I'll try to be more specific than comprehensive: first because you and I don't need to cross-examine each other's world view, thanks to existing knowledge, and second because I'd rather the discussion not to stray too far or everyone will just plunge head-first into "this is why x is evil" vs. "this is why x is good".
The idea of a self-contained revelation in the thirty-odd years of mortal life of Christ just does not seem to nail it (heh).
Agreed, it doesn't. However, if I recall correctly, founding one's tenets on the Bible alone allows for more room in terms of
subsequent interpretation of all that is not encompassed in detail in the Good Book, and it obviously is a lot, and most of it obviously concerns "newer" aspects of a Christian's life.
It's a bit like with the legal system, isn't it? Many written codes of law & procedure help making the approach more multi-faceted, at first sight, but eventually you take a look at a Common Law court and notice that whatever
they can't find in a 15-page booklet they make up on the spot based on tradition and circumstance. So it's not really as restrictive as it sounds at first.
I see conclusions that are tough to embrace on each side, with the difference that camp #1 is intellectually serious about them, and camp #2 isn't. ... I believe we discussed this already, and I agree with what you said a while ago - a lot of people in both camps are motivated by silly reasons, in general. In other words, "I like this stand because, um, I like it". But still, behind the equally distributed idiots, there is something in camp #1, and nothing i can see in camp #2.
For the purpose of this discussion I'm reluctant to admit there even is a camp #2. Earlier, I wasn't implying that people are torn between adhering to Christian morals and jumping on some sort of materialistic / atheistic / humanistic bandwagon. People are, for the most part, perceiving an incongruity between Christian morals and the way they
can live their life these days. Some things are less and less a matter of choosing to stick up for traditional values: science or experience or new necessities have shown that some changes in values are
expected in order
to get by, and it's next to impossible to do it within the Church when it keeps considering every diversion from the norm as a violation of some rule. From letting homeless people die by the side of road down to entering a church inappropriately dressed, the only difference seems to be in the seriousness of the violation and the burden of the sin. The "ok, that was then and this is now" option is non-existent. Masturbation is - I believe - an appropriate example, and I'll get to it in reply to the part where you do.
Sure, you and I can find solace in the big picture offered by the Christian perspective or some other philosophy, at least in my case, but the point is that neither of us base their loyalty towards an idea solely on collaterals, like favorite hats, mottos, or what it tells us to do on a Sunday morning. Still, this is not any layman's attitude: you can probably be ok with appreciating a religion even while feeling troubled about a few of its stances, but those who cannot reach this kind of independency of mind are not keen to embrace a doctrine that makes them ill-fitted for daily tasks.
You probably disagree about Christianity being so removed from the real world, but here I believe you're
too educated in this matter to see that all the readings and passages where issues are dissected down to splitting-the-hair level are far from immediately accessible to the masses. Mind you, I think it's for the better, given the tendency of said masses to turn everything into a self-serving parody of a rule or a compromise. But the problem remains that they cannot easily know whether what they do or think is excusable under some circumstances: they're almost completely separated from this shred of flexibility, basically what should inspire them to trust the Church.
If keeping your followers away from the complexity that comprises your tenets is not being removed from the real world, I don't know what is. The Church claims to have the Truth, but ends up sharing some haphazardly-concocted surrogate, while books of knowledge - apparently saving buckets of sinners, from what you quote - lie for nobody but the smartest scholars to find. Certain philosophies are definitely as obscure in their conception and writs, but they seldom present - at the same time - simple practical rules to get through your day and achieve salvation. It seems unfair.
I wouldn't really speak of revising dogma, since dogma proper is entirely about metaphysical stuff, not run-of-the-mill secular problems. Immaculate conception is dogma, not using condoms is not. I'd rather talk of revising policies.
I stand corrected. Sorry for my terrible choice of words when it comes to religious matters: I have a lot to learn.
For example, the CCC states, in reference to masturbation:
"To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability." [2352]
This proviso could be extended to other forms of forbidden sexual behavior, and the general structure of thought would not suffer: it does not concern the line between right and wrong, but how wrongdoing should be treated in the aftermath.
Not enough, because masturbation is not
wrong - in the way I assume it's implied by the tenet.
I'm basing such a stern defense of masturbation on the grounds that it does have all the characteristics of something I'd call right. Under a medical point of view, it's healthy for a male to masturbate as it strengthens sperm production and vitality, not to mention the skin of the member itself. It helps becoming comfortable with one's sexuality during your teen years, increasing the chances to feel good and make your partner feel good during sexual intercourse. It's innocuous.
Now, two things:
1. Bear in mind I'm not saying one
should masturbate, I'm not saying people who do are good people and people who don't are bad people, I'm not saying
excessive masturbation is not harmful, I'm not saying the activity should be praised with rounds of applause. What I'm saying is I see no reason to regulate masturbation with a moral stance: in my mind, there is no more conflict related to masturbation as there is related to eating Mexican food.
2. I'm still ready to accept that masturbating could be dead wrong and, indeed, profoundly evil
from the point of view of a divinity. That's a wildcard: God can be against masturbation (or against eating Mexican food) for reasons of his own, that I'm not even supposed to understand. Unconditional belief in a God would lead me to accept this imposition and refrain from masturbating forever. I'm not trying to tell God what to think here, just pointing out that unless the Church is willing to say out loud that God condemns spanking the monkey for reasons we cannot fathom, then an attempt to convince me that there are motives to call masturbation wrong clashes with my interpretation of reality.
This takes us back to Christian believers deserting the Church: assuming most people see nothing wrong with masturbation, and even taking into consideration that they'd be willing to accept a God who tells them not to do it without any further explanation, it only stands to reason that they would frown at the half-hearted motivation they hear from the Church. If faced with a doctor telling them masturbating could
help a certain physical condition (it's happened to me, I'm not making it up), do you honestly think they'd be ok with knowing that
under certain circumstances they're not
as guilty? More likely, they'll want to know why they're to blame at all, and if there's anything behind it except an outdated sexual moral (I know there is, but I think it's in the past now).
If you get rid of this, or change this in a substantial way, the whole story does not work anymore. It's not about minor revisions, such as adding the few lines in 2352 to the articles, say, on homosexuality. It's about a new anthropology entirely, and I can see how the Church doesn't really want to go there - even under a merely rational point of view, the fact that people want to have sex is not sufficient reason to modify something that was thoroughly well-thought out at a time when people, as always, wanted to have sex.
I won't be shy: I think they should get rid of that, and reform it substantially, at least so that masturbation is not mentioned any longer. I'm in favor of educators (members of the clergy included) telling kids not to spend their days beating the one-eyed badger, but that's where I think it should stop. I don't see where a new anthropology should be required, mostly because 2363
is still not the Bible. And while this is not Protestantism, when it comes to masturbation the policies involved are based - if I recall correctly - on an episode where the sinner is guilty of (literally) pulling out of his sexual duty. It's not just open to a different interpretation than "masturbation is wrong", it practically
begs for it. There wouldn't even be any need to admit to a mistake: I can see how the tenet might have had some function once upon a time.
It all boils down to the Church being willing to say: "This was then, but now it's different". A new anthropology will enter the picture only insofar as you take the whole idea and turn it upside down, which is precisely what I'm saying
won't happen through partial/temporary change. It's plain to see how inconsistent it would be to modify 2363 so that it reads "Good riddance to families! Screw whoever you like and put on two condoms, one of them strawberry-flavored!", but it's not a matter of random choice between chasing or being chased by changes in the world:
reasons for certain alterations are painfully obvious to see, just like there were reasons (besides the unclear will of a whimsical God) for the tenets back when they were first put to paper.
lol
