From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Cath. Christianity 101 - comments about JP II's "On the Family"
Originator: lip@s1.gov
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:02:26 GMT



	OK. I'll bite.

In article <l6pi15INNdql@skat.usc.edu>, kriz@skat.usc.edu (KRIZ) writes:
:
:With regards to some of the comments concerning my recent posting
:of JP II's apostolic exhortation "On the Family".
:
:Loren: asking sarcastically if there is "anything non-trivial" in the 
:       document
:
:DK response: probably bulk of the readership has never seen anything
:	like this document -- on family values.

	I think that there is plenty of opportunity available to
discuss family problems. Just look around in some of the soc groups
like soc.men and soc.women and soc.singles and soc.couples. A lengthy
and boring tract like what you had posted does not do that much good.
There don't seem to be too many "real world" examples.

	Althought I am not homosexual, I appreciate a book like _The
Book of Lavender Lists_ for presenting a list of potential
embarrassments for homosexual men who are lovers who live together. It
is actually an interesting perspective on egalitarian relationships. I
like the one about one of them throwing out the other's favorite
beefcake magazine. There is also one about what if one's SO invites
over some family and shoots one's sex life to hell?

:Paul Maloney: asking, what's "new about it"
:
:DK response: that wasn't my point.  My point was simply, that most
:	people are never exposed to a coherent presentation of 
:	"traditional family values."  Our society does feel an
:	anxiety, that "traditional family values" are seemingly
:	falling apart.  And yet, it has made itself virtually	
:	incapable of discussing let alone teaching them coherently.
:
:	This document, like virtually nothing else like it, defines
:	what this term means.  One can reject it ... but one should
:	be happy that it exists ... because without a coherent
:	presentation of model of what a family is supposed to be,
:	its impossible to discuss deviating from it or not.
:
:	One of the true strengths of the Catholic Church is that it
:	can produce such documents.
:
:	Again, I think the document could be extremely useful, for
:	Christians and non.  Without something like this, we simply
:	can't as a society even discuss the issue coherently.

	How is holier-than-thou, "I am on the side of the angels"
rhetoric going to help anything?

	I didn't see ANYTHING about what to do when a husband and wife
hate each other. I know of one opponent of divorce who was honest
enough to state that people who hate each other still should stay
married, citing some relatives of his who (supposedly) successfully
pulled off that strategy. I somehow doubt that the Vatican will ever
be that honest.

	And what about the question of the legitimacy of contraceptive
use?

:Loren: It's too long.
:
:DK response:  Not really.  It's about 80 pages total.  If one is
:	serious about discussing such issues, one should be willing
:	to read something of such length.  But then, most of what
:	passes for "discussion" on t.r.m. would be denounced elsewhere
:	as "soundbites" and "one-liners"
:
:	I honestly am hoping to over-time raise the level of discussion
:	on this group.

	I don't expect a discussion that will conveniently fit into a
couple of bumper stickers. But I don't want a discussion that fills
pages and pages without having any serious content, either.

:Loren: These teachings have "nothing to do with the Bible"
:
:DK response:  Look at the footnoting of the documents I post.  
:	Again one plus of Catholic teaching is that it builds on
:	itself, so one does not constantly rebuild the wheel.

	So?

:	Sometimes I think that rabid foaming at the mouth atheists
:	practically need the strawman of "Bible only" Christians in 
:	order to bash.

	So you actually plead guilty to advocating things that cannot
be derived from the Bible?

	"Bible-only" is not a strawman when referring to the typical
Fundie (you know, "Bible only and proud")? And if one is not
Bible-only, how does one decide on what nonbiblical things to use? I
presume that the Catholic answer is whatever the Popes have stated.

:	The Bible is referenced nearly 200 times in the Vatican II
:	document Lumen Gentium, which serves as the Council's 
:	Constitution on the Church.  This is the foundational document
:	of practically everything else that follows.

	Are you sure that the authors of Lumen Gentium were not simply
taking what they liked and leaving what they didn't like?

	I presume you know of the style of interpretation called
variously "cafeteria" or "smorgasbord" or "a la carte". That's what
I'm talking about.

:	The other widely quoted Vatican II document in the Church
:	documents that have followed is Gaudium et Spes, the Council's
:	Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World.  Where
:	does it begin, with the defending the dignity of the human person.
:	Because God created man, male and female in his image [Gen. 1:28].
:	The Church defends its second proposition of the vision of the
:	"Community of Mankind" on basis of the Jesus prayer "that they 
:	may be one" (Jn. 17:21).

	But we are also told that we are sinners in desperate need of
salvation. Is God a sinner? Can God commit sins?

	For my part, I think it the other way around. People create
deities in their own likeness. Here is what the ancient sage
Xenophanes stated 2500 years ago:

	Homer and Hesiod have ascribed to the gods all things that are
a shame and disgrace among mortals, stealings and adulteries and
deceivings of one another ... Mortals deem that gods are begotten as
they are, and have clothes like theirs, and voice and form ... yes,
and if oxen and horses and lions had hands, and could paint with their
hands, and produce works of art as men do, horses would paint the
forms of gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, and make their bodies
in the image of their several kinds .,. The Ethiopians make their gods
black and snub-nosed; the Thracians say theirs have blue eyes and red
hair.

	The Bible does not look that much different, with all its
theological anthropomorphism.

	To me, dignity is not something I consider related to some
supposed resemblance to some deity I believe to be purely imaginary.

:	As for the specific issues addressed by the recent documents
:	that I have posted: the U.S. bishops' letter "Economic Justice
:	for All" and JP II's apost. exhort. "On the Family" --
:
:	Issues of justice have been considered relevant by the Biblical
:	authors/editors since the time Cain and Abel (Am I my brother's
:	keeper?" (Gn. 4:9) [the answer was yes]).  As for marriage, as
:	both the OT and NT are loaded with references to marriage, and
:	most significantly the very covenant relationships between God
:	and the Hebrews and Christ and the Church were understood by
:	both the OT and NT Biblical authors with the language of
:	marriage (On the Family, Part II, paragraphs 12,13 and the
:	relavent biblical footnotes referenced therein).  Both subjects
:	are **clearly** within the legimate sphere of the Church.

	What kind of marriage?

	The OT takes polygamy for granted; is that the Church's idea
of ideal marriage? It also states that it is OK for a man to divorce
his wife, though women do not have an equivalent right to divorce
their husbands, and the possibility of divorce by mutual agreement is
not recognized.

:	While it may be a "good try" to try pit the Catholic against 
:	the "Bible only" Christian ... it would behoove *everyone* 
:	concerned to read the documents ... before resorting to 
:	blind emotional unknowing bigotry.

	Like what?

	I went through the trouble to read some of what you posted, so
now what should I do?

:	I can't stop anyone from resorting to that.  But I can post
:	the relavent Church teachings AS THEY ARE, **NOT** as someone
:	says they are, and educate everyone in the process.

	But you shouldn't expect others to automatically agree. I
presume that you yourself agree with the contents of the documents you
post, or why would you be posting them without acknowledging your
disagreements?

:Loren: What do "aged celibate males" know about "family values" anyway?
:
:DK response:
:	Well they **HAVE** families.  They weren't "hatched"  They have
:	mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, relatives, and friends of
:	all thereof.  They marry off thousands of couples in a lifetime.
:	In non-disfunctional societies they have intimate contact with
:	thousands families in their parishes.  Further, they are learned
:	in a church tradition/teaching that has *worked* for nearly 2000
:	years.  Whatever changes or refinements are needed on occasion 
:	are frankly small ... not justifying the wholesale amnesia that
:	really is being forced on our society by rendering our society
:	unable to teach the values it needs to know in order to survive.

	But once they grow up, then what?

	As to "working", does that include looking the other way at
love affairs outside of marriage? Prostitution? St. Thomas Aquinas
actually endorsed prostitution as the lesser of two evils, stating
that prostitutes are necessary to society in the way that sewers are
necessary to a palace.

	"Intimate" contact with families? That suggests sex to me...

	Do you have direct evidence of ANY kind?

	I personally don't relate too well to those who can only spout
tired old dogmas.

/Loren