At 12:09 AM 4/10/2005 -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: >> And if he did so after open-mindedly considering all sides of the issue, >> would you still consider him to be closed-minded on the subject for >> issuing a final decision? > >I would say he gave the appearance of closing his mind on the subject by >making a final decision, but that not knowing much about church politics >I'm open to the possibility that I'm mistaken. How open minded was he on >other issues such as birth control, celibacy and gay marriage?
On the other hands, he was extremely open-minded on such subjects as multiculturalism, ecumenism, and reaching out to other faiths. His "Theology of the Body" in many respects overhauled Church teaching on sexuality - while still reaching the conclusion that contraception is intrinsically immoral. Thus, given the context of his views on birth control I can only conclude that he was open-minded on the subject, but simply reached a different conclusion than you or I would have. On the matter of priestly celibacy, I think that he was almost inherently open-minded, as the Church teaching on that issue is hardly even close to definitive (unlike the argument that you could make in regards to the ordination of women - although I would probably still disagree with you on that point.) You may have a stronger argument on the case of gay marriage, although this issue has only been seriously debated so recently that I think that it is simply too hard to judge given the context. Without serious debate within the Church on gay marriage, it would be virtually impossible for someone who open-mindedly concluded opposition to gay marriage to demonstrate that open-mindedness in his position. >In my opinion, if one _favors_ tradition over change (or vice-versa), then >one is inherently closed minded to some extent. So, would you say that you are/were closed-minded on school vouchers and liberating Iraq? JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
