[onedoug]

Reluctant to take issue out of respect for you, I would yet say, as we've exchanged on threads before, that I remain very disturbed at this Pope's sense of moral relativism. Hence I would certainly once again be interested in your take on this thread, #s 6, 10 & 11.

God's continuing grace to you.

[patent]

Reluctant to take issue out of respect for you,

Oh, hey! Please, take issue with me. It does not bother me that you disagree with me, or argue with me. Frankly, I'm likely to enjoy the debate. As long as we are civil, I will rarely be bothered in the least by your disagreement. I am at least as disagreeable as anyone else, so I would hardly be the one to cast stones at you for that. ;-)

I would yet say, as we've exchanged on threads before, that I remain very disturbed at this Pope's sense of moral relativism.

Moral relativism:

Moral relativism, as opposed to other forms of relativism, is the view that moral standards are grounded only in social custom. The most famous statement of relativism in general is by the ancient Greek sophist Protagoras (480-411 BCE.): "Man is the measure of all things," or in a more complete and contemporary translation, "A human being is the measure of all things - of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not that they are not."

I don’t see the Pope as a moral relativist. It is clear that he has adhered to traditional bottom line morals, and views them as coming from God. At the same time, his theological framework is often set in a very modern set. That is, he approaches things with a newer way of thinking, without becoming a modern relativist.

What he has done is remain a strict traditionalist about what is right or wrong, and indicated that this is unchanging, but has done so within a very modern philosophical style. His genius or failing will be how successfully he incorporates that style into Traditional Catholic teachings. He is not the first to do something of this nature. Some of the Church’s greatest doctors radically changed the Church’s theological styles, without changing the bottom line, by incorporating the styles of others or of (then) modern times. They were often greatly criticized by others inside and outside the Church when they did so. On Aquinas, for example:

It is not possible to characterize the method of St. Thomas by one word, unless it can be called eclectic. It is Aristotelean, Platonic, and Socratic; it is inductive and deductive; it is analytic and synthetic. He chose the best that could he found in those who preceded him, [Patent's note: including from some prominent pagans.]carefully sifting the chaff from the wheat, approving what was true, rejecting the false. His powers of synthesis were extraordinary. No writer surpassed him in the faculty of expressing in a few well-chosen words the truth gathered from a multitude of varying and conflicting opinions; and in almost every instance the student sees the truth and is perfectly satisfied with St. Thomas's summary and statement. Not that he would have students swear by the words of a master. In philosophy, he says, arguments from authority are of secondary importance; philosophy does not consist in knowing what men have said, but in knowing the truth (In I lib. de Coelo, lect. xxii; II Sent., D. xiv, a. 2, ad 1um). He assigns its proper place to reason used in theology (see below: Influence of St. Thomas), but he keeps it within its own sphere. Against the Traditionalists the Holy See has declared that the method used by St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure does not lead to Rationalism (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1652). Not so bold or original in investigating nature as were Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon, he was, nevertheless, abreast of his time in science, and many of his opinions are of scientific value in the twentieth century. Take, for instance, the following: "In the same plant there is the two-fold virtue, active and passive, though sometimes the active is found in one and the passive in another, so that one plant is said to be masculine and the other feminine" (3 Sent., D. III, Q. ii, a 1).

History will judge JPII on his success with this. I think it is far to early to tell how well he has done, and I don’t know that I am capable of doing so by myself. I personally prefer a more old fashioned approach then he takes, and so he makes me uncomfortable at times. Though his approach makes me uncomfortable, I suspect that he has largely succeeded in this. He has not faired as well elsewhere, IMHO (such as Church discipline).

Hence I would certainly once again be interested in your take on this thread, #s 6, 10 & 11.

I’ll stop over.

God's continuing grace to you.

To you as well,

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG