AmericanPapist Comments
Oh, I get it. Repressed Catholic ideas about procreation are to blame for everything.
Thanks a lot, Newsweek::x
Delta
Newsweek? If I'm not mistaken used to be some kind of secular news publication; which means, of course, that it never really was much concerned about facts. When exactly it became a tabloid I do not know, but let's face it, the dividing line was quite thin and so the change was not very perceptible.
Dim bulb,
Many catholics think that the Church's teachings on abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality are debatable. It's beyond me why these reporters get hired in the first place to write about things in which their ignorance is showing. (rolling my eyes). Are they just simple here to impress people? As far as I'm concerned if they did this regarding Islam there'd be riots all over the place. God help us.
Nick
Oy vey. I could hardly stomach the errors in that article when I read it, but if it was about any other religious faith they would be oh so PC and careful to not anger then with stupid errors.
"Since original sin was seen as being indelibly tied to the act of sex, and since babies were the natural result of that act, Augustine reasoned that they must carry sin. Ergo, those who die without having that sin removed must necessarily go to hell"
Actually, this is not too far from the truth. The conclusion is correct, as are the premises, but the argument is weak insofar as the conclusion does not follow (but that is a question of logic, not theology).
If you have read Augustine carefully, you'll find that the news summary is fair. Though the piece does not touch on the origin of original sin in the actual sin of Adam, it is true that Augustine held that:
1. Original sin has a biological character.
2. Every act of sexual intercourse, even between spouses, is marked by sin insofar as original sin prevents the act from completely overcoming concupiscence, which for Augustine entails sin due to the passions superceding reason in the act of intercourse.
3. The procreative act, in a sense marked by sin, transmits original sin to offspring.
All this can be found in Augustine's scattered works on marriage, as well as in some of his anti-Pelagian writings. But consider St. Anslem's later move away from Augustine's biological understanding of the trasmission of original sin, which set the stage for our present understanding.
I can't log on to the Newsweek site -- I'm at work. I hope you all are leaving comments there, setting the record straight.
Michael Joseph,
While the take on St Augustine was accurate can it really be called fair? The whole tone of the piece (including the part on Augustine) was rather snotty. Also,the opening and closing remarks quoted by the Papist cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called fair or accurate.
Of course, those remarks were not the point of your comment. I was just blowing off a little steam with my final remark.
Understood, Dim Bulb. I was only commenting on the accuracy of the theological position attributed to Augustine in the report. I am surprised that the Papist did not know Augustine's position on the transmission of original sin as it shaped a great deal of Catholic morality before Anselm provided an alternative theological opinion for the Latin Church.
Nice of you to make an inference about my knowledge from what I didn't say.
Goodness! With summaries of Church tradition like that, it's no wonder that we have to fight anti-Catholic prejudice on a daily basis.
Your comment here, which immediately follows your quoting of the summary of Augustine's understanding of the transmission of original sin from the report, implies that the report gave an inaccurate summary of Augustine's view. I inferred (inference is a valid logical category) that if you are disputing the report's summary on Augustine, then you may be unfamiliar with Augustine's moral theology, especially his take on the transmission of original sin. No harm intended--I'm just trying to help you along with your studies.
My original point was that the article takes an isolated aspect of Augustine's doctrine to enforce old stereotypes about the Church's understanding of sex. And if there is no harm intended, and you are just trying to help me out, then I'm sure you'll be happy to personally email me your corrections and observations so we can clear up any misunderstandings. No reason to scandalize the faithful, right?
Why would I want to email you if you have put the issue up for public discussion? And keep in mind that there is a larger risk in "scandelizing the faithful" by calling into question an accurate summary of Augustine's position on the transmission of original sin. I'd say my correction of your remark would mitigate rather than substantiate this "scandelizing" that you describe. Public correction of public error is usually a service, not a scandel, to the faithful. But should you prefer email corresponsdence from this point on, consider this my last post on the matter if I receive a message from you.
Since you said you are trying to help me along with my studies, you are welcome to email me. I don't feel the need to track down your help, but I'll be happy to enter into dialogue. And I don't mean this caustically. A combox is no place to make up differences or real progress.
Commenting by HaloScan
