Date: 10/14/02 11:03:42 AM

Name: Mo4


Subject: Re: Convincing arguments

New Article
Main List

Convincing Arguments? Reason? Logic? Research?

Tomothy Sedgwick: Many public statements are episodic, hasty and shallow, more in the nature of moral declaration than broadly informed reasoned arguments.

Harmon Smith: They are rather more reflexive than reflective.

Allan Parrent: They are often self-contradictory, inconsistent, muddled and chaotic.

David Scott: They are marred by problems in logic, by avoidance of fundamental issues, and by failure to even identify moral standards.

David Smith and Juith Granbois: The statements ignore pertinent research and opinion available from other, often more expert bodies and our ecumenical dialogue partners.

Allan Parent: At the same time, the pronouncements are clearly compassionate, humane, morally earnest, and manifest a deep and genuine concern for peace and justice in the world. The question for the church is how it might remedy the inadequacies in its statements and teachings while maintaining these positive qualities.

Doesn't this well reinforce James' position?

Oh, it is worthy of note that the above quotes are from Anglican theologians.

Be well, all.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

It is true that there is a long historical tradition in the Church that condemns contraception, and both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II have reaffirmed this teaching. This certainly has to be taken into account in any discussion of the matter. But the condemnation of contraception represents just one part of the Church’s teaching on the subject, and however solemn this teaching has been, it has not been proposed as an infallible and irrevocable one.
Further, arguments from authority cannot and should not be the main arguments here, for the condemnation of contraception is based on natural law, and natural law falls within the scope of human reason, and therefore the upholders of this condemnation should welcome the opportunity to show how reasonable their position is. Unfortunately, thus far, these upholders of condemnation have been remiss in providing these convincing arguments on the supposed reasonableness of this teaching. This is true both in CCLI writings, such as those from the honorable Sheila and John Kipply (sp?) and in this forum as well. It is unfortunate since it lends itself further to the lack of credibility the Church currently experiences due to the many scandals and its appearance of being out of touch with the laity.

Powered By Bravenet