Defend the family

[bill5]

Is there a more humble way for me to interpret your program?

Yes, a more humble and reasonable one. You might start (for the second time) by not making unfounded assumptions, to say nothing of the little digs added in for good measure.

Then you might consider that it's not required to read Kasper's book to have a clue about it, as well as considering what I said doesn't mean I haven't read anything about or know anything about it. Which was my point; if you read the petition you can see (basically) what it's supporting/opposing. It is then up to each individual to have or get a clue on those things, but that does not mandate reading the book. You seem to think that anyone who hasn't read his book can't have an informed opinion about his views, which is simply untrue, to be kind.

So far you haven't said anything.

More snotty remarks. Surprise. You failing to grasp what I said doesn't mean I didn't say anything, FYI.

You as good as admitted you haven't read Kasper's book, even though you oppose it,

Wrong again. I don't oppose his book, I oppose his stance on the issues at hand.

and in your first post seem not to see much value in reading the book

...wrong yet again, but to be fair, I probably didn't word that well. My point was/is that is not necessary to read the book to have a clue about his views on the issue(s) at hand. Certainly reading the book would be the best way to have the most thorough info on one of them, though.

As for the petition, I can tell you right now it's worthless.

Yes, you certainly can tell us that. Of course, that doesn't make it so, nor does you opposing it. That said, as I've already mentioned, I have no delusions about it making a big impact either.

The only time that petitions matter in the slightest is in a situation where the authority could lose something if he goes against the wishes of the signees. If, hypothetically, the bishops signed off on the Kasper Proposal, nothing would happen. The Catholic apologists would change their tune and find some way to applaud it and, contrary to what some say, there would be no schism of any importance. The overwhelming majority would just go along with it. Hence, there is nothing for the Pope or bishops to lose.

More of your opinions stated as "fact."

By the way, ye didst forget to inform my arrogant person: what, in your words, is the Kasper Proposal?

Yea verify, I could tellst you, but then ye would not learneth. And that would also go against my point of wasting time - anyone can look it up and find plenty of info, which I've already done. lol @ thinking I'm going to spit it back to you.

Speaking of wasting time, I see no point going back and forth on this any further. Enjoy

 

[judechild]

Out of interest is it an interesting book with useful insights, in your opinion, or would one be reading it just to understand a negative position, so to speak?

I am against the Kasper proposal, it is true; but he does have a number of good insights. His book and Cardinal Muller's interview (The Hope of the Family) are very close in many respects. In fact, if people in the Church would take a number of Kasper's philosophical points - such as that the family is the basic-unit of the Church - and used that as impetus to network families within the Church and to encourage, as Cardinal Muller suggests, family devotions within the nuclear and extended family and even inter-familial private devotions, then Cardinal Kasper's relatively impoverished ideas regarding communion could be avoided (Kasper himself acknowledges that he what he is advocating is, in itself, unacceptable; he holds that he is "preventing something worse" - 47).

I would say, then, that I do intend people to get something positive out of reading it. Kasper is an accomplished theologian; it makes me roll my eyes every time I see someone blundering around yelling at theologians when they themselves don't have the tools to analyze theological information.

If people actually want to get into the Synod Hall, they're going to need to do things that are decidedly outside of the "much easier and faster" route. Bishops love talking about the people in their dioceses; if Catholic subculture has started to re-form, that will go a long way toward opposing the Proposal, since the Cardinal who authored it is trying to strengthen families and sees this as a normally-unacceptable compromise in the mission of strengthening families against the present, secular culture. That will take action, immediate action, involving a lot of the suggestions that Kasper and Muller share. Even the little suggestions, like Muller's idea to call children's masses "family masses" can be used to rebuild Catholic subculture which can sustain families.

 

[judechild]

Yes, a more humble and reasonable one. You might start (for the second time) by not making unfounded assumptions, to say nothing of the little digs added in for good measure.

I do not think that my assumptions are unfounded, particularly since you've backtracked a bit from your first post, saying now: "I probably didn't word that well." Do you think that your miscommunication could be at fault?

As for "little digs": they are the spice of life on an uninteresting forum.

if you read the petition you can see (basically) what it's supporting/opposing. It is then up to each individual to have or get a clue on those things, but that does not mandate reading the book. You seem to think that anyone who hasn't read his book can't have an informed opinion about his views, which is simply untrue, to be kind.

Let me put it this way: The petition opposes the so-called Kasper Proposal (hence, the signees claim to oppose it). The only way to know the Proposal and its justification is by reading the argument laid out in Kasper's book. If it is "up to each individual to have or get a clue" on the Proposal, then they must read the book - since that it is only way to know the Proposal and its justification. Hence, it is not true that "that does not mandate reading the book." You simply can't have an informed opinion on the matter if you haven't read the book.

More snotty remarks. Surprise. You failing to grasp what I said doesn't mean I didn't say anything, FYI.

How can I grasp what you said, when you admit you may not have said what you mean: "I probably didn't word that well"? If you did not mean that "read the petition" is sufficient, then was I right or wrong to say that to simply read the petition is "letting yourself be led by the nose"?

Wrong again. I don't oppose his book, I oppose his stance on the issues at hand.

If you had read his book, you would know that his "stance on the issues at hand" is part of a holistic structure, which he lays out in his book. Saying "I oppose his stance on the issues at hand" is almost meaningless, since his stance is intrinsically tied to the other parts of the book (they can be separated in some cases but not all). Hence, you would be opposing other parts of the book without knowing it. So, can you tell me - oh ye who hath not read the book - that you, for certain, do not implicitly oppose the totality of his book? The only way for you to know that is by emancipating yourself from your thought-nurses, and think about the book yourself.

Basically, if you wish to make excuses for yourself in not taking the time to read the book where Cardinal Kasper lies out his argument, that's your prerogative, but I'm not going to smile and tell you what a great job you're doing, when you literally don't know what you're talking about [i.e. Kasper's proposal, which he explains in the book you don't think you need to read].

Yes, you certainly can tell us that. Of course, that doesn't make it so, nor does you opposing it. That said, as I've already mentioned, I have no delusions about it making a big impact either.

I gave you one reason for the worthlessness of the petition, based on the nature of petitions themselves (the Pope - and, for that matter, the Synod - has nothing to lose), but I'm feeling generous today; I'll give you another reason, this one a particular reason, to balance the general one (of course, based on your track record, I don't expect a reply to the reasoning):

Who do you think is going to read this? Do you think it's Pope Francis? No, mio amico, it's not going to even get to his secretary. If it's actually forwarded, some official in the Vatican's media office will look at it, roll his eyes, hit delete and go get an espresso - or, if he's feeling very generous, he'll forward it to the secretary of Cardinal Baldisserri, the head of the Synod, who will also promptly ignore it without the Cardinal ever seeing it. I live here. Of course perhaps you, who know the arguments in books you haven't read, know more than I do about the postage-stamp country I live in...

More of your opinions stated as "fact."

Considering my standard of research is acknowledged by you to be greater: "Certainly reading the book would be the best way to have the most thorough info," (which I have done, while you have not), I'd be more comfortable with my opinion stated as fact, then your own.

Yea verify, I could tellst you, but then ye would not learneth. And that would also go against my point of wasting time - anyone can look it up and find plenty of info, which I've already done. lol @ thinking I'm going to spit it back to you.

There we go; some originality (though I don't know what the alia-symbol means in this context). And yet, my lord, it is not my reading which is in question.

Speaking of wasting time, I see no point going back and forth on this any further. Enjoy

Based on previous experience with people on this forum, I'd say there's a good chance that you will respond to this post. So, if you do, tell me what the Kasper Proposal is; no more excuses, you'll have to deal with far bigger jerks then me in your life, especially on this subject.