Well, we know that you're the village idiot, so we didn't take it too personally.























(Just a misguided attempt at humor, of course. Seriously, I appreciate your apology, and I'm sure everyone else does, too! I think you're raising points that are very much worth talking about.)

Ok, here's the first one.

I'll answer only a couple of points - I think I cleared up most things with you in my PM.



Ok, here is rather a significant misunderstanding. I don't claim that a person is a mindless twit simply because they have never read the book/seen the movie.

If I were to define mindless twit a little more succinctly than above, within the context of this conversation, my definition would be as follows:

"Someone who attempts to engage in debate about specific points, themes or events from a story/movie that they have neither read nor seen, but rather spouts the third-hand/fourth-hand/(pick a number) opinion of any given person from whom they have heard a critique, no matter how reliable the source (with the obvious exception of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.)"

Ok, ok, I know - it was only a LEEETLE more succinct. But the operative issue here is that they are trying to engage in a debate on a topic with no knowledge of that topic save a little hearsay.

In a court of law this would be ludicrous - that kind of evidence is inadmissible in court. Why is it acceptable, then, in a debate? (Anyone who feels the need to nitpick on this one - please count to ten first - don't argue against my WORDS, I know this isn't a formal court proceeing and have no need for anyone to inform me that in a temper - please think about the point that I am making. If we're going to raise objections to something, lets make them CREDIBLE objections, grounded in knowledge and study, so that they cannot be argued nor disproven. )

And just before I move on - I'm sure you've privately thought someone was an idiot before. My wrongdoing here isn't in thinking that people who fit the above definition is a mindless twit - my wrongdoing was in saying so, saying so in a temper, and saying so rudely. A slip in discretion that I now regret, whilst still holding the opinion.



This is true enough - I exhibited a distinct lack of patience, a bad temper and a lack of judgement in my post, for which I have apologised (see my most recent post before this one.)



Honest answer? I just don't have the energy. Yes, I know its a cop out. I STARTED trying to address this directly to people, and it would go in one ear and out the other, as the suggestion that I should be burnt at the stake grew stronger and stronger in their body language and tone of voice, as well as continued existence that I was little better than an albigensian. (I'm almost POSITIVE I just mispelled that. Then again, there are probably 101 gramatical and spelling errors in this post - its 2.44am on Saturday morning, for heaven's sake.)

Also, when the people in question are friends of my mother's, I bear in mind that its not wise to burn those particulare bridges, as this will cause strain for mum and for the rest of the family...

Thus the need for an outlet.

The point that I saw in watching the movie was because the movie will be topical probably for another little while yet. And whist that movie is topical, given that I already KNOW that there are things in it that are contrary to the Truth, I want to know WHAT they are, and HOW they are put across, so that I can think and pray about appropriate responses for when they are raised in discussion. I viewed watching the movie as preparation for battle - I found out what weapons my enemy had so that I could plan my defense. And no - I didn't trust the man down the street that said he saw them loading their artillery into the truck. Because he may have miscounted, or misinterpreted what they were doing. I made sure *I* knew what I have to know to maintain credibility in a discussion.

If someone makes a comment on anything and I happen to disagree with it, I look into that person's qualifications/experience. If that person has relevant qualifications/experience then I take their opinion seriously enough to investigate it further. If that person has no experience, then I don't give them the time of day and I immediately discard any thought of the validity of their opinion, becuase it has no credibility.

Thats all I want the DVC-supporters to do - I want them to recognise that I have WATCHED the movie, so I have experience of it, and knowledge of the subject matter. This means that if I say something contentious, there is a likelihood that they will at least look into it further. If I make a comment, and they ask "have you even SEEN the movie?" and I say no, they immediately discard my opinion as a load of BS coming from someone who has no idea what she's talking about, because I have no experience of the movie and no knowledge of the subject matter.

I don't plan to win the argument there and then. I can't do that, and its not about winning the argument anyway - its about loving the person. But they Holy Spirit can win a person over. If a person goes away open-minded enough to at least EXPLORE an idea, even if they are a skeptic, then its a very simple matter for the Holy Spirit to then come and do His thing...



Well BobCatholic, I'm glad you asked that question. Firstly, the comment with which you prefixed your question actually made me laugh. There is an underlying assumption that not only did I SEE the movie, but that I enjoyed it.

I NEVER claimed to have enjoyed the movie. I simply said that I had seen it. The movie is actually pretty boring for the most part. Funny thing is, even Tom Hanks looked bored - it got to the point where it seemed like he couldn't wait till filming was over so he could get on with his next movie.

Sir Ian McKellan, much as his lifestyle is one that I could never condone, actually did a good job of playing his part, but that is really the only positive thing that could be said for the film.

The most exciting part for me was a very random obscure little bit that dealt with fibbonacci sequences (for, as afore-established, I am a self-confessed NERD).

But no, I thought the movie was a load of BS. If the book deals with the theory as poorly as the movie deals with it, then it has so many gaps in it that no thinking person could take it seriously as anything other than the fiction it is. The level of inconsistency, and the jumps from one thing to another, with no rational association between concepts, was rife in the movie.

So your assumption that I enjoyed the film is totally off the mark.

To address your question on the Passion of the Christ, I own the DVD, and I was very moved by the film. Every time I watch it, I'm moved in a different way. I find the depiction of Our Lady and the theme of motherhood very powerful in the film, as well. And I use the DVD most often during Lent, as a tool to help me focus my prayer on certain aspects of the Passion. I think its a wonderful work of cinematography, as well as a real service to the Truth.

I also truly love the way it clearly depicts Christ's triumph over evil, with Satan screaming in despair at the end.

I'm a little uncertain about the snippets of private revelation that are presented as 'how it happened' - I kind of think it would have made more sense to stick to the Gospels rather than to turn to Emmerich's writings, if only because we are not required to believe in private revelation - I certainly acknowledge that it MIGHT have happened (for example when the cross was turned so that Christ was face down, and He was protected from being crushed between the rocky ground and His Cross) but I'm not comfortable with it being depicted as if it was as indisputably a part of the Gospel story as the crowning with thorns. This is a preference thing, though, and doesn't detract from my love of the film.

So wonder no longer, BobCatholic - there's your answer.



You began your post by saying that you hadn't called me a bad Catholic. You closed your post by making the above remark.

IF: that remark is directed at me,
THEN: I'm thinking that you're being just a tad bit inconsistent, not to mention highly judgemental of my soul (which has defintely seen better days, but the state of my soul quite frankly is a matter between God and me.

ELSE IF: that remark was NOT directed at me,
THEN: why on earth did you add it to a post that was otherwise directed at me? It would seem to have no place here.

Mind you, I daresay that that last remark was a result of your frustration/anger at what you perceived my message to be getting at. And given that my remark was also a result of temper, I can hardly complain at receiving the same treatment.

What I WILL say is this. There is NO EXCUSE for me losing my temper on this forum. There is ALSO no excuse for anyone else losing their temper on this forum. I regret having lost mine. Its none of my business what you feel about having lost yours, but know that I haven't taken it personally - I've simply responded to it.

No.

If, however, you wanted to explain to someone the PARTS of that film that were sinful and the parts that were not, and debate on specifics, you would need to watch the film. (One would argue that this kind of debate would not be worth having, given the cost of being able to engage in that debate on an educated level. *I* sure as heck wouldn't go there.)



No.

If, however, you wanted to try and convince a young woman who was planning an abortion that it is a dreadful thing, that it truly is a human being in there and that abortion truly is murdering that human being, you might make use of a video such as "The Silent Scream", which at one point depicts an actual abortion taking place. It is very graphic, and I actually couldn't watch the whole thing, but it can certainly carry the point across and it has saved many children's lives.



No.

If, however, you wanted to prove that the murder was a murder and not a suicide, manslaughter or death of natural causes, you would need to come as close to the murder as possible by examining the evidence. And I will point out again, hearsay is not admissible as evidence in court. You need to examine the PHYSICAL evidence - blood traces, ballistics, etc.



In my opinion there are a lot of university professors that SHOULD be out of work - or at least looking for work elsewhere. I had the great pleasure of encountering many of them when I was at university, and no doubt I will encounter more of them when I get around to undertaking my postgraduate studies.



The study of paleontology is founded on physical evidence, the closest that one can get to what happened millions of years ago. Our knowledge of ancient creatures is founded upon fragments of bone and various other bits of physical evidence that have been thoroughly examined with scientific methods.

The study of anthropology is the study of people and as such is based primarily upon observation. The anthropologist obeserves people and notes his observations, identifying trends and patterns.

You mention pottery below - anthropology must have been a typo - are you referring to archaeology? I actually took a few units of that in my second year - was heaps of fun. Once again - based upon physical evidence, such as the pottery that you so aptly mentioned.


It is true enough that they are expected to ABSORB this 'hearsay' and give it due consideration. But the true scholar doesn't simply READ a journal article or a piece of research. The sholar will read it, and then test it. They will read the opinion, they will do their own study of the physical evidence, and they will then make their own contribution to the discussion.

I'm convinced that university study is NOT to turn out experts in any given discipline. University study is to turn out people who are now equipped to become experts in their discipline, if they decide to take what they have learned of what others have said, and go test it out for themselves. This is easier to do in some disciplines than others, mind you, but the general principle applies across all the disciplines that I can think of.

Anyone who graduates from university and believes that they know a lot about their field is, in my opinion, grossly misguided. They don't KNOW a lot about the field itself. They know a lot about what scholars in their field have written. To know about the field themselves, they need to take what they know of what scholars have written and test it against the evidence.



Very true. To engage in a debate as to which parts are rubbish and why, and then correct the misconceptions by presenting the truth of the matter- well, THAT requires reading the book. But it doesn't stop there. Once you have done that, it is up for the person you to whom you have demonstrated this to go and investigate for himself/herself. They must test what you have told them against the evidence.


Learned, and I respect that. But not infallible. This discouragement has not come from the one and only person who is infallible, and even if it had, whether to read a book or not is not a matter of dogma or morals.

There are a lot of people, including priests, who advocate the idea that studying Kant is damaging for the Catholic philosopher's mind.

Yet for a philosopher, be he Catholic or otherwise, not to study Kant - well, they are a philosopher with a gap in their understanding of philosophical history and the progression of ideas, for much Catholic philosophy was developed in response to Kant. One cannot truly understand that philosophy unless one does so in its context - that is, unless one studies the ideas to which this philosophy was a response.

(My goodness, its now 3.40am).

I respect the priest who says it, but I disagree with him. Often I have been to doctors (learned men/women in their field) who have erred in their diagnosis, or whose recommendations I chose not to take. This doesn't mean I don't respect him as an expert in his field, as far as experts go these days. It simply means that I am aware he is human, and that I have to make the best decision that I can, based on the knowledge I have available to me at any given time. The doctor cannot own the decision to do something - the decision is mine, and I alone can make it.

Just because I disagree with a priest doesn't mean I'm doingn something wrong. It CAN mean that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that.


An observation that I have tested against available evidence thus far and found to be correct. *wry grin*

Although I think "religious indignation" is painting it a bit strong. It was a frustrated rant, nothing more and nothing less. Noone likes being judged, and no Catholic likes having their integrity as a Catholic questioned.

Were you in my shoes on a different issue where you felt you were doing the right thing, I would be suprised if your response (minus my little temper tantrum) would be much different.

If you've seen/heard hype and so-on, without having read the book, then yes, you're entitled to an unqualified opinion that the book is BS. No, you don't have to actually read it to have an opinion.

To adequately defend the Faith, in this matter, i don't believe its sufficient to say "The book is BS and thats the start and the end of it".

Picture a situation where you were confronted by an agnostic - someone genuinely searching for the truth, but suspcious that the Catholics are just having a whinge - there's nothing really wrong with DVC, etc... He starts asking you questions. He's open-minded, but you can give him no specifics. You can give him nothing but the statement "The book is BS and thats the start and the end of it." You had an opportunity to tend the seed of open-mindedness by giving it truth - and truth in specifics, not just sweeping motherhood statements, but you were unable to.

Now imagine that the agnostic dies the next day and you were the very last person he encountered that could have taught him truth.

Obviously an extreme example, the odds of it happening are low. But it COULD happen, and you never know when something that obscure might. It DOES illustrate a point, though.

Every soul that we encounter, we have a responsiblity towards them. We don't need to convert them. But we need to be ambassadors for the faith.

Making comments that we can't back up with a shred of specific evidence paints us as a group of people whose faith is not complemented by their reason. JPII would NOT have written an entire encyclical on the mechanics of how faith and reason working together were it not IMPORTANT.




Please see above.



Brown and Howard worked and produced a book/film. They earned money. People see a film for many reasons - some because they are interested in it, some because they will enjoy it, some for education purposes and some for investigative research. For whatever reason, if you receive goods or a service that has a market value (even if you dont agree that this value is an accurate representation of its worth), you have an obligation to pay for that item/service. August Ceasar believed that he was a god, and yet Christ still said "Pay unto Ceasar what is owed to Ceasar."

Paying money to see the film/purchase the book isn't promoting a cause. It is paying for goods/services. Brown and Howard probably don't even have the beliefs we do, nor do they necessarily have the intent to go on a Catholic-bashing spree. (In fact, in their defence, there were SEVERAL statements throughout the movie that painted the Catholic/Opus Dei bad guys as fanatics, categorically stating that not all Catholics/Opus Dei version of Catholic were like this. The book contains simliar remarks.)

I've never heard this said, but I'll take your word for it that you have. It's clearly a bit silly to think that studying Kant is intrinsically harmful, but people say silly things all the time. What I have seen in lots of scholastic manuals of philosophy is an approach to Kant that simply puts up various Kantian propositions and then "refutes" those propositions. There is no attempt made to help students develop a sympathetic grasp of Kant's thought, or to understand the reasoning that led him to develop it. The point is simply to show that Kant's views are false. This approach is not particularly philosophical, I think, but it's quite different from saying that people should never study Kant. Rather, it says, our study of Kant should focus on showing what's wrong with him. And this is not an obviously silly thing, at least at, say, the undergraduate survey level. I trust that when these same scholastics who wrote these manuals that were utterly dismissive of Kant taught graduate seminars on modern philosophy, they adopted a rather different approach!

The relevance of all this to the DVC is pretty straightforward. It seems to me quite sensible for many Catholics to read helpful books that follow the manualist model: books that explain what the DVC says, and then say why it's false. For most of us, that's quite enough: we don't need to read the DVC itself, any more than an undergraduate needs to read Kant himself. You can get enough of a flavor from a secondary source to see what's wrong with it. However, of course, the people writing those books on the DVC have to read it quite carefully, and be extremely well versed in the relevant issues! The division of labor here seems sensible.



OK, here I go off topic a bit. I disagree that philosophers really need to study Kant. Kant's views are based on gross errors. It's worthwhile to see where Kant goes wrong, but this doesn't require serious study of the First Critique or anything! If someone wants to teach a graduate seminar on Kant, he should know Kant backwards and forwards. If, however, someone wants to work in analytic metaphysics, there's no reason at all to worry himself about Kant. (Of course, things are a bit different for ethicists, since Kant casts a very long shadow in ethics. I'm speaking primarily of metaphysics/philosophy of nature type stuff.)

Isn't that a little... I dunno, a remark like that strikes me as a little uncharitable. I agree that the proposed suggestion advocates dishonestly, and I can't condone that. But I don't think there's any reason to be nasty.

Interesting question. My response to this is that people who haven't read the entire Bible should refrain from making negative criticsm of the parts they haven't read. Where context is required from the parts they haven't read to make criticisms on the parts that they have read, they should also refrain from making negative criticisms. But how do they know that context is required unless they've read the whole thing? They don't - so the safest thing to do is just to read it all before commenting. HOWEVER, if they really don't want to do that they should at least only comment on the parts that they have read.

Mind you, just because those who oppose the Church fail to argue their points in a credible manner, doesn't give us any excuse to follow suit. "You must be above reproach" or something to that effect appears SOMEWHERE in a letter of St Paul. I can look it up for you later if you really want it. But its 4.10am right now so I'm afraid it can wait until I've had some shut-eye.

Ok, well I think thats more or less it for now. Its taken me somewhere in the vicinity of about 3 hours to give all of this a considered response. Unfortunately it was done during the dark dread hours of the morning, so if I'm excessively verbose, or I haven't QUITE managed to be 100%, please excuse this and realise that I tried to be as succinct and polite as I could.

I look forward to hearing responses, but now that I've cleaned up my act I hope those of you who originally responded to my fire with more fire will follow suit and keep it amiable from hereonin.

*GRINZ*

If you knew who that poster was then you'd understand exactly why I said what I did.....Carole knows (as does the now banned poster) exactly what my meaning is.

If you perceive that as being nasty...then I'd say you should not make assumptions as to meanings of comments without asking for clarification.

SV

True enough. I've read enough about the movie and have read quite a few sources de-bunking the myths in the DVC. Hence, I stand by my point that I neither need to read the book nor see the movie in order to set up a defense against it. Were I to encounter the situation you posed with the agnostic, I'd be decently prepared for it in that regard, without the help of either book or movie.

Good. So you're not pro-the movie, you're just saying "see the movie so you can figure out new ways of debunking it!"

I think that would have been a better way of saying it



I assumed no such thing. From the rant I thought you were trying to get people to see this movie, not to debunk it, but "to see the truth the anti-catholic bigots are trying to say" Needless to say, that assumption of mine was wrong, and I admit it.

I guess I need to heed Benny Hill's advice on assumptions: "don't assume, because you'll make an ass out of u and me"




It isn't.




It was a slap at diSSenters who think they're so open minded because they dissent from Catholic teaching, and then call faithful catholics "closed minded" when in reality it is the diSSenters who are closed minded

I missed this before.

And I was re-reading my responses, only to discover that my grammar and spelling were both absolutely appalling. I offer my apologies for putting you through that.



Carry that theory over to the DVC and you've got my position in a nutshell. Its just as silly to say that watching/reading the DVC is intrinsically harmful.



I don't know about you, but I would hesitate to stake my academic credibility on the work on the validity/reliability of any other academic's work. I'd be prepared to read their material/manual as a starting point, to break me into something, but I would refrain from forming an opinion until I had read the source itself. If I went out and categorically said "thats the way it is" simply because someone else had said it, and that someone turned out to be wrong - noone would ever take my opinions seriously in that discipline again!

There are a bunch of Doc Woodbury-obsessed nutters here in Sydney. They study Woodbury's approach to Thomism, and there is some value in that. Where they cease to be rational people and start to be nutters is where they decide that Woodbury's manuals are all they need. I don't know if you've seen any of Woodbury's work, but its very manualistic, and very black and white. Its also some 50 years old. By refusing to study anything but Woodbury's approach to Thomism, these people fail to acknowledge that philosophy has developed in the last 50 years, that educated people have written about these things within the last 50 years, and that this all shapes the pattern that human thought takes as we embark upon the 21st century. They fail to educate themselves in these things and their thinking remains narrow and flawed.

I'm afraid I just can't respect that approach very much.

Manuals have a place, but should never replace genuine research. Crib notes will never give you a true understanding of Shakespeare or Austen, or Bronte or whomever. You only gain appreciation of their work once you study it directly. The crib notes can support that study, but should not constitute the be-all and end-all.




I disagree that this is where it stops, because these books are inevitably coloured by their author's biases and pre-existing opinions. You don't KNOW you've got the run down on something until you've checked it for yourself.



Well, that concession is enough to support my point. If you're a serious ethicist you need to have studied Kant. If you're a serious defender of the faith against a certain ideology, you need to have studied that ideology.

I'm not sure we're disagreeing here. It's your last line that I think matters most: "If you're a serious defender of the faith against a certain ideology..." Combine this with an earlier line, namely, "I would hesitate to stake my academic credibility on the work on the validity/reliability of any other academic's work," and we get to the heart of the matter.

You seem to simply be pushing for a higher standard than I think we need to push for. We're not talking about academic credibility here, we're talking about street level apologetics. If you're at work, and you see a co-worker with the DVC book on his desk, you don't need to have read the book to offer some good thoughts to your friend about some of the grave problems with the book. All that's required is a little bit of research, say, reading one of the many books that debunks the Code.

Similarly, if you're an accountant, or a nurse, or a firefighter, you don't need to have a real familiarity with the texts of St. Thomas. The kinds of philosophical discussions that you're likely to have while you're at work simply aren't going to require you to have made the jump from the stuff you learned from scholastic manuals in your undergraduate philosophy courses, to the text of St. Thomas himself.

I think this applies to places like this board, as well. Everyone who comes here, both Protestant and Catholic, knows that the people here are regular folks. Sure, we've got a few priests, but for the most part we're all just the people in the pews. People ask questions or raise arguments, and we do our best to explain/answer. Whether we're getting our answers from an apologetics book like Catholicism and Fundamentalism, or from our graduate training in theology, is kind of beside the point. To function well in this forum, as in life, the level of expertise needed is usually relatively minimal.

So I think what's most important is that those of us who function at the "beginner" level--whether it's in theology generally, or in the matter of the DVC specifically--need to be upfront about being at that level. We need to just say, "it's my understanding that...." rather than being dogmatic about stuff. And then, we can point people to the sources where we picked up our understanding.

So you're talking to your work friend about the Code, and he doubts some of the points you've made: bring him the book by Mark Shea. That'll put him on the right track. That's all that's needed.

Again, I agree that if somone wants to take the step from beginner to expert--on whatever subject--he'll have to put in a lot more work. But you seem to be asking us all to become experts before we talk about the DVC at all. And that's not going to happen. There's only so much time in the day.

I can't comment on the people you mention who are getting hung up on a certain manualist's interpretation of Aquinas, because I don't know the situation. Obviously, if they're professors of philosophy, that's a bad scene. If they're interested lay people, then I can't say I see too much wrong with studying these manuals closely. But again, I don't know the situation.