From: 15942@brahms.udel.edu (Stephen Barr)
Subject: Re: Communication Problems, Gregory XVI and (oh, no, not again) Railways
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:34:09 GMT

     Well, Martin, I did misquote The Oxford Dictionary of the 
Popes. The reason is simple. I quoted from memory. The work
in question is a non-circulating reference work in our library.
And I happened not to have writing materials on my person.
So I committed it to my obviously non-photographic memory.
However, the misquotation is insignificant. The meaning is the
same: Pope Gregory XVI would not allow railways and gaslighting 
in the Papal States. That is what I said, and that is what is meant            
by banned. 
     I did not mean to tone down the word Hell into the word
infernal. The fact is that not knowing French I hesitated to
simply translate the word outright. By the similarity to
'infernal' I was speculating that the word referred to Hell.
That is what I took it to mean.
     
     The points I made remain unshaken. 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 you find evidence that the Pope 'banned' his
spiritual subjects, all Catholics, from using or cooperating
in the use of gaslight or railroads, I will freely admit
that I was grossly wrong. That would have something to do
with the Popes' teaching authority. 
     As you know, in those days the Pope was a temporal
sovereign as well as having an office in the Church. 
Citizens of the Papal States --- whether they were Catholic,
Jewish, Atheist, or whatever --- were subject to him as
a temporal prince. He made laws on all sorts of temporal
matters, he levied taxed, maintained roads, engaged in public
works projects, enacted and enforced criminal laws, and
so on. These activities are in a completely different sphere
from those he performed as pastor. To interpret his ban
on these things in his temporal domains as being some sort
of act of the Papal magisterium I think is an elementary
blunder. The book you cite makes this blunder, I believe.




     Coeducation is a completely different matter. The Popes
did address these condemnations of co-education to the 
Catholic world in teaching documents. To lump the co-education
issue together with the 'ban' on railways etc in the Papal States
is just wrong.
     My facts may be wrong. It may be that Gregory XVI did
issue an encyclical letter or similar document to the 
bishops or faithful of the world exhorting them not to
use railways, or even banning the use of railways by Catholics.
If that proves to have been the case, I will -- not exactly
cheerfully, but readily-- admit I have been totally wrong.
 
     As it stands now, I believe that all of the evidence
so far adduced is consistent with my interpretation of events
(that these were acts by the Pope as temporal sovereign
forbidding certain things in the Papal States) and that
no evidence has so far been adduced supporting the 
contention that these were acts of the Papal magisterium.
    
    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. 
 B
     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. I never would say anything so crazy as that
every Papal utterence deserves our submission. That is
quite foreign to my way of thinking, and has no resemblence
to what I have said.
     
     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. And what is more
(and as a philosopher of science you should appreciate this)
you have no evidence to support such an accusation. The
same is true of "attempt to fabricate" and "determine to
misrepresent". 
     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. The difference is a
little bit subtle. If someone said to me "this voltmeter
or computer program or dictionary (or whatever) has been known
to give results that are certainly questionable", I would conclude
"this voltmeter, or computer program, or dictionary is not
reliable". 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. But there are degrees of unreliability. Clearly
no dictionary can be said to be absolutely reliable. Probably
every dictionary has some mistake in it. So we should not
absolutely trust in dictionaries, voltmeters, computers, or
non-infallible teachings of the Popes. I heartily agree.
But it is another thing to say that a dictionary has frequent
errors. It is a question of degree. 
     You are angry or whatever because you think I do
not distinguish the levels of authority of different 
papal "utterences". You think I regard all as equally requiring
submission. But I have been attempting to make quite the
opposite point, and you accuse me of splitting hairs when I do!!!!
I say Humanae Vitae is not an infallible utterance. In that
we agree. But I also say that the fulminations of Gregory XVI
on railways are not on the level of Humanae Vitae. My facts
may be wrong, but to my knowledge Gregory XVI did not address
an encyclical letter to his venerable brethren, the Patriarchs,
Archbishops, Bishops, etc etc and all the faithful explaining
and reasserting the Catholic teaching on gaslighting etc.
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.
     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.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU