jump to navigation

News on this blog February 26, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin.
trackback

I have some news on the blog.   I’m going to start cross-posting at http://www.dfwcatholic.org/ beginning this weekend.  You’ll see my posts both here and there.  I appreciate very much the folks at metrocatholic for extending this opporunity, and I think it will be very interesting to reach a larger audience.  I thank God for his grace is allowing this blog to reach others.

Also, next week I will have more analysis on Dr. Rick Gaillardetz and his upcoming conference at St. Mark in Plano.  You’ll love it.  Him?  Maybe not so much.

Comments

1. kellyjwilson - February 27, 2010

Hi there Larry.

I note that you have some interest in Gaillardetz`visit to Plano.

He aroused certain controversy when he addressed the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops this past fall, and will arouse such controversy in those bloggers concerned by him when he returns to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan to speak at a marriage conference.

Now, obviously the concerns are many, but my contention is that the majority of his critcs in the blogosphere don’t have the expertise to reallly engage with the matters.

I have taken a paragraph of your criticism, and engaged with it over at my blog, and I would be interested you sharing your thoughts on that matter.

Have a good day.

2. kellyjwilson - February 27, 2010

Oh. By the way, the link is

kakistokrat DOT wordpress DOT com

3. tantamergo - February 28, 2010

Most of the blog “criticism” has merely been reprinting and commenting on what other theologians have said regarding Dr. Gaillardetz and his material. Further theologians have commented on this blog and in other sources stating their opinions that in some areas, Dr. Gaillardetz is not orthodox. So, insinuation aside that I, and other bloggers, aren’t qualified to comment on such matters, it’s immaterial, because almost all the criticism has come from other theologians.

I haven’t got the time to review your post in any detail, but please don’t tell me you went to great pains to parse what I said on Dr. G. I’m not the right person to address that criticism towards, Dr. Lawrence Welch and Dr. Fastiggi, among others, would be more appropriate recipients.

If you are trying to use the argument that the Church has not dogmatically defined, infallibly, that contraception cannot be used under any circumstances whatsoever, which it has, then there isn’t much purpose in discussing the issue. Appeals to conscience have nothing to do with this, the Church has infallibly declared that contraception is always and everywhere intrinsically evil, and any Catholic who uses contraception is in a state of mortal sin.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/morality/fatal.asp

Dr. Gaillardetz is materially assisting mortal sin when he states that couples, if after examining their consciences and doing their best to accept this doctrine of the Church, cannot do so, are morally free to follow their conscience and in so doing can remain in a state of grace. This is false and scandalous. Sure, we can all ‘follow our conscience,’ any time we want. God gave us the gift of free will. But we can’t follow our conscience wherever we want and remain in a state of grace, or united to the truths of the Faith.

4. kellyjwilson - March 1, 2010

Hi there Larry (is that who this is?),

I suppose that if you don’t have time to review my post (which is understandably fair, we all have lives after all), there isn’t much point responding in depth to your comment. But please don’t feel too guilty about it. I certainly didn’t go to “great pains” to engage with what you had said. I only looked at one paragraph, and very quickly deconstructed it. And I only chose your comments, because they were the ones being offered at another blog. I realize there is a larger conversation going on, and I am certainly aware of the “major players.”

I recognize you are distinguishing yourself (and some other bloggers) from those theologians (whom you believe are qualified), but can I very briefly just make note of a very common misunderstanding you make evident in your comment here? You appear not to know what “intrinsic evil” means or what constitutes a “mortal sin.” The important thing to remember is that while an act can be “intrinsically evil” the culpability of the person committing it can dramatically vary. So, abortion, as an intrinsic evil, means regardless of context an abortion is evil. However, if someone is forced to have an abortion, and someone has freely chosen to have an abortion, well then the culpability of each is going to very.

Read what the Catechism says about “mortal sin.”

Your time is important, but if you can take a few minutes and drop by my blog and see how I address a few of your comments, I think that would probably help your own articulation of this issue.

http://kakistokrat.wordpress.com/

5. kellyjwilson - March 1, 2010

You write: “So, insinuation aside that I, and other bloggers, aren’t qualified to comment on such matters, it’s immaterial, because almost all the criticism has come from other theologians.”

Forgive me for not being clearer either. Let me be blunt: If you think that what you wrote (the paragraph I respond to in my blog post) is the Church’s teaching, then you do not have the sufficient expertise.

We seminarians are expected to have more and more philosophy courses these days, so I hope you don`t mind my pointing out a little flaw here.

You suggest that the expertise of the bloggers is immaterial, since “almost all the criticism has come from other theologians.” Right, but “all the criticisms” is only coming from a handful of theologians, and while it’s been a while since I read either Fastiggi or Welch, I can’t imagine either saying what you do in the paragraph of yours that I quote.

Anyways, that’s all I have to say, unless you have more to say.

Blessings,
Kelly.

6. tantamergo - March 1, 2010

I’ll try to look at it later today. We’ve got 5 of 6 kids sick and the baby was up all night crying, so I’m limited today. Which stinks, because I was supposed to start cross-posting my blog on another site today.

And yes, I go by Larry, tantumblogo, and tantamergo (the mispelling in the last, was an evil trick wordpress played on one of my IDs).

I may well have said something dumb, especially in the first post on Dr. Gaillardetz, because I wrote it at 12:30 am and after having read a particularly upsetting article about the goings on in some seminaries. I was both tired and grouchy.

A blog is a blog, it’s not a dissertation, as I’ve said before. I do want to find out if my thinking on a subject related to the Church is ill formed, so I will read your post when I can. I will either reply there if my reply is brief, or post a reply here and link at your site in the comments if my reply is long.

Thanks for your interest in my spiritual development, and I mean that.

7. kelly - March 1, 2010

I don’t think your comments were dumb. In fact there have been important discussions about Gaillardetz’ work. I simply wanted to engage with two common critiques of his position, and I wanted to do so using a particular quote that used those arguments. Yours fit the Bill.

As for your spiritiaul development, that is between you and God and whoever else you wish to include in the process (wife?, priest?, spiritual director?…). I disagree with something you wrote but I make no claims at all about your spiritual state or development.

It sounds like you have a big family, and there’s some sickness, so I’ll keep you and them in my own prayers.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: