"This is all well documented by covered up."
Perhaps you could get covered up to supply some of this documentation.

...a fictionalize story called the NinthDay...

...sacred cows that can never be questioned: The Holocaust...

Dear huliman
So St. Maximilian Kolbe was just a "Modernist" moron who didn't get the memo...or probably he didn't exist, either.
I'm mesmerized by how rad-trads are capable to use the same outrageous expedients of their modernist enemies that they pretend to fight. Like liberals, they end up creating a parallel reality to conform to their worldview.
I hope rad-tradism has the same destiny that all historical heresies, at least formally, had (even if it can't be technically classified as one): oblivion.

It is interesting that the world has certain sacred cows that can never be questioned: The Holocaust, the legacy of Martin Luther King, and the truth of Evolution.

Matheus,
I don't know what your point is about a fictionalize story called the NinthDay. My point is that the gas chambers where never in operation anywhere in Germany or Poland. My ancestors, who are Jewish, moved to Australia frequently stated that Auschwitz was managed by Germans and run by Poles. The Poles committed more attrocities than the Germans. This is all well documented by covered up. Again the truth will set you free.

I just want to add that SSPX should also consider the Diary of Anne Frank as a documented fraud. See what the German government has to say about it way back in 1980
http://christianparty.net/annefrank.htm

According to this report SSPX websites in a number of countries have anti-semitic content.

Dear huliman
Do you remember that the "Holocaust" didn't target only Jews? Have you heard of this saint? Have you ever seen this movie?

I think the Pope needs to stick to his guns and not back down. Just like when he made his controversial statements about Islam. What he spoke is truth. What the Bishop says is truth. And the truth will set you free.

I am curious about this whole discussion. Why does it really matter if the Bishop questions the Holocaust. Even the German government admits that there where no gas chambers in operation on German territory during the war. I have been to Ausschwitz and have seen these gas chambers. The stories don't add up. The director of the gas chamber would have his 3 children play in the grass 50 meters away from the gas chambers. No person would have their children playing next to poisones gases. So I don't think the Bishop questions the killings of innocent Jews, just that they were not done via gas chambers. So I am tired of the Catholic church backing down.

Well, I'm back, after being out of the country for an amazing, often glorious week -- a lifelong highlight -- about which more later.
And what do I find? C being C. A splash of icy water -- stagnant, unwholesome water at that -- welcoming me back to ordinary life. (As I prepare to post this, I see that, while I was writing the following, C has posted a brief exit for the time being. Well, I'll post it anyway.)
C: What a sore tooth you are.
What a relentless trial, a thorn in the flesh. You know, you really are a sort of satan, an adversary and a tempter, tirelessly testing and provoking, but always ready with an alibi, an exit strategy, plausible deniability.
Practically everything you say is defensible with the necessary context stipulated. And a great deal of what you say bears -- and is, I think most reasonable people would agree, deliberately and maliciously calculated to bear -- a prima facie meaning bound to nettle, offend or otherwise distress others. You have elevated passive aggression into an art form, with more sophistication (in more than one sense) and refinement than I think I've ever seen it pursued. You lay traps, wait for someone to take the bait, and then spring the gotcha. Again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Poke poke poke poke poke poke poke.
Why "Saint Lucifer," C? Why an obscure 4th-century bishop whose name, according to one source, "demonstrates that 'Lucifer' (meaning 'light-bringer') was not yet merely a synonym of 'Satan' in the 4th century" (italics mine), but which caused confusion even among "19th century biblical scholars" who supposed that "Luciferians were Satanists," and which today lends itself to such inevitable confusion that, "although his cultus has not been suppressed nor his canonization reevaluated, he is not often celebrated or spoken of in the calendar"? (Most Catholic-source references I can find call him "Lucifer of Cagliari" or "Bishop Lucifer" precisely in order to avoid the confusion that, for you, seems to be the whole point.) Or why play on the possibility of applying the term "light-bearer" in certain contexts to Jesus, etc., when you and every other reasonably fluent speaker of English knows damn well what "Lucifer" readily conveys in common English usage, and has for centuries?
Are we meant to accept that your choice of "Sanctus Lucifer" is completely unconnected to your previous "Satan is good" business, and that the prima facie similarity is just an innocent chance coincidence? No. You're simply triangulating the land mine, finding multiple convergent angles of approach to conveying satanic perversity without technically committing yourself to it, or while maintaining plausible deniability against having committed yourself to it. If and when other people misunderstand you -- and I can't think that any other poster in the history of this blog has ever suffered so much misunderstanding as you -- then that's their fault for being poorly educated, and you bear no responsibility.
But you do, and you know it. You know enough moral theology to know that you bear moral responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of your actions. If I put a bumper sticker on my car with Catholic iconography and the legend "Worship Mary," on the grounds that the word "worship" has a semantic range beyond latria, I would become morally responsible for the inevitable confusion, distress and stumbling that will result. If I used the phrase in one specific context, say at a party where I clarified it for everyone listening, that would be different. But of course many people would see your "Sanctus Lucifer" reference without having read your explanation.
What's more, your words here are bound (calculated, I say) not only to confuse but also to distress even when the defensible construction is known, because the prima facie meaning can't be escaped or forgotten. For example, pointing out the sense of "intercourse" as discourse or conversation does not mean you can go on talking to a man about your having "intercourse" with his wife, since the prima facie meaning is too loaded. And if you juxtapose such an outrageous double entendre with other in-principle defensible remarks, e.g., references to his wife's "promiscuous passions" (meaning that she has a range of unrelated hobbies and interests), calling her a "hussy" (which can bear the sense "frolicsome or sportive") and a "tart" (in the original sense as a term of endearment), etc., before long, quite justly, he is going to want to punch you in the face.
Well, this is you. Thou art the man.
And it doesn't even matter if I crack down like German stormtroopers on the "Satan/Lucifer" business. I can't change your M.O. The worst effect, the really oppressive thing about your presence on this blog, at least for me, is that you force me, constantly, into the role of policeman and arbiter. You're like a rotten little kid whose life revolves around testing the boundaries to find out where they are. Can I do this? Well then, can I do this? How about this? And this? And this and this and this? You let him do that, so why can't I do this? Ad infinitum.
Policemen and arbiters are what we need when decency and ordinary human give and take have broken down. When and where decent people willingly make reasonable efforts to avoid trespassing unnecessarily on one another's boundaries, erring where possible on the side of caution and respect, making reasonable efforts to try to avoid causing others foreseeable but unnecessary confusion and distress, policemen and arbiters will generally have very little to do. It's like how Mark Shea says if you aim to treat people with respect, you won't accidentally torture them. By the same token, if you aim at marital fidelity, you won't even ask where the line is where infidelity starts. When questions like that start becoming an issue, things have already gone wrong. And that's your whole M.O.
P.S. Added just before posting: I see you're leaving for time time being. As you ask, I will pray for you and your loved ones.
I also ask you not to come back at all, unless and until you have a radical change of heart about your past conduct here, and are willing to apologize and mend your ways.

I will have to leave you with the last word.
Due to a personal emergency, I don't anticipate being able to participate in discussions on this blog for the indefinite future. Please find it in your heart to pray for me and my loved ones. Thank you.

It's occurred to me, Tim, that you didn't understand the third thing I spoke of when I was speaking when I spoke of a "man." You seemed to think I was speaking of a garbage man. As I've said, "Saint Peter" in Latin is "Sanctus Petrus" It's just that in English we sometimes translate sanctus as "saint" or "saintly" and sometimes as "holy." Just as there is a "Saint Peter" there is also a "Saint Lucifer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Lucifer
As I have suggested, using "saint" to translate Sanctus is not wise and we should speak of "Holy Peter" and "Holy Lucifer" etc. Let me give an example that proves the point I made earlier. People easily say "We are free to disagree with Saint So and So" and if they are polite they might say "Saint So and So, though he was a holy and wise man, is not infallible and I disagree with him on this one." Well, if they actually knew what the Latin "Sanctus" meant, they wouldn't say that would they? For then they would realize they'd be saying, "Holy So and So, though he was holy ...." which is redundant.
As they say garbage in and garbage out. We need to go back to making rudimentary Latin a strongly encouraged course of study in schools.

Tim, to answer your question -- I assume you want me to answer it? ... some mentions of "LUCIFER" in the Bible are interpreted by some to refer to someone other than Jesus and some are interpreted by some to refer to Jesus and there is overlap, i.e. some say this mention refers to someone other than Jesus while others say it refers to Jesus.
In terms of the Catholic liturgy, Jesus is called "LUCIFER" in the Exultet aka Easter Proclamation
Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:
Ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum:
Christus Filius tuus,
qui, regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit,
et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.
which using the translation on Wikipedia, while keeping lucifer as Lucifer would read:
May the Lucifer which never sets
find this flame still burning:
Christ, that Lucifer,
who came back from the dead,
and shed his peaceful light on all mankind,
your Son, who lives and reigns for ever and ever.
In this spirit, I pray: "Sanctissimus lucifer in Mariam et cum Mariam regnat per omnia saecula saeculorum." And may this reign of the most holy lion, more noble than the King of Judah and gods of men's own making, "in Mariam et cum Mariam" give blessing to to every body and even give rise to ecstasy and and the consoling embrace of the "unitive way" in women and men wherever and whenever the most holy spirit deigns to bring to mortal women and men the glory of the sons of God. May we pray that you whose light is sought by all may bring great good from the SSPX and other situations of injustice and traditionalism in the church; may Catholics and non-Catholics alike be led to draw near to Latin delights profane restoring to its rightful place the study of the Classics in Western Civilization whose foundation is not found in any sectarian figure of religion, but in the cultural treasures of Ancient Greece and Rome and may these inspire us to find peace in ecclesial matters such as the SSPX and peace in all matters, that we may do always what is authentically attractive to our living bodies knowing that its authentic attraction is per Catholic doctrine a sure guarantee of its rectitude.
P.S. Thanks for acknowledging your bad for the second time. Thanks also for changing your cross posting practice. I'm sure you just weren't aware of the convention before I made it known to you. Good job.

I hope you're fine, but as you can see your Wunderkind has been taking advantage of your absence here to wreak even more havoc...

" 'Lucifer' can refer to Jesus or to Satan..."
I suppose it *could* refer to my garbage man, if I suddenly, arbitrarily decided to use it that way (he does "lighten" my trash cans). I'm not aware of any Christian use of that name to describe Jesus, though, so you'll need to provide some for me (I'm just so uneducated, see).
But I'm sure if I knew Latin that would change everything!
But, my "bad" for explicitly bringing up Satan to begin with (though the subject has been implicit in almost every post from our strangely persisitent poster, CW).
I will henceforth be sure to follow the admonishment of SDG and drop the whole subject of that old infernal crank altogether.

OK, so I'm unclear now, is "Satan" (or "Lucifer") now a permitted term in the Name field? I'm assuming it is since Tim J has just used it, so I'm going to adopt a different Name with this post, whose ambiguity is intentional and which for all I know be permitted as a Name even if Tim's usage of "Satan" was an anomaly.
In case those not schooled in Latin usage in the Church don't know when speaking of saints, the Latin is "Sanctus" -- so for example, "Sanctus Petrus" is the Latin but in English we say "Saint Peter." That kind of weakens the force of the Latin since as you may know, the same Latin word "sanctus" is used in the Mass of God "Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus " which we in English say as "Holy, holy, holy".
So where's the ambiguity? If you don't know, well besides that "Lucifer" can refer to Jesus or to Satan, it can also refer to a man known as "Sanctus Lucifer" i.e. "Holy Lucifer."
Tim, if "ordinary people" limit "good" to the way little children speak of "good" versus "bad" or how Santa asks how you have been "naughty" or "nice", then sure "Satan is good" would not be understood well by "ordinary people." I would quibble with your statement about "moral" but again if understand "moral" in the way "ordinary people" do as above, then yes the same is true.
I think the problem was that "Satan is good" was taken to mean "Satan is someone who is noble and to be admired as am example to follow and emulate." But the fact that it was taken that way suggests that there is as John Paul II suggested a catechetical desert, that catechesis is in extremely poor shape. It's also just the way we ought to approach language that when someone speaks we understand it in ways in which it would be true, not in ways in which it would be false -- that implicit rule of speech, gives context to every utterance of speech.
BTW, thanks Tim for your stamp of approval on my explanation to which you referred.
As for vacuums, the way physics uses the term "vacuum" does not correspond to something ontologically void. Things for example can pop into being in a vacuum which would not be possible if a vacuum were truly ontologically void ... unless of course something can come from nothing.
I said it was due to the SSPX scandal and related affairs. As for sources
austriantimes.at/index.php?id=11173
"ORF Radio Upper Austria reported 110 Catholics had left the Church in the Linz diocese last week, four times the number who did so in the same week last year, and said an official of the Linz diocese had commented the number had been "unusually high".
The official added many Catholics had sent his office emails in which they said the Wagner’s nomination as auxiliary bishop of the diocese was the reason for their departure from the Church.
Many people had also criticised Pope Benedict XVI for his rehabilitation of bishops in the Pius X Brotherhood in their emails, the official said.
Reuters reports the number leaving as unusually high throughout Austria as well
And as IHT reports, they have been inundated with this:
www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=20234023
"In Vienna on Monday, 10 Austrian bishops convened a crisis session to deal with the fallout. Erich Leitenberger, a spokesman for the Vienna Archdiocese, said church officials around the country had been inundated with letters, phone calls and e-mail messages, including from parishioners saying they were leaving the church."
And as Radio Vatican reports, a "wave of exits" has begun in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2009/02/08/2003435578
For news specific to Germany:
www.globalpost.com/dispatch/germany/090213/german-catholics-leave-the-church
"Germans divorced themselves from the Catholic Church in the hundreds last month, the news magazine Der Spiegel reported. The number of departures is up as much as 40 percent in some areas."
Not as much as being up 300 percent in some parts of Austria, but still dramatic. And there's no sign of the this tide stemming. Some are ambivalent:
"“I’m still Catholic but no longer want to be Roman Catholic,” writes one user named Wolfgang E. “On Monday I’m going to discuss with my confessor how best to go about that.”"
The same sort of thing is happening in the Netherlands and also in France. Theologian Jean-Pierre Wils is among those in the Netherlands who has left apparently. A loss for the church.

"The word 'good' has many meanings. For example, if a man were to shoot his grandmother at a range of five hundred yards, I should call him a good shot, but not necessarily a good man."
G.K. Chesterton

May I also point out (as tiresome as this has become) that a very common understanding and usage of the word "good" is to mean "morally upright", in reference to caring and working for the sake of others? Satan is not good in this sense.. "Non serviam".
I would even say that it is in this moral sense that ordinary people would normally speak of Satan being "good" or "bad", not in relation to how smart he may be or how effective in his work (which we - all being good Christians - reject, I'm sure). One could easily say "Johnny is a very good soccer player AND a very bad boy".
Therefore, one could say in this moral sense, "Satan is not good" with great confidence. But then, that wouldn't get much attention.

Satan is good at being evil.
Also, it is possible (however unlikely) for someone to deny the holocaust and not be anti-Semitic (maybe they just tend toward conspiracy theories, like people who think we never went to the moon), so Jimmy is correct and you are not.
Again, CW, you interpret every ordinary sentence as a formal statement of doctrine where it suits you. If I say "there is a vacuum inside this light bulb", will you insist that I have had weak training in philosophy, because a vacuum is a negative property and so vacuums, properly speaking, can't be said to "exist" or to "be" inside a light bulb?

"But news reports that include sources from diocesan officials indicate that there has been a dramatic exodus from the church in Europe due to the SSPX scandal"
Sources?

"Here's one way to think about it (and I think this would help everyone)..."
The paragraph that follows the above quote is pretty much all truly stated and is also (FWIW) familiar ground for many Catholics who listen to Jimmy's podcasts, or who pay attention to Catholic Answers shows, etc...
Please don't suppose you are introducing some hidden knowledge, here, CW.

"My suspicion is that you do not (just as Tim J did not) realize that evil as a negative property..."
Believe it or not, C, I was aware of that long before you ever posted at JA.O. I would stop and think, if I were you, before assuming that you have enlightened or educated the readership here to any great degree, though that seems to be the role in which you invariably see yourself.

Matt, you are lying or you did not read or understand my post. Your use of atypical terminology ("privation" is more typical in philosophy than "deprivation") suggests that it may be that you partly did not understand and perhaps due to being unable to understand chose not to read. I'll leave you with the last word here and anywhere else as I won't even be reading or taking into cognizance your posts. So if you were for ex. to in a post speak ill of my mother or ask Satan to do his best to tempt my sister, I would act in nescience of such posts.
Of course I act in nescience of many posts and parts of many posts and in the latter case I usually make note of it, saying that I have not read all of a person's post when responding to it.

troll,
That is Catholic dogma and you are a heretic, materially, if you believe otherwise
Now you're hurling anathemas. You really don't understand the nature of the Church's authority. If, as you claim believing the devil is evil is anathema, the Church will have stated as such in an authoritative document. You have no authority, zip, zero, nada. I have no authority either. You post paragraph after paragraph of your own argument without any basis in something that any of the readers will accept as authoritative (or even compelling).
The fourth Lateran council declares:
"Diabolus enim et alii dæmones a Deo quidem naturâ creati sunt boni, sed ipsi per se facti sunt mali."
The devil has made himself evil - is the council in error?
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium. Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur: tuque, Princeps militiae coelestis, Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo, divina virtute, in infernum detrude. Amen.
This prayer is ordered to be said by popes, is it false that 'evil spirits' exist and which we pray to be cast into hell.
You need to consider that there are senses of stating that evil exists which are legitimate, even if we understand properly that evil is a deprivation.
a dramatic exodus from the church in Europe due to the SSPX scandal...I think the floodgates will open.
This is utter hogwash. It is widely estimated, that on a typical Sunday in France more Catholics assist at traditional masses than Novus Ordo. The exodus started right after Vatican II. You can't blame empty churches on the SSPX.
If their faith is so shallow, they can find no salvation without true conversion. Better that they should understand the desert which they truly inhabit than to remain in a false sense of security.

Matt: your post is inaccurate and hard to parse; I am not even sure what it is that you are disagreeing with me about. It seems that perhaps you are not an adult as I assumed and I apologize if that is so since then some of my approach may have been excessively harsh. Though you lacked charity in your response, I will endeavor below to be charitable to you.@Sarah
Evil is not a positive (ontologically real) property, but rather a negative property, of no ontological being. That is Catholic dogma and you are a heretic, materially, if you believe otherwise. AFAIK, both Tim J (at least upon being made aware of it though I think he still does not understand it adequately) and SDG (whatever defects in understanding he may have) have accepted this Catholic dogma.
Evil as a negative property pertains to you and it pertains to Satan. Since I assume that is what you mean to express, you and I do not disagree on that. My suspicion is that you do not (just as Tim J did not) realize that evil as a negative property can pertain to some thing and yet that something can be -- and always is -- good.
Let's take you for instance. Evil as a negative property can be predicated of you and yet goodness as a positive property can also be predicated of you. I've already explained the Catholic philosophy of the transcendentals, a doctrine that Tim J finally (to the extent that he might have apprehended it) accepted as true but which SDG rejected as "nonsensical" and "bogus" (at least before being made aware of what the doctrine was and its place in Cathoilc philosophical patrimony) and you have given no indication that you actually disagree with it; if you don't understand it, then apart from reading this thread, I advise reading the book along with the primary sources that may interest you included or cited therein.
Your only beef seems to be that you want to be able to say that evil can be predicated of Satan -- as I have mentioned all along, it can, but not in the way that goodness can -- it can only be predicated as a negative property, a property that has no ontological being. As it so happens, according to Catholic doctrine, every positive property is in fact something that is ontologically good since ontological being is one and the same thing as ontological good, and but notionally different (only in how we formulate a conception of the thing, not in how the thing actually is)
This is the standard view. There are some other opinions that differ slightly and subtly, but they don't change in any significant way the matter which caused so much controversy here.
Now, is there, now that you actually understand at least a little of what I was saying, maybe you and I do not disagree ... or at least you do not firmly disagree with anything I have said. If so, then I guess you wouldn't have much interest in exploring the book I recommended or the primary sources replete therein. FWIW, the primary sources in the book including things by St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Albert the Great -- and a non-saint Francisco Suarez, as well as others.
Here's one way to think about it (and I think this would help everyone). The negative (ontologically void) property of evil is true of Satan as it is of you or anyone else not to the extent that Satan or you or anyone else has being but to the extent that Satan or you or anyone else does not have being in ways Satan or you or anyone else ought. Remember, the transcendentals of being and goodness and truth and unity and "thingness" (res) and beauty are all but notionally different -- they refer to one and the same thing. When you speak of the goodness of a tree you are speaking also of the being of the tree because the goodness of a tree and the being of a tree are one and the same thing. Anyway ... concretely, what being is there in Satan? Which remember is the same question as asking what goodness or what beauty or what thingness or unity there is in Satan. Well, one can but speculate, but Satan may be intelligent in various ways and thus be good in those various ways. More specifically, he may be diligent in studying a matter or have great determination and so forth. Catholic doctrine does not exclude the possibility that certain natural virtues (the kind that atheists might practice perhaps) ccould inhere in Satan. Since being determined is in itself something of natural virtue (in this case it would be "natural" relative to the angels or more specifically to the species whose sole individual is Satan within the genus of angel (per St. Thomas Aquinas' metaphysics which is a scheme very common in Catholic tradition). Having great determination is a natural virtue in humans as well. That doesn't mean that a particular act of great determination cannot have the negative (ontologically void) property of evil predicated of it -- however to the extent that act has being it is good and vice versa and likewise for being and beauty, being and truth, etc.
Regardless of how skeptical one may be of natural virtue being operative in Satan, it is not orthodox to say that the only goodness that inheres in Satan is his merely "existing" (in the common or colloquial sense where existing is like a binary thing -- you either exist or you don't and you don't exist in some way or to some degree). The reason is that if Satan's goodness is only in his merely "existing" than per the doctrine of transcendentals, Satan's being is only in his merely "existing." But if that is all there is to Satan's being, then you could not say that Satan acts or that these acts have any being (and if they don't then the acts don't "exist" ... and if Satan exerts any influence it cannot be true acts that have no ontological character). In addition, you could not say then that there is anything to distinguish Satan's being from any other demon's being since their being per the transcendentals (where being and goodness are but notionally distinct) would both consist merely of existence. But that is problematic and ultimately untenable in all sorts of ways (for ex., there would be nothing distinguishing Satan's species of angel from that other demon's species of angel and moreover even if you reject St. Thomas Aquina's metaphysics of angels, you are still left with how Satan as an individual is distinct from that other demon if their being is qualitatively exactly the same ... and still, you are also left with the problem of how two things that are qualitatively exactly the same can act in different ways .... anyway there is no way out of this black hole). Tim J in his initial response recognized part of this (though I think he got confused by the some thing can have evil as a negative property predeicated of it but still be good thing -- to Tim's credit he has recognized that every thing is good ... he seems to say now that "intentions" can exist which are not good -- Tim nothing properly speaking can exist which is not good ... Chesterton is a poet, not a philosopher or theologian ... intentions like any other category of being can have any transcendental (being, truth, goodness, unity, etc.) predicated of it -- that is for any intention whatsoever, to the extent that it has being, it is good, true, one, etc ... as I may have mentioned this poses a problem for specifically the nature of sin -- the solutions proposed vary but one is to make a distinction between the physical motion of sin and the intangible malice of sin -- but as the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, this seems unsatisfactory ... I think a better way is to stress that sin involves the election of a good when a higher good ought to have been chosen -- so evil can be predicated of sin in a negative way (ontologically void) since it is merely marking an act as having absent in itself the election of a higher good)

Jacques Maritain is well respected in the Catholic church.
Some translate the prayer you made your own as "test" instead of "temptation." It may surprise you to know that Ignatius of Loyola said that were he to die and God were to give him a choice between assured everlasting heavenly glory or returning to the wayfarer state on earth to merit more heavenly glory at the risk of possibly falling away and ending up damned, that Ignatius would choose the latter. So it would seem that Ignatius of Loyola at least welcomed the opportunity to merit more glory in the face of more temptation. Yet of course Ignatius prayed the Noster Pater. I'm not aware of many others -- in fact only a handful -- who have expressed similar sentiments. Some saints express seemingly the opposite sentiment of wanting to die as soon as possible that they may go swiftly to heaven -- that seems to contradict Ignatius' relationship with God. Maybe different people can legitimately relate to God in different ways. If so, then it would seem there's no reason to assume that God would institute one religion by whose revelation or religious structure one would find a bridge to heaven. For some Christ may be a bridge to heaven; for others, it may be the stars that are the ponderance of science; for others, it may be neo-Paganism.
According to Jimmy Akin, the understanding reflected in the Catechism and common in Catholic tradition is that the church will virtually die at some point. That sounds exciting. I hope that day comes soon. Since that is an "end times" sign and since many pray "Maranatha!" and in charismatic Catholic circles, in English say specifically that may Jesus come "soon" -- maybe they too are hoping that such a day come soon since to hope that A when A entails B is also to hope that B. Akin expresses skepticism that this virtual death of the church will happen in his lifetime unless something "odd" happens. But news reports that include sources from diocesan officials indicate that there has been a dramatic exodus from the church in Europe due to the SSPX scandal and the matter of the bishop promotee SDG defended (who said that Katrina may have been caused by "spiritual pollution" and the brothels and homosexuals, with similarly outrageous things said of the tsunami in Asia, and fanatically -- though perhaps SDG relates with his reviews of Madagascar 1 and 2 -- decrying Harry Potter as "Satanism"). Some emails to some church offices specifically mentioned one or the other scandal as a reason for leaving the church. The number leaving in some areas has been some 4 times higher than a year ago. This could snowball over the years. If Benedict XVI chooses to regularize the SSPX, I think the floodgates will open.
Jimmy Akin has opined on the radio that being a "Holocaust denier" is not an obstacle to "spiritual communion" with the Church. I disagree with that. Being a "Holocaust denier" is according to many Jewish groups a sign or act of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitism (i.e. bigotry or hatred of Jews) is surely a serious sin that is an obstacle to "spiritual communion" in the Church. Maybe I did understand what Akin meant by "spiritual communion" but I assume it is inclusive of the bond of charity that the Catechism for example speaks of.
[btw, in case it wasn't clear I don't include in my universe of discourse "things" that are not properly speaking things, whether that be "square circles" or negative properties or what have you]

Fascinating... the troll is unwilling to cite primary or authoritative texts which can easily be found on the internet. Instead, he insists that the interlocutor must do his research for him. Not only that, but the secondary source provides no substantial support to his outlandish premise... that the devil is not evil.
Troll: until you cite a single imprimatured source that says the "devil is not evil" as you claim, take your garbage elsewhere.

When someone tells me I'm "free to believe" wild theories, a big red flag goes off. With free will, we're "free to believe" anything, even deceitful theories and wild speculations and heretics, and free to choose hell. We're also free to reject them and to expel the immoral brother.
We pray: Deliver us from evil and lead us not into temptation.

Matt, if you are willinging only to read primary sources, you will never even be able to understand them. I am sorry but as I have alluded to you seem to be unteachable. Here is the secondary source (which btw is replete with primary sources ... so if you wish you can pick up the book and explore them yourself; have at it ... assuming you are sincere in wanting to learn about this Catholic philosophical doctrine)
"The thesis that there is an intrinsic connection between being and goodness has a long tradition in philosophy. In the thirtheenth century however, this thesis received a new systematic elaboration because it was placed within a new theoretical framework, the doctrine of transcendentals (transcendentia). The term 'transcendental' suggests a kind of surpassing or going beyond. What is transcended is the special modes of being which Aristotle called the "categories." Categories are determinations or contractions of that which is: not every being is a substance, or a quantity, or a quality, or a relation, etc. By contrast, the transcendentals are properties that belong to every being. So they transcend the categories, not because they refer to a reality beyond the categories but because they are not limited to one determinate category. Transcendentals are interchangeable or convertible with being that is itself a transcendental."
Being and Goodness: The Concept of the Good in Metaphysics and Philosophical Theology (Cornell University Press) (p.56)
The books contributors include nine persons whom I am confident have much more ability and expertise on this than Matt does. I don't know if it is some fanaticism or some arrogatory inclination or what -- but whatever it is, let it not impede you. One of the contributors may FWIW be a name recognizable to you here namely Ralph McInerny.
The part I quoted was written by another person whom you can read about on these pages:
http://eicee2.org/e_fac_aertsen.html
http://www.thomasinstituut.org/thomasinstituut/scr...
Matt, until you pick up the book I mentioned -- free with interlibrary loan -- and as you so claim to want to do, explore the primary sources replete therein -- I will not discuss this with you further. If after reading that book and the primary sources replete there in you disagree with the academic community and with Jan Aestern's account above, then don't get back to me. Rather, submit a paper to a journal and then once the journal accepts it, let us know and I'll gladly read it. Now I have to get some cloth to clean my keyboard of carbonated water.

Fr Kung, unlike the SSPX Catholic bishops and priests, is able to celebrate Mass, give homilies, hear confessions and the like.
Yet he is forbidden to teach his error in Catholic schools, no example of orthodoxy.
Still waiting for a quote and citation from a primary document? Just more name dropping.

Since Tim has again brought up Satan above, I'll assume it's OK to talk about Satan.
---------------------------------------------------
Tim J wrote:
BTW, I thought of you this morning at Mass, and for a moment wished you were standing beside me, as we all repeated our Baptismal vows;
"Do you reject Satan and all his works?"
"We do"
To (late as it is) get back to an earlier comment you made in this thread, I heard someone on the radio a couple of nights ago who certainly believes in a conspiracy of demons and in the reality of our enmity with Satan... Fr. Benedict Groeschel.
Is he a reactionary fundamentalist?
--------------------------------------------------
I can't speak directly to what the controversial Benedict Groeschel may have said since you seem to be paraphrasing and I'm not sure what context is lost or what may be his own words and what may be your interpretative layer added to them.
But I can speak generally and say that (1) speaking of enmity between two persons or one person and many other persons, is not an indication of being a "reactionary fundamentalist" (btw, I don't think I've used that term; I've spoken of fundamentalists, but never here of "reactionary fundamentalists"). Certainly for ex. there is enmity between some politicians and many people. And scripture* speaks of enmity in various ways. (2) believing in a conspiracy of billions+** of angels intent on harming you is not only something that is characteristic of fundamentalism but also would incidentally be considered a delusion in psychology and psychiatry except that beliefs of this kind which are attributable to religious/cultural factors are excluded in present operative theory and practice from that identification.
(I am aware that Benedict Groeschel has studied psychology)
If you have a link to an audio recording or transcript of what you heard, I could comment more directly.
BTW, why did you wish I was standing beside you there? My understanding btw is that members of the congregation can if they prefer pray in slience (just as is common in some traditional Masses). In any event, in terms of one receiving baptism as an adult, responding in that kind of fashion does not mean one need buy in to all the theological baggage that it may suggest. You don't need to for example (in relation to "works") accept the doctrine of the Kingdom of Satan and all its spiritual baggage in that baptismal liturgy or in spiritually joining yourself to it. You also are free (in relation to "reject Satan") to with (Catholic philosopher) Jacques Maritain to believe that even Satan will be in some fashion be reconciled with God and that Satan and all his angels and all the damned would in time be received into at least something akin to the natural joys and natural love of God of limbo (See Avery Dulles' article in First Things "The Population of Hell" for his commentary on this conjecture which he both praises and expresses reservations on). Now certain theologians have opined that Satan and all his angels are not proper objects of charity. By joining in liturgically and saying you "reject Satan" you of course need not agree with this opinion of Aquinas and others. You also need not come down on the side of those who stress that God does not love Satan and instead come down on the side of say whatever Rosalind Moss had in mind when she on the radio said God loved Satan (contradicting one of the young co-hosts and agreeing with the other).
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article...
*in my view the inspiration pertains to the truth of the literary whole in which the sentences cohere in, not to the truth of sentences in light of the literary whole -- and also in my view the nature of the literary whole is determined by the primary divine author -- so even if the human author intended a letter to be historically true, the divine author may have intended it to be mythically true, clothing the mythic divine truth of salvicity with human work errant through which the light of God nevertheless shines. So if some amazing archaelogical evidence were to show that the human author(s) of Genesis all intended to present a scientific and historically accurate work, IMO, that should not threaten an authentic understanding of inspiration and inerrancy. In my view, distinct from either the conservative or liberal interpretation of DV, the human author's assertions to the extent that inspiration pertains to them, are God's assertions -- and the language of DV, in context of the limiter "salvific", reflects that, referring to the "inspired" author. To say that scripture is inspired does not mean that every sentence of scripture and every phrase of scripture and every other utterance of scripture is the word of God just as if God himself had uttered it -- that's a fundamentalist account and as we know from history and present, a dangerous one for any religion. You don't with scripture come into direct contact with the word of God; it is mediated in human cloth which is rags ... not only error but sinful inclination may be apparent in some of this human cloth, but such as is the mystery of economy.
**In the Church Fathers, one finds the view that in some sense the elect were created and predestined to take the place of the fallen angels -- i.e. the number of the fallen angels and the number of the elect would be equal. So on that view, we can assume that the number of fallen angels is probably at least in the billions. If the human species persists and population continues to be stable or rise, then we could revise that probable lower bound up higher. One needs to qualify this as "probable" since we don't know what proportion of humans in fact number among those predestined to heaven and take the place of the fallen angels. If one supposes that only 1/1000 are so predestined, then the number of fallen angels is possibly in the millions and not the billions. But in either case, one is presenting belief in a conspiracy of scale that dwarfs any attributed to "international Jewry" by some commenters on the blog that SDG recommended I read above and also belief in a conspiracy whose invisibility is incommensurately greater than that attributed to "international Jewry" or in relation to 9/11, the U.S. Government, etc. People present purported evidence for these latter conspiracies and the evidence is debunked; the evidence for the conspiracy of billions of Satan's minions is so non-existent that no one even attempts to present any ... in fact, in a vicious epistemic cycle, the absence of such evidence is pointed to by some as a very part of the conspiracy! (i.e. that the greatest deception of Satan has been in fooling people into thinking that he doesn't exist, etc.) As one can see, there is nothing when it comes to fundamentalists of this kind that could break that viscious epistemic cycle ... except perhaps their realizing its vicious character and allowing to seep in their mind a difficulty, and then a doubt, without worrying too much about committing mortal sin or being possessed or "oppressed" by evil spirits or what have you.

For some reason the variation on transcendental doctrine I used in the Name field got truncated and is missing a biconditional "<->" ... no idea why or how that happened.

I don't have any wish to discourse with those rude or those whom St. Teresa of Avila identified as being for reasons of the lack of a certain virtue able to be aptly described in the way that in our own time Catholic priest Hans Kung has recently described Benedict XVI in relation to the SSPX and related affairs. [I am assuming that the rude individual is an adult; if he is a child, then his actions may be understood in a different light.] Fr Kung, unlike the SSPX Catholic bishops and priests, is able to celebrate Mass, give homilies, hear confessions and the like. Maybe when I doubted infallibility and this was addressed by a confessor in a certain way, I instead had somehow had Fr Kung as a confessor then, my spiritual life and journey would have progressed differently. Hopefully, just as Benedict met for an extended period of time with Fr Kung near the beginning of his pontificate, Benedict will turn again to Fr Kung in friendship and Fr Kung can again in a more personal setting offer his sage advise to Fr Kung's servant (for that is what the pope purportedly is, Fr Kung's servant as well as every other Catholic's servant).
Tim, I find your explanation there for something hard to square with what you wrote, but I will nevertheless accept it and retract what no longer would apply given it.
Tim, in reference to God being beauty versus God being beautiful, you are incorrect on several points. First of all, saying God is beautiful does not exclude that God is beauty or the source of all beauty (and all being, goodness, etc -- remember the transcendentals are all but notionally different -- every being is good to the extent that it is being, and every good is being to the extent that it is good, etc.). We can see this reflected in the magisterium which speaks of God as beauty as goodness as truth, but also says of God that he is beautiful and good, etc. But this is not infallible doctrine. As I've mentioned some schools of thought in Catholic tradition maintain that no predicate of our conception can be properly applied to God. So we cannot say that God is good or that he is goodness, etc. According to this school of thought, we cannot even say properly speaking that God exists or is being or has being (nor can we say that God does not exist or is not being or has not being). This school of thought, basically stresses the ineffability of God. Perhaps you are somehow straddling these two schools and want to say that we cannot speak of how God is good, beautiful, etc. (even though the magisterium speaks in this way at times, including in the Catechism, the pontificate of John Paul II, etc.) but that we can speak of how God is goodness, beauty, etc. That's somewhat unusual, but fine. Personally, I am attracted more to the notion that God is absolutely ineffable. However, as a practical matter we need to speak of God even in expressing the fact of his absolute ineffability -- so our expression of God's ineffability is also inadequate ... i.e. God cannot be said to be ineffable nor effable. That is one extreme of this Catholic school of thought I mentioned. A lesser extreme would say that we can speak of God only negatively -- i.e. we know not anything whatsoever about what God "is" only what God "is not." This school of thought is mentioned in the Catechism, but as I've mentioned the Catechism sides with the Thomistic school. Anyhow, as a practical matter, in worship we also need to speak of God in some way to give vehicle to the expression of love for God of which love, regardless of how we may know not of, we at least feel in the depths of our heart and being. So my statement "God is beautiful" is in that light and for your purposes (which I'll assume this addresses), it is one that is present in the magisterium for example here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cc...
verbatim in that case as it so happens.
I'm not sure what to make of this but a troll later identified (I assume accurately) by SDG to be "B'Art" also on at least one occasion ended his post with "Signed, Me" though at that time I don't think the handle in employ was "Me." This could mean that the two troll entities I referred to are one and the same entity. It could also mean that one of the two is attempting to copy aspects of the other. It would not appear to be a coincidence since the content/style of "Me" not just in this thread has similarities remarkable with both entities. In any event I would strongly urge people to follow my and SDG's example in not feeding this troll, though always in openness to the God who cannot in theological charity be loved for his importance but only for his goodness, truth, and beauty, for who he is in himself, even though according to one school, we know absolutely nothing of what God is, only what God is not, and according to Catholic doctrine, we do not have comprehension of who God is in himself and that any knowledge that we may in any sense have of God is always, at least this side of heaven, mediated through a creature (that's what purportedly distinguishes according to standard interpretations the beatific vision from anything else, it is purported to by some to be a vision of God unmediated by any creature without of course annihilating the creature or assimilating the creature into God)

BTW, I thought of you this morning at Mass, and for a moment wished you were standing beside me, as we all repeated our Baptismal vows;
"Do you reject Satan and all his works?"
"We do"
To (late as it is) get back to an earlier comment you made in this thread, I heard someone on the radio a couple of nights ago who certainly believes in a conspiracy of demons and in the reality of our enmity with Satan... Fr. Benedict Groeschel.
Is he a reactionary fundamentalist?

troll,
I have referred only, in this thread, to the standard philosophical and theological literature Catholic and have cited a specific book with page number and publisher above.
You have not quoted ANY primary or authoritative sources. If your understanding of Catholic philosophy is widely held then quote from Aquinas, the Catechism, or some other source which could be considered primary.
Matt
ps. invoking a name and attributing a paraphrased idea doesn't make a citation.

"you also suggested I was using you to bolster my "resume."..."
I did nothing of the kind. I was merely pointing out that being more educated than I am is a very common condition, and not one in which to take any comfort or place any special confidence.
My professional credentials (as well as other things) are available for anyone to see. In my view, though, the most valuable aspects of my education have not been received in any formal institutional setting.
"Tim, are you criticizing me (and others?) for not telling you my name?"
Not at all, merely pointing out that my life is a more or less open book, and so it would be strange if I were to pretend to be "someone of importance".
"I am glad now that you acknowledge that you are no one of any importance. That is an important thing to acknowledge."
That's pretty hilarious, as I have never claimed to be anything else. I also find it a little odd that you find my lack of importance "an important thing to acknowledge", especially since "no creature is anyone of any importance.".
"We love God not because he is important, but because he is beautiful."
No, that would mean that we love God in the same way that we love any other beautiful thing, only to a greater degree.
A creature may be beautiful, God *is* beauty, and the source of all beauty, he is not one beautiful thing among others, or simply The Most Beautiful Thing (and so worthy of our notice and affection). But I understand that you enjoy floating statements like "not even God is someone of any importance" and seeing what kind of reaction you can get.
I have no knowledge of any tiff anyone may have had with either Bill O'Reilly or Jessica Alba, and so I will not comment. I don't watch much television.
"With respect, Tim, in my opinion, an opinion you have said of me at times, I think some of what you write has trollish intent (I wouldn't say you are in toto a troll as the other person is). By "trollish intent" I mean writing something not to be enlightened or to enlighten or to commiserate etc, but to garner some kind of reaction in someone that one relishes."
Deliciously ironic.

It would appear that SDG has also recognized "Me" as a troll, if I am interpreting his statement in another thread correctly. FWIW, much of the content and style of "Me" mirrors the content and style of that second troll entity I referred to. In fact some of it is so similar that a coincidence seems unlikely (and this is not a mere coincidence of a term such as "false flag" -- which btw, is not something that "conspiracy theorists" exclusively use and which a "MaryC" as well as an "Eric" as well as myself have all used on this blog antecedent to The Masked Chicken's judgment of statistical wisdom -- somehow the idea that a doctorate possessing academic was nescient even of the definition of the term "false flag" or its usage or its common occurence is rather scary ... I mean, I think I personally knew of its meaning or would have at least deduced its meaning from at least the 7th grade ... and considering that The Masked Chicken berated someone else's education in history while maintaining that his beration was not arrogance but frustration and mentioning that he has studied history and cultural studies on a PhD level, one wonders how he is ignorant of these basic facts of history (not the "conspiracy theory" kind, but those acknowledged by all):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
I also wonder how someone who seems to advance his knowledge of statistics as well as psychology, even neuropsychology, would be nescient of how IQ scores of different tests (for example WAIS versus S-B) do not map to the same standard deviation scaling. For ex. 140 on the WAIS and 140 on the S-B are not comparable scores, i.e not equivalent -- the former maps to a greater standard deviation (and percentile) than the latter. [unrelated note: And who knows what standard deviation mapping might be in use on Internet tests, or what measures of validity they might psychometrically satisfy]
Why I am I mentioning some of this? I recall that on one occasion -- and undoubtedly others I do not recall or am in cognizance of -- someone who shall go unnamed -- seemed to cite The Masked Chicken as an authority. I recall more vaguely, that happening on other occasions with another someone of the same Masked Chicken. Now I have nothing against The Masked Chicken, but I do have something against people seemingly having this misplaced confidence in his abilities or sagacity. Ahh yes! I recall now in one case one person even begged The Masked Chicken to comment on some matter, to start a blog, to email him, and/or some such. Perhaps the humility envinced by Scott Hahn's reluctance once on the radio to mention his opinion on a matter for fear that people would give undue weight to it, noting that people already give undue weight to his opinions and have undue devotion to his person, is something we should emulate.
I hope that my objective here has been clear. I appreciate much of what The Masked Chicken writes and my comments are meant not to asperse but to inspire people to what I believe would be a more healthy way of forming opinions, discoursing and so forth. Any appeal to authority should be examined with caution; I have not made appeals to authority of myself. I have referred only, in this thread, to the standard philosophical and theological literature Catholic and have cited a specific book with page number and publisher above. I seem to recall someone suggesting the same was true of Jimmy Akin in a thread about soup containing meat, saying that an appeal to the authority of EWTN or Colin Donovan, STL, was out of place and that Akin had sourced his argument. In my case not only did I source it, but there is to my knowledge not even a dispute here in the academic community (unlike there might have been in the other case involving meat soup)
In the midst of our prayers for the SSPX let us also pray for all those estranged from the church, including sede vacantists. I would ask especially for prayers for Gerry Matatics, who was formerlly affiliated with Catholic Answers, but who is, last I heard, a sede vacantist. Let us pray especially that personal reconciliation may take place in his life and that God may bless him in abundance in his life.

It's occurred to me that I may have misinterpreted you Tim and that your statement "At least you know my name" was your gentle criticism or expression of sorrow for some things received by you as harsh such as my statement regarding your name never coming up in my art and aesthetics study etc. I did engage in some hyperbolic statements there and if your statement was in reaction to those statements, I am sorry that I may have gone too far to highlight the theological point I was attempting to make and which I made explicit in my last post. Regardless, I am sorry that as seems to be the case, I was too harsh and as is the case, I was imprudent in not being reflective of the possibility of excessive harshness there. In addition, if I misinterpreted you, I apologize for that as well.
I also thank you for your acknowledgment as regards to your bringing up of a subject as being on you.

So "Me" acknowleges he is that second troll entity I mentioned (whose distinction from the first troll entity I'll continue to assume, but that is of no consequence here). I would encourage everyone to not feed the troll.
And just as I urge people to not get their philosophy or theology from Chesterton, I would also urge people to not imbibe the theology of Avery Dulles from a sound bite in an interview in a secular newspaper. An ounce of common sense should tell you as much, but the internet seems to remove common sense or attract those who have none.
Tim, are you criticizing me (and others?) for not telling you my name? As a victim of religious violence for my religious views and also as someone who has been subject via the Internet to the threat of violence for religious views expressed via the Internet -- two facts I have made known to you previously -- perhaps you would understand my reluctance to reveal my name here. SDG once criticized another individual for unlike himself and yourself not being courageous in posting with his real name and living with the consequences. But this is not not being courageous; this is being prudent. And, I think a forum should either make posting under one's name a rule or avoid criticizing (whether it be in SDG or anyone else) someone for not doing so. One would hope that you are not tempting me to do what I know and perhaps what you know to be in my case, imprudent and thus sinful. Maybe you don't understand the gravity of the religious violence I was victim to -- I was left almost unconscious. Maybe you don't understand the nature of the internet. Even setting aside the sentiments that are not altogether uncommon here, the nature of the world wide web is such that it is inadvisable to express views that might cause some fanatics to commit violence.
Tim, if you recall, not only did you bring up Satan, you also suggested I was using you to bolster my "resume." I found that inexplicable and almost nonsensical. I am glad now that you acknowledge that you are no one of any importance. That is an important thing to acknowledge. Indeed, in my opinion -- this is just my own opinion -- no creature is anyone of any importance. In fact, again in my opinion, not even God is someone of any importance -- how so? We love God not because he is important, but because he is beautiful. Beauty is a transcendental; importance is not -- how is that relevant here? God is the ontological ground of all things and so only in the transcendentals is what is truly of God seen. What not all beings inherently are (goodness, unity, truth, beauty, thingness, etc. and being itself), cannot be predicated of God himself. Perhaps it could be predicated of some relation between God and man, but then that is not love (charity) for God, but something lesser. This is why the better opinion of theologians is that thanksgiving to God does not entail charity for God (and for example would not entail perfect contrition) for thanksgiving to God is not love for God as he is, but love what God has done, for God's economy. So no creature nor God is important. Someone can be important TO something or someone and the like, but no person, divine or otherwise, is important in himself. Again, we love -- or we should love -- God for his beauty, not for his importance to us. The latter in fact would not be the supernatural love which is the theological virtue of charity, without which we cannot be saved. If you are inclined to read Protestants rather than the theologians of the church, then I would suggest John Piper and his book "Desiring God" as a place to start; I do so without endorsing the book's content.
A forum should be a place to be enlightened and to enlighten, not a place of verbal gamesmanship. With respect, Tim, in my opinion, an opinion you have said of me at times, I think some of what you write has trollish intent (I wouldn't say you are in toto a troll as the other person is). By "trollish intent" I mean writing something not to be enlightened or to enlighten or to commiserate etc, but to garner some kind of reaction in someone that one relishes. You knew that your comment "At least you know my name" would garner a reaction in either myself or in those reading so as to improve the way you appear or to degrade the way I appear. But that is not what a forum is about. It is not a contest of childishness (and adjective a Mattheus above said of me). I am sure you are or will shortly be aware of what the linguistic history of the word "forum" includes.
If I may Tim, without speaking of any content, speak about how I have understood your reaction to some things -- and maybe my understanding is totally wrong. Anyhow, I am reminded of a recent dispute between a Bill O'Reilly and a Jessica Alba. Alba spoke of being Swedish or going Sweden as in being neutral or going neutral on a certain matter. O'Reilly later criticized Alba as ignorant, saying she must have been thinking of Switzerland. Later, Alba said that actually it is O'Reilly who is ignorant since Sweden was neutral in WWII. Some folks have suggested that Alba actually did mean to say Switzerland and she just was lucky that Sweden also has some history of neutrality and that Alba must have looked the matter up before responding to O'Reilly. I get the feeling that (1) your reference to Augustine was akin to what some critics allege to have been true in Alba's case and (2) just as in this exchange involving O'Reilly and Alba, that our exchange did not succeed in fostering serious reflection upon truth. Perhaps I am wrong, especially on (2), and perhaps the recommendations I have made will not be shrugged aside. FWIW, I took it upon myself to follow up on a recommendation you made of a certain book. I would recommend in turn for persons who believe it imprudent (and thus sinful) to look at swimsuit magazines as that one excellent defender of the objective nature of beauty so believed, to avoid watching Fox News where such images abound (images from Playboy Mexico, including from the too racy for cover display pictorial of a Maria alleged to be a portrayal of the Virgin; in the last Fox News Watch, one of the segments was focused visually on the swimsuit edition of SI and they played imagery/video from it throughout the whole program as a tease;... in fact Fox News has come under criticism from some feminist quarters for allegedly marketing sex in this way). A better alternative at least in my experience would be MSNBC which does not seem to feature these elements with the frequency seen on Fox News. Of course, if one's political loyalty trumps all or if one like myself sees these things as innocuous, then this would not apply.

I did bring up Satan, so that one is on me.
That said, I find the whole paragraph beginning "Now as regards my "resume"..." inexplicable.
I'm no one of any importance, but at least you know my name.

it is probable that he is the troll that spoke of Avery Dulles' out of context quotation that dissent should be "rare"
What quotation isn't "out of context" in some sense? After all, we can't reproduce Avery Dulles or the context of the original interview with Avery Dulles here on this forum. What we have is what we have. In February 2001, Michael Paulson of the Boston Globe interviewed Avery Dulles "at the Jesuits' humble provincial headquarters in the South End". Quoting from what was published of the interview:
"Q. What is the appropriate role of dissent in the church?
A. Dissent should be rare, respectful and reluctant. One's first reaction as a Catholic is to agree with the official teaching of the church."
Of course, going by your self-styled label of "catholic maverick" who has "left the church" and who continues to change his handle near hourly and who has persisted in discussing the forbidden subject, perhaps for you dissent is simply an everyday way of life.

Just to be clear, I never said you were being heretical for saying Jesus was physically resurrected. I criticized strongly your statements regarding reanimation or resuscitation. I have no beef with the term "physical" here.

BTW, in my opinion, "Satan is good" contrary to what Tim J may "think", has no possibility of confusion since there is no proper sense of "good" by which that statement can be said to be false, let alone as SDG suggested "heretical." It is simply a true statement of orthodoxy which cannot be properly interpreted in any way that would not be orthodox or true.
OTOH, the statement that "the Real Presence is not a physical presence" does have a possibility of confusion and is likely to offend many Catholics (the statement "Satan is good" may offend b/c Catholics are simply ignorant of basic Catholic Philosophy 101 -- i.e. they apprehend the meaning of "Satan is good" and don't realize that Catholic doctrine affirms that meaning as true; but in the case of "the Real Presence is not a physical presence", many Catholics may misapprehend the meaning and this misapprehension may cause the confusion and offense -- so in my case the confusion and offense is but mere ignorance as to Catholic doctrine but in this case the confusion and offense can in some cases be due to well what SDG vaguely styles the "prima facie" meaning of "the Real Presence is not a physical presence).
And yet, Jimmy Akin has defended those who have said such (I don't recall for certain if he has joined in saying the same). OTOH, others have criticized those who have said such for precisely the reasons outlined above. Still others have criticized those who have said such by saying that this is not a matter of misapprehension, but one of proper apprehension of the meaning and that the meaning itself is contrary to Catholic orthodoxy -- that the Real Presence does in fact involve a physical presence (these include professional theologians who have said this, FWIW -- but I am not coming on one side or the other here). In response to these latter critics, the proponents of "the Real Presence is not a physical presence" view have suggested that some of them may just be ignorant of Catholic philosophy and Catholic theology and Catholic doctrine. Sound familiar? A little except for one thing -- this is something that has some actual controversy in the community of theologians. There is no theologian or philosopher that I am aware of who says that the medieval doctrine of the transcendentals does not entail that just as with any other thing and any other being, that to the extent that it is a thing, and to the extent that it has being, Satan is good, true, one, beautiful*, etc.
Now I think some are not understanding the terms here. Having "being" does not mean merely "existing" in the colloquial sense of "existing" which uses an ideology perhaps not compatible with Catholic philosophy in a total way. Let me just give one example. A man who shines in virtue has more "being" -- ceteris paribus -- than a man whose virtue is not so brilliant. How you say? Don't both men equally exist? If you are asking these questions, then please, read up on all this, before daring to slam Catholic truth as heresy or Catholic philosophical doctrine as nonsensical.

OK, since Tim is bringing up Satan now, I presume it is OK to talk about him. Tim, first of all SDG, is right to say that the prima facie meaning of "Jesus is not God" is heretical (I could quibble with this, but let's grant it). But he is absolutely wrong to say that the prima facie meaning of "Satan is good" is heretical. It is rather the prima facie meaning of "It is not the case that Satan is good" that is heretical. There is no proper sense of good in Catholic philosophy whatsoever by which it can be said that "Satan is good" is a heretical statement or that "Satan is good" is a false statement or that the negation of "Satan is good" is a true statement. And frankly, I doubt that Jimmy Akin would share such a view, what SDG has communicated notwithstanding.
Now as regards my "resume" ... you seem to think that SDG has more theological education or philosophical education on these matters even though he called "nonsensical" and "bogus" the doctrine of the transcendentals. This is not some arcane doctrine. This is something that any scholar of medieval philosophical theology would know of as would any scholar of the history of ancient philosophy and/or medieval philosophy. You seem to think that I had this idea that being more educated than you was some great thing to boast about. Tim, before I visited this blog, I had no idea who you even were and I still have no idea who you are except that you are trying to sell artwork. I have studied art and aesthetics and your name never came up in the literature. I've also met artists whose work is featured in museums and they've never mentioned you. Maybe you are some big shot (analagous to the big shots of MIT that a Masked Chicken likes to name drop ... by saying he knows someone whom some big shots of MIT knows of... then we learn that he went to some state school in Ohio ... FWIW, I have not just had x-degrees of separation with "Big Shots" (why do people on this blog care so much about this ... Roger Ebert, "I can name bishops!", "I had this conversation with a Cardinal!" ... big whoop), but have studied under, with and worked with big shots ... like people who at one time or another had an institutional affiliation with the likes of MIT, Caltech, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Oxford ... if it's celebrity that is considered "Big Shot" here then well, I could I suppose name drop not Roger Ebert but some of the A-list celebrities he covers or whose films he covers ... people I have at one time or another shared living space with or broken bread with.) ... Tim, my self-esteem is not based on my "resume"; it is based on the fact of God's relationship to me which as to you is one of love, not of stardom. Do you like Jesus because he is some star and is accompanied by the glitter of angels (note how the Kingdom of Satan is said to tempt with glamor or glitter of the world)? Or do you see in Jesus, the one whom Francis spoke of as homeless. That is the glory of Christ, not a glory of the world.
Now as for the nature of sin, theologians have puzzled over that (BTW, I would advise you to not get your theology or philosophy from Chesterton ... in case you didn't realize, he is not a philosopher nor a theologian and for that matter he didn't consider himself one; he described himself as a journalist of all things), but the physical constitution of sin as a physical thing (now this is "physical" in a sense that you are unfamiliar with) is good. But then how to explain the malice of sin? Well, that is a whole separate topic, but the Augustinian response which you claim to be familiar with is that the malice of sin has no ontological reality. And this is the doctrine of the Church.
BTW, Tim, in your citation of "Me" perhaps you are unaware that it is probable that "Me" is "B'Art" etc. In any case "Me" is clearly a troll and as for me I will no longer be responding to "Me." If he isn't the troll "B'Art" then it is probable that he is the troll that spoke of Avery Dulles' out of context quotation that dissent should be "rare", assuming -- as I do -- the two trolls are distinct entities.
Now you bring up a totally unrelated subject of the Resurrection and totally misrepresent my views on this. You either have a terrible memory (possible) or you are deliberately doing this (probable -- and by "probable" I don't mean "50+%" -- probable just means that it has a substantial probability -- now this is a non "prima facie" sense of probable, but the original controversy does not involve some non prima facie sense of "good" -- there is again no authentic Catholic sense of "good" where by which it is proper to say that it is not the case that Satan is good -- and even more clearly it is not proper in any authentic Catholic way to say that no goodness inheres in Satan,.
Anyway I have affirmed the bodily Resurrection. That is one of a number of distortions and perversions of truth you have expressed as regards my position on the Resurrection.
Let me ask you a question Tim ... let's say you die and your body is cremated (as permitted by the church). Let's say then the next day Christ returns and he resurrects you. And let's say here you are in your new "spiritual body" -- which is very much a body in and through which you express your soul. Let's suppose that it also involves your ability to touch and to feel touch. Now let's suppose though that the cremated ashes still remain. Would that be possible? Well, in itself, yes. However there is the matter of how not just your body but every bodily thing, including inanimate things like ashes or stars will be transfigured in the new creation. So your ashes might be in some way transfigured. But need God reconstitute your resurrected body from those ashes, from the particles that make up those ashes? Not at all. In fact this confusion as to what the doctrine of the resurrection entails is a good argument for not just permitting but mandating cremation (as well as the environmental issues of sustainability).
Now let's adjust that and suppose you didn't cremate yourself. Let's say your corpse lies in the grave for many years and decomposes. Let's say Jesus returns and resurrects you. Does he have to form the resurrected, spiritual body from that decomposed corpse remains? No. The lack of cremation doesn't change anything. The analysis is the same as above.
Now apply this to Jesus case. You seem to be of the impression that I expressed belief only in a non-bodily resurrection even though I repeatedly clarified to you that that was not the case. As I have said before, I simply do not believe that God needs to constituted the resurrected spiritual body of Jesus from the remains of Jesus. Now, to be fair, this may have a wrinkle of tension with some traditional theology that says some bizarre things about the nature of Jesus' remains after his death (how certain unusual things were true of the remains that would normally not be true of other human remains). But it is in no way contrary to the dogma of the Resurrection itself.
Anyway, I'm sorry if you felt slighted by my statement on "education." It was sincerely meant as a compliment.
I am often multi-tasking when writing here. I'll try to - and I urge others to also join me in this - reflect for at least a moment and ask myself: "How can I most prudently in charity write this" whenever I write something here.
BTW, the thing you are trying to conceptualize as regards "same body" is numerical identity versus qualitative identity. Now if one supposes that numerical identity of body supervenes on numerical identity of the person bearing it, then it is certain that the resurrected spiritual body and the present body are numerically identical, though qualitiatively not identical. If one supposes that numerical identity of body does not so supervene and that there is some other necessary condition by which a body is numerically identitical with itself, then I'm not sure what that other necessary condition would be or what would comprise the set of conditions sufficient for such numerical identity -- while squaring it with the issues I raised as regard it being possible for God to in some cases constitute resurrected bodies from material not numerical identical with the present body. Even in the present body, the compositional elements do not retain numerical identity. One could say the material as a whole retains numerical identity, but one need not do so if one were to suppose that the numerical identity of one's body does not entail numerical identity of the material of its constitution.

"Since I don't know what you mean by "cancer"... "
If true, that is a problem. But I see from your next post that you have "dealt with cancer in loved ones" (as have I), so you must actually have *some* idea what I am talking about. Can we all just agree to use the word "cancer" according to its commonly understood meaning, and skip hauling out JAMA articles trying to tease out a scientifically precise definition?
Incidentally, nowhere did I mock your (or anyone's) attitude to cancer. I used cancer by way of an analogy to give some sense of what I believe to be your attitude toward Catholics, especially on this blog (nowhere did I claim to be an Augustinian scholar, either. I don't claim to be a scholar of any kind).
My whole point regarding the cancer forum was (as Me has expressed) that one can make perfectly factually true statements in ways and at times that are unhelpful, confusing or even hurtful. Explaining, afterward, your statement's high level of factual correctness does not address the problem, which is one of underlying antagonism.
I have not disputed anything you have said about the nature of transcendentals, being, goodness or anything else. How could I? You are *factually* correct, as far as it goes. I believe SDG's statement stands;
"The fact that a prima facie outrageous and offensive statement can be subject to a legitimate interpretation doesn't change the fact that it is prima facie outrageous and offensive. One could make a semantic defense for the assertion "Jesus is not God" actually having an orthodox sense within Catholic teaching, but it remains prima facie heretical from a Catholic viewpoint. "
What astonishes is not your level of knowledge, but how little good it seems to do you. I'm certain that I normally walk around with all kinds of inexact theological categories banging around in my mind, as have the huge majority of Christians (and humans, for that matter) through history. I do, at least, have some sense of everything I *don't* know. Knowing more theology than I do is nothing to put on your resume, I'm afraid. Practically everyone knows more theology than I do (well, shockingly, there are many who know less). Satan, I understand, *knows* more than any of us.
But the Christian faith is not a theology test. It isn't a matter of how much you know, but of how you respond to the knowledge you have. I trust in God. Everything else is gravy. With faith in God, even a little knowledge helps. Without faith in God, no amount of knowledge will help. I'd rather have the meat with no gravy than have a tanker truck full of gravy with no meat.
I do not have, however, as simplistic a view of reality as you attribute to me in saying that I must believe that some things are "good" and some are "evil", because I hold that Satan is evil, or because I hold that you were, in fact, up to mischief when you said he is good.
It will all depend on what one means by "things". Objects are not evil. "Stuff" is not evil. God looked at everything he had made (which is everything) and said "behold, it is good." As Chesterton put it, "there are no bad things, only bad intentions".
Is an intention a "thing"? Is a situation a "thing"?
You once before, I believe, accused me of drifting into heresy when I expressed my childlike belief that Jesus' resurrection was a real "physical" event, saying that a physical understanding of the resurrection could only mean "resuscitation" or "reanimation" and that both of these were considered heretical beliefs (as if my statement meant I *must* accept that Jesus was either not quite dead, or that he was merely reanimated like a zombie).
You imlied that Jesus' resurrection body was only spiritual and that those who saw him after his resurrection saw him only in a spiritual sense. I - though I'm no scholar - believe the clear and obvious teaching of the Church rejects this.
If Jesus' resurrection were simply spiritual, how is it that the empty tomb was repeatedly offered in scripture as evidence of this miraculous event? How is it that Thomas touched Jesus' wounds? How is it, indeed that we explain Jesus' post resurrection statement "A ghost does not have flesh and blood, as you see I have"? Was he being deceptive with that statement?
Jesus' body - the one he had here walking around on the earth - was really and truly resurrected - "raised up" and brought back to life, but it was also *changed*, as St. Paul said we all will be "in the twinkling of an eye". Jesus glorified body is the same body that was nailed to the cross, though it is not the same as it was.
A lot turns on the word "same", which can be used in different senses. It is the same body. But it has been changed, it is not the same as it was. It is important to emphasize, though, that it is *more* than it was, and not less.
This is one of those doctrines of the Church that faithful Catholic pew-sitters have not had educated out of them. Many people may have a LOT more education in theology than I do, but anyone who has come to disbelieve in the historical, physical aspects of our faith (real, physical miracles) has seen more harm than good from his/her education.

I will note however that Jimmy Akin has opined several times on the radio that it is not morally permissible to attend a marriage that one knows or believes to be invalid. He says doing so signifies approval of the marriage.@Tim
And I will note Jimmy's standard opine on this forum has been that he himself personally could not recommend attending ("I could not recommend that you attend", "I don't recommend showing up at sacraments where God will not show up", "I cannot recommend attending a wedding that is known to be invalid", etc.). He has noted that "present ecclesiastical law does not specifically address the situation, which means that we have to fall back on the principles of moral theology to help us settle the question." Not personally recommending something is not the same as saying it's morally impermissible under any and all circumstances. Does he say differently on the radio than he does on this forum?
So it would appear that he and that female apologist are not in total agreement
Neither recommends attending as the rule, and I have not seen anywhere where either has stated that the Church says it's morally impermissible under any and all circumstances. So they would seem to be in agreement on that. Whether they hold the same opinion in every respect is not for me to say, but a comparison of their responses does seem to suggest that she at least expresses her opinion somewhat differently, and she cites the views expressed by the lay apostalate Catholics United for Faith for support/reference.
past magisterial teachings of relevance would seem to still hold weight
Which "past magisterial teachings of relevance" actually said, as you seemingly suggested, that the Church forbids attending? Or was that only an opinion?
I don’t know what you mean by “cancer”
Tim can speak for himself, but to many, “cancer” is often used as an example because of its strong association with suffering. After all, if it were not for the suffering, who would care about cancer? Suffering is a bad thing, we are so often told. But when we let the light of the Gospel shine on suffering, we see that suffering “is something good, before which the Church bows down in reverence with all the depth of her faith in the Redemption… It is suffering, more than anything else, which clears the way for the grace which transforms human souls.” (Salvifici Doloris) And, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church” (Col 1:24).
If you really want to have some fun, go and post that on a cancer forum and then, when people get upset...
, there are many Church teachings that would upset people if posted for "fun" on a cancer forum. And there are also people on cancer forums who would appreciate Church teachings when presented appropriately.

BTW, as someone who has dealt with cancer in loved ones, I don't appreciate your mocking comments regarding my attitude to cancer.
Let me also note that the last two consecutive posts by Serena whom I have nothing against are together about equal in length to my previous post above. Let me also note that SDG recently told a "frankie" to not worry about being verbose when frankie was worried that someone would use that as a pretext to ban him.

Tim, I'm going to leave aside your continued error on Augustine.
Is heaven a gift proper to the nature of man? Is heaven an end proper to the nature of man? Catholic doctrine in answer to both questions, says "No." Now that is the substance of the matter. If you want to redefine terms, that is your business. You specifically contradicted what I stated in terms of something not being proper to the nature of man. If you want to acknowledge that you didn't understand what the English phrase "proper to the nature of man" means then that's one thing, but you haven't even done that. You have confused Catholics as to what is Catholic doctrine. You claimed by implication that heaven was a gift and an end proper to the nature of man. Do you acknowledge that that claim was an error?
I won't even ask you to admit you made that erroneous claim. At least acknowledge for the sake of your readers that heaven is not an end proper to the nature of man. Feel free to add that you think the terminology that Catholic theology uses is unhelpful. But acknowledge the substance. If you just don't understand the substance, then confess your nescience. Nescience is no sin and nothing to be embarasssed about.
BTW, I don't think you understood what Catholic doctrine says about goodness.
I am sincerely trying to be helpful here. Please, please listen. OK?
You seem to have this view that some things are "good" and some things are "evil." And that existence is one of the "good" things and that sin or doing harm to body is "evil" of some kind and that therefore the Unnamed and also Cancer must be "evil" and therefore "not good."
Here's where you are going all wrong. It's a big big mess you have there, so I'm not sure where to start. Let me just present Catholic doctrine and I'm sure you can see for yourself where you are going wrong.
Catholic doctrine says that there is no such thing properly speaking as evil (thing meaning the Latin "res"). Evil is merely a name which we ascribe to states of affairs where there is an absence of a thing that ought to be there. So for example, we call the state of blindness in a man, evil (in terms of kind of evil, we call it "physical evil") because a man ought to possess the capacity to see (a thing) but doesn't. There's no evil thing (res) properly speaking. Most critically, Catholic doctrine is adamant that there is no ontological reality -- no ontological being -- to evil -- i.e. evil has no ontological reality and evil has no ontological being. Evil properly speaking does not have being. Evil is rather the ABSENCE of BEING in a situation where that BEING ought to be present. That's all critical Catholic doctrine theological. Now we move on to Catholic doctrine philosophical.
In Catholic philosophy, BEING is ONE AND THE SAME THING as the GOOD. They are not merely harmonious with each other -- they are literally one and the same thing and just notionally different (different in how we conceive of it, but in reality one and the same thing). The same is true of all the other "transcendentals." And absolutely everything without exception IS GOOD to the very same extent as it HAS BEING and to the very same extent that it IS TRUE -- and so on for the other "transcendentals."
Now that's not how modern man conceives of things, so this difficult to grasp, but this is the Catholic philosophical doctrine. Now SDG called this Catholic doctrine "nonsensical" and "bogus." To your credit you have acknowledged I may be more educated on these matters and also to your credit you have a zeal to do what you think in some part of your mind or heart to be right. Now let me present something from a professional text, so rather than rely on SDG (who has presented nothing) or on my own word, you can rely on this book:
"The thesis that there is an intrinsic connection between being and goodness has a long tradition in philosophy. In the thirtheenth century however, this thesis received a new systematic elaboration because it was placed within a new theoretical framework, the doctrine of transcendentals (transcendentia). The term 'transcendental' suggests a kind of surpassing or going beyond. What is transcended is the special modes of being which Aristotle called the "categories." Categories are determinations or contractions of that which is: not every being is a substance, or a quantity, or a quality, or a relation, etc. By contrast, the transcendentals are properties that belong to every being. So they transcend the categories, not because they refer to a reality beyond the categories but because they are not limited to one determinate category. Transcendentals are interchangeable or convertible with being that is itself a transcendental."
Being and Goodness: The Concept of the Good in Metaphysics and Philosophical Theology (Cornell University Press) (p.56)
I can tell you with absolute confidence that if you ask any academic who is competent in the philosophical theology of the medievals that he or she will confirm everything I've said as regards the medieval philosophical doctrine of the transcendentals. This is not something that is to my knowledge in any dispute in the academic community -- anywhere. And no this blog does not count as the first case of such dispute in the academic community ;)
So it is not that x has existence, therefore x is good. That's not how it works, Tim (i.e. not the way to think about it; "being" is not some thing that is padded on to something; being itself inheres in something and in terms of "thingness" (res), being and thing are one and the same thing -- "res" is also a transcendental). Being itself is a transcendental and thus everything has being and likewise the good itself is a trascendental and thus everything is good -- and having being and being good are considered one and the same thing. So to the extent that "cancer" -- whatever you are referring to by that -- has being, it is good and vice versa. If you are going to deny that it is good, then you must either say it has no being (which may be the case depending on what you mean by "cancer") or commit yourself to rejecting some Catholic doctrine.
Since I don't know what you mean by "cancer", I won't speak to that, but when speaking of the original subject you are undoubtedly alluding to, that person is not good in some "linguistic loophole" sense -- that person is good in the proper sense and there is no proper sense of "good" by which it can be said that it is not the case that that person is good. OK, maybe there is just even more nescience here than I originally thought. Are you aware that all plants are good? Are you aware that all animals are good? Are you aware that a tiger which has killed your friend is nevertheless good? Are you aware that computers are good ... and not merely instrumentally good, but that goodness inheres in them? Are you aware that mountains (say on some planet no one could ever visit or see by telescope) are good? Are you aware that each particle or wave in the universe is good? Now is it your impression that these things are all universally good merely because "well, they exist" ... no they are good inasmuch as they have being and they are good in manifold ways inasmuch being inheres in them in manifold ways -- likewise they have being inasmuch as they are good and they have being in manifold ways inasmuch as goodness inheres in them in manifold ways. Were you even aware of the doctrine that in God, existence and essence are one and the same thing? (this is assuming the Thomistic school that we can speak of God in a qualified way with human language). You seem to have this idea that "existence" or "being" is some lower form of good .... (to be fair, unfortunately, the way some apologists speak of this may have confused you), but being is not some form of good -- being IS goodness and goodness IS being -- and this is so in terms of the transcendentals of ALL creatures without exception. A thing has being to the extent that it is good and it is good to the extent that it has being and it is both good and has being to the extent that it is true -- and so on. That's true of animals, of plants, of any cell or group of cells, of angels, of men, of particles or waves, or stars or galaxies, of coitus outside marriage or coitus within marriage. But how does that square with Catholic doctrine you ask? Well I'll SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU. According to Catholic doctrine, ceteris paribus, coitus outside of marriage has LESS BEING than coitus within marriage ... and the BEING that is absent in a situation of coitus outside of marriage is something that should be present in such situation .... I thought you said you were an Augustine scholar who is able to make use of Augustine without even thinking about it?

If you really want to have some fun, go and post that on a cancer forum and then, when people get upset, write several long posts about how they're obviously lacking in philosophical training and how you're just trying to help them break free from their provincial mindset and understand The TRVTH.

C, does someone have to be "thinking of Augustine" to use a word in a more-or-less Augustinian sense?
"and then back track and say you weren't thinking of Augustine at all but were just speaking colloquially"
Which I never said...
Fun With Syllogisms!!
A)Existence is good.
B)Cancer exists.
C) Therefore, cancer is good.
Discuss...

Tim, who is using some "linguistic loophole"? I who without criticizing anyone, present Catholic philosophy and Catholic theology using standard or historic Catholic theological or philosophical terminology and embracing standard or historic Catholic theological or philosophical doctrine ... or you who on one hand seems to say that you meant it in some Augustinian sense (which by the way, you don't seem to even get ... you might want to in addition to exploring the difference between the supernatural and the natural, also explore the difference between the relatively supernatural and absolutely supernatural ... and while you are at it, look up preternatural ... and try to pinpoint where exactly the Catholic terminology might be confusing you) and then back track and say you weren't thinking of Augustine at all but were just speaking colloquially ... well "colloquially" you could say that homosexuality is natural to many animal species inasmuch as colloquially it occurs "in nature" -- but in the Catholic sense, "natural" means proper to the nature of. Perhaps you are taking your queues from Evangelical Rick Warren who spoke of how homosexuality is natural for some people and how for himself he naturally wants to sleep with every beautiful woman he sees (remarkably, IIRC, he said this while being interviewed by a female reporter) and instead of taking your queue from Catholic doctrine and patrimony. Maybe you should hold off on that NT Wright study and go back to the Catholic basics.@Me
You seem to grasping for some truth but in your endeavor to express it you fall into heresy because you want to criticize me while trying to express the same. That truth is that (let me help you out), what is not proper to the nature of man need not contradict the nature of man.
Anyway, you said you would acknowledge error if I were the one pointing it out to you ... surprise surprise, just like that other gentleman, you fluster. You still have a chance to do what is right and acknowledge your error. Everyone of course does.
A supernatural end, such as heaven, is not proper to the nature of man but like any supernatural end it is of course by definition not contradictory to what is proper to the nature of man (neither is btw the absence of the supernatural end of man in someone contradictory of what is proper to the nature of man -- for example, limbo includes an absence of the beatific vision, a supernatural gift and end of man, and should limbo exist, the absence of this supernatural gift would not be in contradiction to what is proper to the nature of man).
BTW, whatever sense of "natural" you meant, are you saying that Augustine used it in the sense you did? If not, which Catholic theologian/philosopher has used it in the sense that you have? Now, which Catholic theologians/philosophers have used it in the sense that I did? (or for that have used the notion of "is good" as I have; or have affirmed the doctrine of the transcendentals by which each transcendental is predicated of everything that is; or have affirmed the objective quality of goodness and beauty by saying that goodness and beauty always inhere in an object?) Pretty much every one of them right? So who is using "linguistic loopholes"? Someone who suggests he was thinking of Augustine (please ... do you take us for fools? or as Ed Peters wrote of the Superior General's remarks "idiot children"?) and then later says he was speaking colloquially and is a Schmoe (Augustine a Schmoe? Or is it the Augustine-Ott hybrid that is a Schmoe?)
. I have not visited your link and so I won't comment on what that female apologist may have said. I will note however that Jimmy Akin has opined several times on the radio that it is not morally permissible to attend a marriage that one knows or believes to be invalid. He says doing so signifies approval of the marriage. AFAIK, Mr Akin has not changed his opinion. So it would appear that he and that female apologist are not in total agreement, at least if your portrayal of her opinion is correct. In any event her opinion matters little; she does not have to my knowledge much education, formal or informal on moral theology. Jimmy Akin's opinion also matters little to me but it probably would matter more to many here. And, FWIW, Jimmy Akin's opinion (or the one he held and I presume he still holds) is in more or less agreement with the judgment of moralists of the pre-Vatican II era which the SSPX and its defenders hold dear. Nothing magisterial in nature has negated that and past magisterial teachings of relevance would seem to still hold weight. But to answer your question, if that was the whole of what she wrote, she is either nescient of what moralists have said AND/OR not fully transparent as to what the magisterium may have "implicitly" said AND/OR not fully transparent as to what the magisterium may have "explicitly" said in the past AND/OR not fully transparent as to distinguish between her own opinion, and the mind of the Church and that of moralists. She seems to not even mention moralists (if your quote is in full), and so discarding the whole work of moralists and instead replacing that with her own moral compass of a "rule of thumb" seems -- if your portrayal is accurate -- to have been a grave disservice to truth and to whomever she was responding to.
What Tim derides as my zeal for "purity of doctrine" is only my zeal for truth. Just as people interested in Mormonism should have everything laid bare about Mormon doctrine, the same should be true of Catholicism and its doctrine. It is a grave injustice that for example, in Fr. Heribert Jone's Moral Theology that he suggests that some moral truths be kept secret from the lay faithful. That's from a pre-Vatican II work, but this is a pattern that has continued. Just the other day, a Vatican official was nostalgic about how in the old days without the Internet, documents for canonists were left to canonists and for theologians to theologians and there was no need to educate others or clarify for others. But here's something much worse -- a doctrine kept secret not only de facto a la Mormonism but de jure -- not just a legal document, but actual doctrinal truth:
http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/archive.asp?aid=5...
[VATICAN CITY (CNS)] - After years of study, the Vatican's doctrinal congregation has sent church leaders a confidential document concluding that "sex-change" procedures do not change a person's gender in the eyes of the church (...) The document was completed in 2000 and sent "sub secretum" (under secrecy) to the papal representatives in each country to provide guidance on a case-by-case basis to bishops. But when it became clear that many bishops were still unaware of its existence, in 2002 the congregation sent it to the presidents of bishops' conferences as well. (...) The Vatican document's specific points include: An analysis of the moral licitness of "sex-change" operations. It concludes that the procedure could be morally acceptable in certain extreme cases if a medical probability exists that it will "cure" the patient's internal turmoil....