Catholic Church: Right-to-Doctrine; does it?

Taking into account the ongoing battle over the Catholic Church’s decision to enforce a Morality Clause, it would seem reasonable to assume that it should, after all it is a Religious/Faith-based organization and without the ability to evangelize its religious construct then by what manner would the maintenance of its teaching occur?
The accompanying article takes a decidedly different heading on the inquiry (my comments appear below) and I trust you will find the effort engaging and thought provoking as you filter through the ever-present media bile. From my perspective, the source of the apparent quandary appears to be built upon an ever-evolving ruse: “What is deemed acceptable is transient and evolutionary and thus we must also, and justly so, possess the right to interpret the attributes of cause and effect in terms of transient and evolutionary so that we might expand the domain of what is deemed acceptable in order to suit our equally transient and evolutionary opposition to all who object to our belief that there are no absolutes where the intellectually thallic attributes and parameters of impulse are concerned.” We look forward to your comments.
http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/ethics-exit
Comment: Very interesting article and it’s rare to see this level of effort in contrast both as to perspective and reasoning and yet I was surprised to discover that the writer elected to suspend providing a conclusive opinion. He does, to my sense of his philosophical perspective, suggest that it’s perfectly fine and reasonable to proclaim moral absolutes but only so long one doesn’t hold to them so tightly which suggests that he prefers (by inference) a more thallic or mobile interpretation; perhaps one that suggests that in order to be loving and Christ-like we must also be malleable. It is true that Jesus taught, and in quite absolute terms, the attributes and favor of being and acting in a “loving” manner but we mustn’t forget that he never taught ambivalence toward absolutes; what is sin if not a violation of an absolute? Why then, if no moral absolute, the need for forgiveness? It is so that the practice of and potential for forgiveness is ever-present however its extension never reverses the absolute and consequential effect of choices made.
Regardless of whether or not protected by the First Amendment (Bill of Rights) I believe that the Church has the unalienable right to assert a doctrine (built upon a long-standing  and affirmed “religious” foundation) much as it is the right of a teacher, or any person for that matter, to choose not to uphold these very same teachings however it is neither the right or the liberty of those in opposition to enforce their choice upon the Church in such a way as to make conformity with their perspective, oddly enough, an absolute. If we are going to uphold the Construct of Freedom as unalienable, particularly with regard to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights including the 9th and 10th Amendments then how can we claim to accomplish the ideal if we do not hold to (or at the very least, accommodate) the absolute and exemplary essence of those ideals which are absolutely “unalienable”? Is it rational to hold to the position that as there are folks, seemingly more and more, becoming estranged from the concept of absolute that their presence is sufficient, on evidentiary terms, to support or endorse a process which claims that all principles are now transient/malleable and thus must be universally accepted/adopted? Is it also then the case that all things are now false until they evolve in some manner to being deemed truthful or valid?  I surely hope not!
The concept of absolutes allows for distinction and yes, discrimination, as to alternatives, conditions and outcome; absolutes, in quite simple terms, “are” and the proof of it is all around you and easily observed; the cultural dysfunction raping the planet is proof  that “they” exist and contesting their preeminence will not alter the absolute of outcome.
From my perspective, the source of the apparent quandary appears to be built upon an ever-evolving ruse: “What is deemed acceptable is transient and evolutionary and thus we must also, and justly so, possess the right to interpret the attributes of cause and effect in terms of transient and evolutionary so that we might expand the domain of what is deemed acceptable in order to suit our equally transient and evolutionary opposition to all who object to our belief that there are no absolutes where the intellectually thallic attributes and parameters of impulse are concerned.”
We all fall short of perfection but we must never become complacent to or cede the act of perfecting; it is the very reason for your having been called forth into being and we owe our best efforts to the process.  If the Church, within their domain of influence, is not entitled to assert their teachings then by what means are these most important attributes to be conveyed? If those entrusted with teaching these attributes are unwilling to demonstrate their allegiance to message they are teaching then by what means or method are they validated? If the Church is prohibited from maintaining the very standards upon which its teaching are based then what becomes the purpose of an incongruent messenger?  If the message has no merit or lacks substance then the inertia of mortality will prove the notion as flawed; on the other hand, if there are, truly, absolutes then they will be free of mortality and be both unalienable and self-evident; not being willing to acknowledge them as such does not make them any less so. My thoughts.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.