From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Communication Problems, Gregory XVI and (oh, no, not again) Railways
Date: 11 Jan 93 11:50:59 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Manchester, England, M13 9PL.

In article <C0Hy8y.6o1@news.udel.edu> 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr) writes:
:The acts that the
:Pope makes or made as the temporal sovereign of the Papal
:States (or now of the Vatican city state) are not in
:the same catagory as those he makes in exercizing his
:universal teaching office. All of these prohibitions
:(gaslighting, railways, scientific congresses) from 
:what I have been able to find out concerned his temporal
:subjects in the Papal States. They have nothing therefore
:to do with the Popes' teaching office. 

If I understand correctly, your contention is that the absurd papal
pronouncements in history stem from the exercise of temporal rather than
spiritual power. But it should be made clear: the charism of infallibility
does not protect the vast majority of the popes' teachings in the spiritual
domain, just as in the temporal. On the face of it, it should be surprising
if popes throughout the ages had erred copiously on temporal matters, and
yet had almost never been wrong on spiritual matters. Popes are, of course,
guided by the Spirit. But in exactly the same way as the Church at large,
including you and me. The factors that have caused popes in history to be
wrong on temporal matters will, I submit, exert a similar influence in the
spiritual domain: in particular, the inherent conservatism of the incumbent
of an office whose role includes keeping the Church faithful to its
historical beliefs will occasionally inspire the proscription of some
development merely because it stems from new circumstances.

:     Coeducation is a completely different matter. The Popes
:did address these condemnations of co-education to the 
:Catholic world in teaching documents.

I'd be extremely grateful if you have time to tell us more about this.
Perhaps this issue better fits the bill as a papal teaching that the Church
no longer seeks to sustain.
    
:    Now, to clear up a few personal matters. I never "proposed
:that Innocent IV never really approved of torture". I think
:that anyone who cares to go back and reread what I said will find
:that I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that if
:the Pope allowed, permitted (or even commanded, or for that
:matter engaged in!) torture, that was not to propound a doctrine
:that I had to accept, whereas if the Pope said "you must believe
:as a Catholic that torturing heretics is a good thing" that is a
:very different thing. 

I think the formal distinction you are making here is spurious. The form
that pronouncements encapsulated in papal encyclicals generally take is not
the "you must believe X as a Catholic" -- perhaps you're thinking of
infallible dogmatic definitions -- but rather the form (to paraphrase
loosely) "I call upon Catholics to abjure Marxism/to refrain from the
practice of artificial contraception/to treat their employees in a manner
consistent with their human dignity". Thus I see no _formal_ criterion for
distinguishing the papal bull on torture (form: "you should use torture")
from papal injunctions in other spheres.

:     Also, I never said what you quote me as saying, that
:"every Papal utterence deserves our submission". On the
:contrary, I gave several examples where submission is
:not required.

Could you remind me please? I have no recollection of the examples you
mention.
     
:     Finally, I must complain about certain phrases you use.
:You say I "attempt to fabricate" a quote, "determine to
:misrepresent" you, and "attempt to misquote" sources. Now,
:that I misquoted is clear (though the meaning I accurately
:represented). But that I attempted to do so is a charge
:you really should not make. It is false.

Fair enough; I withdraw the allegation that you deliberately forged a quote.
(Actually the allegation was only there for rhetorical purposes: I didn't
really think you would stoop so low. ;-) )

:And what is more
:(and as a philosopher of science you should appreciate this)

More rhetorical license. Actually I'm a phonetician.

:     Did I misrepresent you? Well here is what I said, as quoted
:by you: "[you provided] an example of the unreliability of the
:doctrinal teaching of the Popes." Here is what you go on to
:say you were doing: "point[ing] out that there are examples where
:papal teaching has certainly been questionable." There is some
:difference, but it is not clear to me anyway that what I said
:necessarily misrepresents what you said.

There's a big difference, I think: I am pointing out that the possibility
exists for popes to be in error (as history attests), hence the vital
importance of the primacy of conscience; I am not suggesting that therefore
all papal utterances need to be treated with a pinch of salt. So I stand by
my contention that you have misrepresented my position.

:As I honestly (if perhaps stupidly) understand
:some of the books you have quoted, their argument is this.
:The Popes in their non-infallible teachings have made clear
:mistakes. Thus we cannot absolutely rely on such teaching
:---- I would not deny either of those statements, by the way.
:Thus the teaching of Humanae Vitae is not so reliable that
:we must necessarily submit to it. That is an intelligent
:argument.

We agree.

:There are two dangers to exaggerating the importance or level
:of authority of particular papal utterances. (A) One may
:mislead people into accepting what they needn't and shouldn't.
:(B) One may cause unwarranted disrespect (without intending to)
:for the papal magisterium. Indeed (A) leads to (B).

:Liberals believe that those who uphold Humanae Vitae are by
:giving it too much weight discrediting all Papal teaching.
:I fear in the same way that those who exaggerate the level
:or weight of certain Papal utterances in the past might 
:(unintentionally, to be sure) be leading to a similar effect.

We agree. But I might point out that I have the utmost respect for those who
adhere to the teaching of Paul VI in _Humanae Vitae_; just as I would hope
that others will respect those who in good consience do not.

:     Happy New Year to you too! And could you do me a slight
:favor? Could you be less free with accusations of dishonesty
:ETC.? Thanks. Steve.

I'm glad you were rattled by the robustness of my phrasing; might I suggest
you re-read your posting on Gregory XVI to see whether anyone reading it
might take offence at ITS tone?

As usual with you, Steve, I suspect that broad agreement lurks only just
below the surface; but all this swashbuckling is more fun.

Martin Barry.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU