The problem confronting all
doctrinal absolutists is that
their reach exceeds their
grasp and they become hoist on
their own petards. |
Such is the case with the Bishop
Michael Sheridan and his recent
efforts to clarify Church teachings
and doctrine to one and all,
and to make Catholics accountable if they happen to
cast votes for politicians or policies that go against
selfsame Church dogmas. |
First, a plausible question to ask is: How perfect
are the dictates put forward? And to what extent are
they products of a perfect brain? |
Secondly, we may certainly argue that if the
brain or brains arent absolutely 100% perfect
(including the assumption that every last neuron is
used!), then they cannot formulate perfect doctrines.
If they cant formulate perfect doctrines, then it stands
to reason that the doctrines they do
formulate can be laced with error. If any doctrines are laced with
error,
no one is under any obligation to adhere to them. |
Now, with regard to the first question, we know
that NO human brain is perfect, and even the most
efficient barely makes use of 15% of its thinking
power. I am referring here to the functioning of the
neo-cortex, or the seat of reasoning the area of the
brain that is used to create ideas such as doctrines. |
With inherent limits such as these, no human
brain can arrive at a perfect doctrine or statement
concerning moral reality. The very most the limited
human brain can aspire to is make a negative declaration
of what brains in general cannot do as Ive
done here. But under no circumstances can any perfect
positive declarative statement be made. |
Nor is it any use at all to assert the doctrine
comes from God since the comprehension of an
infinite God would require an infinite brain with an
inexhaustible supply of neurons. No human, not even
the esteemed Sheridan, has this. |
This Social Darwinism remains embedded in the current incarnation of rabid individualism disseminated by ideologues, who salivate non-stop at the prospect of using it to dismember social safety nets, offering pitiful "faith-based" services in return.
|
Catholic Theologian Hans Kung observes the following:
..no one, neither Vatican I, nor Vatican II, nor the textbook
theologians, has shown that the Church - its leadership or its theology
- is able to put forward propositions which inherently cannot be erroneous
(from his book, Infallible? page 143). |
Kungs statement reinforces what I said regarding
the inability of any single or collective of brains to affirm positive
statements of doctrine that are without error. Indeed, this means
that Sheridan is out on a long ecclesiastical limb and holds a position
that is not supported by his Churchs own infallibility
doctrine (since no guarantees exist that infallibility doctrine itself
cant be erroneous). |
Kung goes on to cite one such error, the prohibition
of artificial contraception in the encyclical Humanae Vitae. The
late Carl Sagan and Anne Druyan showed another error, in terms of
a change in the Churchs abortion position (Parade magazine,
April 22, 1990):
The Catholic Churchs first and long standing
collection of Canon Law (according to the leading Church historian
John Connery, S.J.) held that abortion was homicide only after the
fetus was already formed roughly the end of the first trimester.
It was not until 1869 that abortion at any time for any reason became
law.
|
Clearly, the fact that the Church already changed
doctrine
on abortion shows it can do so again. And
hence, none of its statements is absolute! Caught in
its own trap!
|
|