with the CCC. Which of my points do you believe to disagree with the CCC and why?

BTW, I had a phone from some black-robed Jesuit types who read your posts asking for directions to your house. I assumed that they only wanted to stop by for a kielbasi sandwich and a cold beer. I hope they do not cause you any trouble. :p

Admin

Steve,

This is excellent!

We must always be very careful in how we help others and remember that God also acts through His Church – His people. Taking the precept “do not judge” to an extreme or the ‘love them and let them alone’ attitude usually means inadvertently giving permission to someone who is on the wrong path to continue on the wrong path. To do this is the opposite of helping and, in fact, only hurts others. Likewise, hitting people over the head with the Commandments and then walking away also hurts others. The key is to love someone enough to call him or her to account and then to keep assisting him or her in allowing God to change his or her life while always hoping that others will love us enough to call us to account and keep us on the path to Christ.

Admin

Steve:

Christ is Risen!

You said: “It is a revelation to me also that Christain love essentially demands an anything goes.... worldview, as you described it, is being championed here. I was not aware that that was my worldview or that of the other posters who have contributed to this thread. If that is what was said, I missed it.”

I was referring to the post of Axios (I’ll live as I believe God wants me to) and Dr. John’s characterization of the relationship between “judgment” and Christian love. I am willing to be corrected, but the laissez-faire attitude toward sin expressed by both sounds to me an awful lot like “anything goes” either for me personally (Axios) or for everyone else (Dr. John).

You said: “For me, though, there is a slight , but essential difference in emphasis on who must reform the sinner...”

I accept the distinction between helping in the reformation and actually doing the reforming. I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.

You said: “I am not sure why you have directed your search for "an an Orthodox justification of homosexual sodomy and/or an Orthodox defense of libertarianism...." to me.”

I didn’t. The post was addressed to you and others. Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks for the exercise in theological epistemology. No Augustinian am I, but I raised that question only because it wasn’t hinted at by you before. You mentioned several times that progress in the natural and social sciences could aid/deepen our understanding of the reality of sin. I agree. But we must also keep in mind that there are limits to how much smarter and more aware they can make us. That’s all. Nothing malicious intended.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Do black robed Jesuits travel in those infamous black helicopters?


Just wondering.

Sharon
(there is no missing plutonium)