I thought I posted this earlier but apparently it didnt go through. Mark Shea on controversial stuff for a change. Usually, its bland, unopinionated, happy-go-lucky stuff from MS. But this is different. While I would disagree on a point or two, and would put things someone differently regarding a number of points on which I agree with Mark Shea, it seems to me this is an important piece to discuss. Im not sure conscientious objection to Church teaching and appeal to the prudential judgment are quite on a par with one another, but if the thesis is tweaked to say that many so-called liberal Catholics (theologically and generally also politically liberal) appeal to conscience as a way to nullify the force of some binding Catholic teachings, and many so-called conservative Catholics (especially politically conservative) appeal to differences of prudential judgment to nullify some binding Catholic teachings, I will say the thesis is true enough. Not the whole truth but true enough. One might note that the scope of binding teaching rejected by the (generally theologically) liberal appeal to conscience tends to be broader, at least in principle, than the scope of binding teaching rejected by the (generally politically) conservative appeal to prudential judgment, and some of the teachings rejected by the political conservatives on prudential grounds either arent binding as such, are binding under certain circumstances, or are binding as authoritative teaching, not as dogmatic or definitive teaching. Of course binding is still binding. Ill be away working, until at least tonight. Meanwhile, have at it. But if you do, play well together. Your salvation may depend on it.
Posted on: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 17:43:29 +0000