text:
Analysing your test results for Aspergers Syndrome
Please try not to post pictures here, leave that for http://www.instructables.com/community/test/
Can somebody volunteer their non-Aspie picture, for the purposes of this discussion.
Mine is here temporarily.
199 of 200 Aspie
06 of 200 Neurotypical
Do i need a neurologist or something like that? (Please excuse my poor English)
109 of 200 Aspie
95 of 200 Neurotypical
Wonder how common this is, I have had a lot of trouble with my life but then there wasn't always an easy thing to point to that would help explain my social oddities and seeming lack of empathy or understanding what was going on with people. Very frustrating.
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 93 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 116 of 200
You seem to have both neurodiverse and neurotypical traits
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 93 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 116 of 200
You seem to have both neurodiverse and neurotypical traits
what does this mean
I am a 43 year old lawyer and have recently been looking into whether I may have Asperger's. I scored a 35 on the AQ, 16 on Empathy. On this test I scored a 112 Aspie and 109 NT. It says some Aspie traits and some NT traits. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
(Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 134 of 200; Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 93 of 200; You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie))
i can see generally what this means, but i'm unsure of what it means in terms of whether i have aspergers or if i just have some traits of it?
Not sure how to feel about this or how to interpret this exactly.
looks like you're on the far end of the aspie side in all categories! and there are small spikes in the perception and relationship categories on the neurotypical side.
I found this forum looking for a clear description of this graph but appreciated the personal stories. Does anyone havr the ability to translate this graph to eords?
There you go, my volunteered non-Aspie picture, for the purposes of this discussion. Aspie score 19/200, NT score 171/200. Labels are in Dutch, sorry about that.
ASPIE SCORE 175 out of 200
neurotypical 27 out of 200
"You are very likely an Aspie"
My Diagnostics listed so many different things!
Aspie talent 8.7 out of 10 "Gifted"
Neuro. talent 0.8 out of 10 "ADD /ADHD"
Aspie Compulsion 8.8 out of 10 "OCD"
Neuro. Comp 0.4 out of 10 "No diagnostic"
Aspie social 7.4 out of 10 "Bipolar", ODD, ADD /ADHD"
Neuro. social 0.1 out of 10 "Social Phobia"
Aspie Communication 8.6 out of 10 "Tourette" , "Stimming"
Neuro. Comm. 0.4 out of 10 "ASC Autistic Spectrum Conditions"
Aspie hunting 6.5 out of 10 "Average" "no diagnostic"
Neuro. hunting 2.9 out of 10 "Dyslexia", "Dyscalculia"
Aspie perception 9.9 out of 10 "Above" "Autistics have a difference in perception"
Neuro. Percep. 3.8 out of 10 "Dyspraxia"
Environment 8.9 out of 10 "Psychiatric disorders"... "Diagnosis needed"
I was severely abused as a child, by the parents, their friends & my brother. I guess not having people protect me, or teach me...or relate to me in a "normal" way, could have caused me to not relate to others in a "normal" way. I hate the word "NORMAL" , as I have never felt like I fit in. I was extremely shy growing up, and never looked anybody in the eye. In my Congregation, the elders told me that nobody could trust me, because I wasn't looking them in the eye...so I have forced myself to look up...into the eyes of the person in front of me...and it feels GOOD! People like me more now.! It is still almost impossible at times to even get out of bed, just knowing that i have to interact with people & get their frustration & dirty looks. I know it is me & not them...that is what makes it so hard. I want to be considered a nice person. I am considered a wonderful person by those who take the time to get to know me, but then they get their feelings hurt because I cannot pick up a phone & call them. I cannot bring myself to go to somebody's house for a visit...without a month's preparation. I have to "Psych myself up" to believing that they want me to visit them. It is exhausting! I take the bus & train everywhere...and people are too close to me...and it makes me want to crawl out of my skin! I talk to people about the Bible sometimes, but then I don't like the attention it gives me, though it is positive & people are commending me...I cannot be invisible if they notice me. All I want is good friends & to be left alone at the same time! It is two extreme opposites. The diagnosis makes sense. I never thought of myself as autistic...just "different" held down jobs at different times, but never for long. I am an extreme neat freak! I can't stand being interupted. I always think I am right, because I go to the library & check out every book on every subject...because I want to learn about each & every thing! I am a voracious reader! I can read three books in 2 days. I bought 12 books for the summer, but had them read in 4 days! I once was a teacher of my own Preschool, and then was asked to teach at the YMCA, which I did. I loved the "good children" but found difficulty being patient with "Obstinent kids" and their parents. I taught other teachers my methods & was given the highest honor for my classroom from the President of the Snoh. Cnty. YMCA just 3 days before they fired me for my attitude towards another teacher. (I wouldn't back down due to her position of authority)! Story of my life. Even though I know something bad will happen, if I know I am right...I stand my ground. I was given full custody of my daughter in my divorce, because 2 Guardian Ad Litem's decided that I was a better parent than my ex-husband...but 3 years later, while I was in the hospital for "an attempted suicide" (I didn't try to kill myself) my custody was overturned! I was then given "supervised visits"! I was honest about my diagnosis, and the judge said "I have never met anybody as arrogant as you" & then "You'll never parent your child again"! My daughter was 5 yrs young when she was taken away & all I could do was sit at the table with my head down because I couldn't look up at the judge! I was called arrogant for that behavior! I love my daughter! My daughter suffered at the hands of her father, his wife & girlfriends & one step-brother who BTW had full blown Asperger's! I saw his actions and never thought of myself like him in any way. Now I understand him so much better. I can see him & understand him. My daughter forgives everybody who has hurt her, and she tells me "Mom, they couldn't help it." (cry mommy tears here) I am so proud of my daughter! I have learned to feel, learned to allow myself to cry, learned to listen when others talk & try not to interrupt. I am about to turn 50. I am just learning that my artistic talent is a form of "autism". I guess I should say "I am proud of where I have improved as an Aspie". I would like to form a support group in my Community for other Aspie's ! "Be Nice" would be the motto ...no hurting allowed. Are there support groups?
Your Aspie score: 171 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 27 of 200
I had the same neurotypical score as yours, and I was impressed by your deciphering of your results, but I can't compare mine as our graphs have differing parameters, with mine having Contact and Attachment instead of your
Compulsive and Hunting. I don't know if you can help me to understand the diagram.
How did you arrive at the terms you have in quotes "ADD/ADHD", "Stimming" etc?
I had a very similar childhood to yours, abused by my parents until they couldn't cope with me any longer and took me to a child Psychiatrist who got them to send me away to Trench Hall, a "special" boarding school, miles away in the countryside, described as "a school for maladjusted children"
I still got in trouble – even at night – I hated being told when to sleep, and was often taken out of the dormitory and made to sit on the bottom step of the main staircase to copy out some of the Old Testament into a notebook, until the other kids were asleep and they decided I was too tired to be a nuisance, allowing me back up to bed.
Many times communications improve (mine have in writing, but face to face I am still very awkward.
Some further links: Community
I had wanted to give you THIS LINK, but I realize it is in Pennsylvania, You could check out to see if your area has a similar program too
Your Aspie score: 170 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 33 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
This explains everything that I've been dealing with my entire life. Oh my gosh! It's scary how on-point this is. I am an Aspie.
Your Aspie score: 97 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 121 of 200
You seem to have both Aspie and neurotypical traits
I am 38 years old. I feel like if I had taken this test when I was 16 and answered honestly, the Aspie number would have been a lot higher.
This explains quite a bit, i have never been very normal:
Your Aspie score: 185 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 14 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
I'm fourteen, what exactly does this mean?
Your Aspie score: 139 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 97 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
What now? Where to start.
Acknowledge things I have to accept that wont change and I must learn to cope with.
Work out things that I can change ... find some strategies to use?
Accept myself as I am.
Thank you all for your comments.
This may be a massive break through for me this morning. I will be back.
Your Aspie score: 159 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 47 of 200 You are very likely an Aspie
I am a 31 year old woman and I in university taking Disability Studies. When we started to learn about ASD and other disabilities, I couldn't get over how much the stories in the sections about ADHD and ASD sounded like my childhood... I have always felt like *something* was "off" but didn't know what. I have had a lot of troubles over the years, especially while growing up, with my parents (behavioral). They recently told me that they were told I had ODD as a child but they felt there was something else too... This "fits"....
I find it all very interesting....
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 112 of 200
You seem to have both Aspie and neurotypical traits
30 male. Extreme (and i mean extreme) picky eating since 2 years old. Have never been able to adjust well to social settings.
Need help understanding what it means i'm both an Aspie and neurotypical? This is all news to me that i am an Aspie at all.
Your Aspie score: 158 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 48 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
ADD, as with my General Anxiety Disorder, can be co-morbids of Asperger's.
IF it interferes with your life, it would be good to get tested and help; if not, the expense of testing (depending on your location) could be high for just being curious.
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 92 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Just finding this out today. Explains a lot!
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 92 of 200
You seem to have both Aspie and neurotypical traits
I guess I am confused? Lol.
Could you please tell me which attributes might be affected by learning to cope so that I can check them against my image? Also, what are the comorbid disorders? I have had several psychologists suggest that I have social anxiety but I don't really fit the criteria.
And it also has a list of hot links following:
Some further links:
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 92 of 200
You seem to have both Aspie and neurotypical traits
I'm in my 20's and confused!
I want to know my state of mind but have some difficulties.
When I was a child, I was an average in learning language pace but sometimes made unique words on my own. I was a very timid child and could not get along with others well. (I have troubles in making friends until now. ) I had tics for some time.. (when I was 5-6 years old) but it was temporal. When I was a teenager, I was bullied often and got depressed. I tried to make friends but my efforts always ended up as a failure. I was often considered as 'odd'.
I am curious about myself now. Am I social phobia? Am I aspie??
Your Aspie score: 163 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 49 of 200
Your Aspie score: 139 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 86 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
I'm 49, and to complicate things, I'm an empath. What may not or may not be showing on a persons face, or through their body language, I can read as easily as a book. That's been part of my life as far back as I can remember. Recently read an article that really resonated strongly with me, and sent me down the rabbit hole so to speak:
So, I'm looking into it.
We have a mix in a few of the forums on Facebook too, most can not read (nor look at long) faces, but some, despite this, still "feel what others feel".
Personally, though it takes me longer, when I understand just how another feels, I tend to feel the same just as if not more intensely as the person themselves feel it.
Don't fall for the rumors that those with Asperger's don't feel emotion; we do, but many of us can not risk expressing them as we are either FULL ON or FULL OFF. And full OFF is more socially acceptable. :-)
Dyslexia and other things can be comorbids of Asperger's also.
Your Aspie score: 188 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 14 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
I'm 29.
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 94 of 200
You seem to have both Aspie and neurotypical traits
Any thoughts?
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 50 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Any thoughts? I've been suspecting that I may or may not have Asbergers for some time, and while an online test doesn't really confirm anything, I am somewhat reassured.
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 70 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
First of all, I remember taking this quiz about 5 years ago and having the score 188 Aspie/11 NT. I'm 20 now and am pretty sure, that for all these years I developped a really well-working strategy to deal with social situations, based on observations and analysis of other people's behaviour. My social life has improved significantly, so I abandoned the idea of me having AS. I acknowledged all that as my personal character traits and get used to living with them (unfortunately mostly by avoiding certain situations).
I feel rather comfortable and safe, but my current partner more and more often is making me realize, that my reactions are far from normal. He puts me in completely new situations, reactions to I haven't learned or copied from someone before. And so the thought of having the AS came back.
As I mentioned, I learned to live with all that weirdness and problems that aren't problems for anyone else apart from me. Knowing that, I don't really need diagnosis. It wouldn't change the way I feel about myself right now. I fear I could start making excuses for my social failures and actually stop trying to be better. But I really am curious. What advantages does the diagnosis actually have in my situation?
For me, the diagnosis allowed me to understgand that I wasn't some weird brain box from another planet. I wasn't alone. But you already know that, so for you, it'd just be an unneeded expense
Your Aspie score: 117 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 120 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Ive done some Bipolarity tests and most likley have "bipolar light".
I also have tinnitus and explosive noise damage on one ear so I have sensibilites to sound that way, which I guess might skew the test somewhat.
Not quite sure what to make of this but it does explain why I am an utter catastrophy with getting laid and finding a life partner which is something I'd like.
Social situations are weird for me due to the fact that I have bad hearing, Unless Im focused on it I dont pick up on social "between the lines" cues if I have to interact with some one. However i know how to manipulate people if I really have to its just such a bother to do that and I'm somewhat lazy. Also i think it is a moral failure to manipulate people though it seems that is what goes for social interactions amongst others.
But as a passive observer peoples behaviour is crystal clear to me its only when I have to interact in groups that it becomes quite exhausting.
Your Aspie score: 155 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 57 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
So, I have always felt a little odd. I was horribly shy as a child. I had no friends and really could not take being around my family for long periods. During holidays and other get togethers, I would make myself comfortable by preoccupying myself with a task (like cooking) rather than socializing.
I have been accused of being too abrasive and not really knowing what that meant. I am super literal and have told people many times over the years that I do not read between the lines very well. I often have to ask "what do you mean" or "I don't understand". People have commented on the way that I walk, lack of facial expressions and some fidgety behavior.
10 years of waiting tables and 12 years as a police officer has forced me to adapt to social constraints, mostly by mimicking behavior that I realized others found to be more appropriate. I now realize the structure as a police officer was really good for me since I resigned to start my own business, which is not going as well. I am not good at putting my self out there and realized that I might need to find another line of work.
I have also struggled with making connections with other people. I did not have any friends to speak of until my 30's and I still fall on my face with it on a regular basis. Let's not even talk about dating. I feel like I have a harder time with more intimate relationships because it is much more difficult to hide my true tendencies.
I had an incident with abuse at 5 years old and understand how it could effect my behavior. I just feel like my interaction with other people comes more from a lack of understanding, a desire to be different and closer rather than having trust issues and deliberately keeping people away.
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 52 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Not a surprise! Struggled through childhood & adolescence, never fitting in, never understanding people. I am approaching 40 and have learnt to fit in to some extent and get a job, but talking to people is very stressful and I quite often have to go to bed to recharge myself after being around people or going out of the house. My emotions are limited and, although I have learnt to say the right things, I don't empathise with other people. Although I care about people, if they are not around I generally don't miss them or even think about them. So very few people bother to try to get close because I am hard work! It would be so nice to just fit in and not find every new situation a struggle.
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 43 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
I'm not sure what to do or think. I suspected, but... now what? Suddenly, all the difficulties make a little more sense. I read this and I identify SO MUCH with almost everything she posted:
I have so much social difficulty. I've been trying to help myself figure out why and I thought maybe I had bpd. When I was a teen I was diagnosed with manic depression.
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 72 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Hopefully the image loads. xD
Anyway, some of the things on that test fit me perfectly. I've had trouble trying to figure out why I couldn't handle social things too well. I can't get a job, or have friends - except for the occasional one online who usually disappears after a while, but my biggest concern was always the meltdowns. I've been told I have OCD - which might be true, Bipolar - NOT true, as I never have a high, just the depression and slight mood changes. xD Nothing like Mania. xD I don't know how to go about this. I saw someone on my facebook posting about autism awareness. I didn't think much of it until one day she posted one about high functioning autism. Then, just today, someone trying to help the family mentioned her autistic nephew has texture problems, something I've had my entire life. Today, I decided to look it up. I think it fits. Certainly, not all of it. And I don't know if there is a difference between High Functioning Autism and Asperger's, but they seem to get looped together online, so I'm assuming not? Anyway, I've always had trouble. I never looked into people's eyes, and I remember finding it odd growing up that people knew other's eye colors. It certainly wasn't something I knew, since I rarely looked at people's eyes. xD Anyway. I began to realize it was odd not to look. However, the meltdowns are my biggest problem, currently labeled as panic attacks, but I'm not so sure, as they say you can control panic attacks, and what I have, well it isn't something I can control by some breathing thing. I can't hardly even think during them, let alone think to breathe properly. I just never considered this, as I thought people with autism all had speech problems, and I talk normally. Too quietly and too loudly sometimes, sure, but nothing like monotone or stuttering or anything. I've always bumped into things, and had no hand eye coordination. I was in JROTC in high school and couldn't tell left from right, or read a clock, and learning how to march was immensely difficult, even though other Cadets made it look easy. When I tried working, I was always very slow and couldn't learn things like everyone else did. I was often teased and my manager hated me. In fact, after I quit and my brother later joined, he was teased simply for being my brother. I have zero friends, I have a difficult time around children, love animals to death, and have self taught myself some of the social things. I have always felt, well odd, but this never entered my mind. I thought of Schizophrenia before, because my grandmother has it. I don't know. I think it fits. I don't know if everything was answered correctly, as I didn't understand some of the questions or just didn't know for sure. I hated working for customer service, as I panicked every single time someone stepped into my line, and if a customer yelled at me, I'd freeze up and cry. I dreaded every day at work or school. I could have complete meltdowns for dropping a dish or pan, or saying the wrong thing. I was always the cause of my parent's arguments growing up, and most people thought I was very immature, while I thought I had a better view on life and was more mature than others, because I knew what life had to offer and what to say no to. I had meltdowns when a friend wanted to watch something in the comedy genre I absolutely loathed. This is the closest thing that's ever made sense, but I'm still not positive.
Be forewarned, and get someone that is DEFINITELY familial with Asperger's so they can recognize it, if it's there. ALL TOO OFTEN the ones not familiar misdiagnose as bipolar, or some other ailment, and their "treatments" normally fail .
Your Aspie score: 149 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 56 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 103 of 200
You seem to have both Aspie and neurotypical traits
So should I seek out a professional opinion based on my results? Or am I in the "average" zone?
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 87 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Until today I'd never even heard of "Aspie" nor did I know much about Autism honestly. I almost found a reference to it by accident when doing very detailed research on human emotions and the like; as lately my curiosity has wondered a lot about emotion and whether I experienced them like others or not. I have always recognized I was different since I was a kid, and have always had trouble with social interaction, especially eye contact. I usually don't understand most people other that what I process at an intellectual level. I can get completely consumed in my work (web development) and I regularly get really involved in the sciences - Quantum Mechanics being my favorite to study. Others around me, including family, find this all very strange and have vocalized this over the years. I, for the life of me can't understand how they aren't also fascinated with those subjects. I imagine that I am very random to them. I was diagnosed with ADHD two years ago, and have been diagnosed with general-anxiety disorder and depression. I feel both are caused by the regular pressure of fitting in and all the energy I use to put on a facade for society. I am married, for the second time, and my wife (who is incredibly wonderful) has openly told me I often seem more concerned with a solution to her problems than listening to them for the sake of listening (empathy?). I have trouble often being too honest/real for people and I struggle with this. I am extremely open minded and that puts me at odds with much of my family here in the southern US. I need to talk to my doctor on this, but this all opened up a very real explanation for me if this was true. It would be a huge piece of explaining many parts of my life in the past up until today. Very glad I found this and will continue to do more research on it.
It must also be mentioned that an IQ test measures something that we ourselves do not seem to understand, intelligence.
My chart
But at the end of the day, the tests are focused on how well you can take the test. I guess what I am saying is that intelligence isn't about just one thing. But IQ tests are.
True intelligenc is not just knowing how many squares are in a 5x5 grid, or which 3D object transates to which. Its also about knowing how to use that intelligence. Just as it's knowing how to understand and use our emotions.
But I digress.
Thanks for the view on Ethnic Minorities Goodhart. As someone who grew up well below the poverty line, it's interesting that there are "tests" for each area. For the record, I was on academic scholarships, so I guess that puts me in the white middle class bracket?
How is someone who isn't American (me) expected to answer this? General knowledge questions are not supposed to be asked on I.Q. tests, they should only contain questions that require one to use one's ability to discern patterns, decipher messages and solve mathematical problems. Thankfully those (the good ones) exist as well, although they are very hard to find.
Even so, the I.Q. number is just that; a number. It doesn't really measure an attribute (intelligence) that no one has even been able to define properly yet, so one should not take one's score too seriously.
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 54 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Well... I have suspected for a while. I took another test and the score was 34. Aspies tended to score 32 or higher, it said. And I remember reading that females tend to show milder, different symptoms, or something like that. I was diagnosed with ADD a few years back but felt like that didn't explain some things. I had assumed for a short period of time that my above-decent language skills and my horrible math skills meant I couldn't be Aspie, but apparently that is not the case. I also have decent social skills but that's from being in a large family and being forced to socialize from an early age. I work in customer service and it's pretty rough on me. To get through it, I joke a lot and process the customers through as quickly as I can. That's how I have learned to get through social situations, by being funny. But forget small talk. I don't know how anyone does it, especially women. I just don't have the ability to care much about shoes, clothes and who's dating who. I'm never going to be very comfortable in social situations and I am okay with that. My problem with remembering faces is another story, though.
I have high empathy with animals, not so much the humans. I am able to lie and can have hidden agendas though it is rare. I often lie in order to avoid social situations. I don't have much of a problem looking into another's eyes, in fact I suspect I stare too much. For me, it helps block out other details. Although if I am forced to act social for too long, I tend to start blurring out faces, if that makes any sense. I am 29 years old.
Do any of these details mean anything? Sorry about the length. I am confused and don't know where to go from here.
Also, sorry for posting a (much) shorter version in the other place.
Yes, your details mean alot, since Asperger's Syndrom is a portion of the Autistic spectrum (which I occupy also) the saying is going around that: If you meet one person with asperger's, you've met one person with asperger's. :-) As with NT's none of us are the same but we share a number of "traits", just not ALL of them, so we are just as human as NT's, and we are not JUST the diagnosis..
Has it occurred to the folks who made this test that perhaps a person could be, in all honesty, self-contradictory or just uncertain about how they are? Different situations call for different approaches and/or attitudes, and in my (not so humble) opinion I think that it is often the case that a scenario is far more complex and nuanced than the simplistic, Yes/No responses we were asked to give here.
I'll take the test again, but I'm not expecting the result to be different. :(
Post Script: I've just now noticed the 'be nice' message below. 'Be positive and constructive' it says. Okay, this may be a stupid question, but could someone here define the terms 'positive' and 'constructive' within this context? What exactly do you mean? I can be 'nice', that means no swearing or insulting others, but the other two?
perhaps you might find it informative to complete a personality style quiz such as the myers-briggs inventory. It may help you identify clearly your perspective so that you pick more consistent answers or it may help you pinpoint in what behaviours you show a open minded flexibility ('contradictory' in small mind speak)
constructive: calling names and being abusive is not constructive
Your Aspie score: 163 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 70 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
My Second test (I feel like I was more honest here) went like this:
Your Aspie score: 182 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 29 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
I suspected that I have had asperger's syndrome for a few years, but only recently have I tried to confirm my suspicion. The results to both of my tests seem to agree with me, but I would like it very much if someone could help me interpret them.
NOTE: Two tests would never be administered without a gap of 12 months or more because of "practise" and memory corrupting the scores.


text:
The entire Senate chamber in the Colorado Capital smelled strongly of marijuana Wednesday, lawmakers said.
The TV station did not report whether the legislators' giggling was due to a collective contact high.
"If the Sergeants would please douse all the doobies in the area," Morse's voice was heard asking on a recording of the morning's session.
DISCUSS AND COMMENT ON THIS STORYReality TV World now offers Facebook Comments on our stories. To post a comment, log into Facebook and then 'Add' your comment. To report spam or abuse, click the 'X' in the upper right corner of the comment box.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Four Seasons/Eden Eden׀
Posted 29 October 2011 - 07:27 PM
The Atlanta Ballet has put together a rather ambitious season this year including a Tharp world premier. The opening program took place last week at the Cobb Energy Center. It was made up of two ballets: Kudelka's Four Seasons -- which the company had danced two years ago -- and Mcgregor's Eden Eden. The former is set to Vivaldi (live music for these performances) and is a very engaging, though rather tonally predictable cycle-of-life allegory with a central male figure surrounded by a small and usually somewhat individuated ensemble (an effect Ratmansky was widely praised for in Concerto DSCH) and having a different 'love relationship' pas de deux to match each one of the four 'seasons' of his life. Spring innocence, summer sensuality, fall maturity, winter decay and death etc. (I did a search and it has been written about before on Ballet Alert!).
The most unexpected choreographic detail was the rather literal approach to winter -- not only featuring older dancers including company director John Mcfall, but also someone wearing their everyday glasses. That's a "bravo" you hear from very-near-sighted and has-problems-with-contacts me.The male lead's dancing in Winter also includes rather literal gestures invoking back pain, chest pain etc. John Walker was the lead and it's a tribute to his poise that these gestures did not make the audience giggle.
Perhaps the best thing about the performance I saw was the joyful and loving devotion brought to the choreography by every dancer on stage. The scenic projections were also lovely. Less appealing to me were the costumes. Program notes spoke generally of the ballet combining older baroque elements with contemporary ones and that is obviously what the costumes were trying to convey...but I found the effect very distracting. Several women in the spring ensemble had leotards with long sleeves cut to evoke pre-20th-century 'historical' styles and skirts, cut out in the front, also evidently suggestion older styles of dress, while other women wore only the leotards and historically themed sleeves: it looked for all the world as if the company had run out of money in the middle of preparing the production and had to skimp on the skirts. In other movements, some women wore slacks with yoga stripes but then had stylized blouses with high collars evoking the 'baroque.' For my taste, it just clashed. And not in an interesting way.
As good as the dancers were, they were not always at ease negotiating the sudden speeding up of the choreography to match the shifts in the Vivaldi--and some of the more complex partnering looked as if everyone was concentrating very hard. That vitiated some of the erotic emotion of the ballet, but was I think largely made up for by the overall investment in the ballet by all of the dancers. I was sitting very close and noticed a number of them in the ensemble with distinctive, lovely qualities--one showed unusual ballon, another lush sensuality, another what I can only call delight. I am eager to get to know these dancers better.
Still, given their slight difficulties with some of the challenges of the Kudelka in the choreography's faster passages I was a bit dubious the dancers could handle McGregor: but by and large they did what seemed to me a very good job--one small woman in particular danced with all of the appropriately cool and slightly aggressive 'attitude' that the choreography seems to call for. I do think they sometimes lacked the full musical and bodily precision that it needs.
Eden Eden has McGregor's trademark very fast, very extreme, very rhythmically pounding choreography. (I believe it, too, has been reviewed on Ballet Alert before.) My companion, who has been going to the ballet for a few years now -- i.e. since meeting me -- did not like it at all and described the dancers as looking like "worms writhing in earth."
I can't really argue with that, but will say that, for me, the jury is out on McGregor. Certainly compared with what has been on offer from the Atlanta ballet in recent seasons (Dracula), I will take it. That does not exactly mean I think it belongs at the Royal Ballet...Though, in fact, the only McGregor I had seen before was at a Linbury studio performance and the dancers were Cojocaru and (I think) Kobborg. Let's just say with Cojocaru it looked very, very, very good and nothing if not precise.
Eden Eden is set to a Steve Reich opera on the theme of cloning and robotics. In fact, my companion criticized this as well as the dancing, objecting to the leap from clones to robots. I was prepared to defend that particular leap. However, the score's voice overs concerning the challenge posed by cloning and robotics to our understanding of the human (what the human 'is,' its relation to technology--or indeed its being as technology etc.) were, in their way, almost as predictable as Kudelka's cycle of life allegory. That is, they could have been more interesting, though I have to admit that had they gotten too interesting they might have become a distraction, instead of, as it were, simply 'framing' the choreography...
There are four couples--each emerging from below the stage in stylized hairless quasi-nudity, and each growing into and beyond their own bodies and encountering each other in increasingly intense passages in the opening passages of the ballet; at a crucial point they assume clothing and hair (it's done very simply and effectively with tunics dropping from the ceiling) and presumably, therefore, as the program notes suggest, sexual identity. I found it pretty engrossing and then....a scrim came down and sort of wrecked my concentration.
Why exactly? Well, I don't much care for dancing behind scrims but the real problem was that once the scrim came down I could not see the dancers below the top of their ankles which completely threw me out of the performance. I believe the purpose of the scrim was to permit an array of increasingly extreme lighting effects to be projected over the stage picture without, say, endangering the dancers and also to increase--as indeed did the mere fact of a scrim--the general image of dehumanization (or, as I would prefer to think, re-imagining of what humanization is). I can't quite say if it worked or not based on this one performance, especially having lost the dancers feet and thus, too, the sense of their contact with the floor--but Alwin Nikolais was way ahead on this sort of thing in any case. Nonetheless, I'm glad the Atlanta Ballet acquired Eden Eden and would not mind seeing them dance more McGregor.
Indeed my one complaint about the program is that it was rather short. It could easily have fit another 20-25 minute ballet on the program and have stayed within the 2 1/2 hour mark. Perhaps there are economic considerations? Certainly I very much appreciated the live music for the Vivaldi. I also know just the choreographer who would have made a perfect fit with this program. Would it be too much to hope that the company would once again take seriously their early history as a Balanchine offshoot? When I first got to Atlanta I saw that they proudly posted on their website a critic's praise for McFall's leadership in getting rid of the "dusty" Balanchine repertory. For those wondering why I do not often show myself supportive of my local company on Ballet Alert, start there...
Later this season the repertory includes Elo and Wheeldon as well as the new Tharp. I am pleased by these developments...Now, would one Balanchine ballet a season be too much to ask?
Posted 30 October 2011 - 09:27 AM
the only McGregor I had seen before was at a Linbury studio performance and the dancers were Cojocaru and (I think) Kobborg. Let's just say with Cojocaru it looked very, very, very good and nothing if not precise.
maybe Engram with Federico Bonelli?
Posted 30 October 2011 - 09:44 AM
I'm beginning to feel that this is a quality -- not always found in the biggest and grandest companies -- that often makes watching regional companies very worthwhile and enjoyable. (Based on Alistair Macaulay's review of a recent Kansas City Ballet performance, I'd add that company to the list too.)
Perhaps the best thing about the performance I saw was the joyful and loving devotion brought to the choreography by every dancer on stage.
The Atlanta season sounds ambitious, in its own way. Wayne MacGregor, James Kudelka, and Twyla Twarp are worth paying attention to . I hope others who were there for this program -- or who have seen the company recently or planning to see something in the coming season -- will post here as well.
Here's a link to their website, which includes some interesting videos, along with photos of Tharp working on The Princess and the Goblin, a co-production with the Royal Winnipeg Ballet.
Posted 30 October 2011 - 10:21 AM
the only McGregor I had seen before was at a Linbury studio performance and the dancers were Cojocaru and (I think) Kobborg. Let's just say with Cojocaru it looked very, very, very good and nothing if not precise.
maybe Engram with Federico Bonelli?
Than sounds right--it was linked to his (Mcgregor's) work on studies of the brain and part of an Ashton tribute program...I think, though, that Cojocaru did something else with Kobborg on the same program...
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases. (If it doesn't appear below, your computer's or browser's adblockers may have blocked display):


text:
1. A Gay Rights Landmark
2. Finally, Dignity and Respect - but at Such a Cost
4. Judge orders release of state police records
NCSF's Communications Decency Act lawsuit with Barbara Nitke made history by challenging the Miller standard of obscenity as it applies to the Internet.
Media reports covering the Communications Decency Act lawsuit launched by co-plaintiffs NCSF and Barbara Nitke:
Copyright 2012-2015 - National Coalition for Sexual Freedom - NCSFreedom.org
Joomla! Web Development & Hosting by Polished Geek LLC - PolishedGeek.com


text:
New issue, now live
Now featured on the home page, stories from our new issue.
In "Beyond the Stalemate" (subscription), Peter Steinfels looks at where we are forty years after Roe:
That Americans and American Catholics remain divided over abortion is, in important ways, to our credit. But some divisions are more necessary, compelling, or expedient than others. Some are well considered and executed, others are not. Some are paralyzing and self-destructive, others point toward fruitful resolution. Forty years after Roe, it is incumbent on Catholics to reexamine their stance toward abortion and its legalization.
There is natural resistance to any such reexamination. This is a topic associated with too much pain—and often hidden pain—along with too much hypocrisy, illusion, and male betrayal. Many Catholics who are angry at church leaders or prolife activists for their harsh rhetoric, political absolutism, moral righteousness, or general attitudes toward women and sexuality simply refuse to think about the topic further. Prolife leaders, on the other hand, boost morale by seizing on any uptick in public opinion, any success in a state legislature, and every fresh summons from religious authorities as confirmation that their present course, no matter how inadequate or counterproductive, is unassailable. …
My own reexamination of the Catholic stance on abortion begins with two simple statements and then attempts to determine what conclusions and practical proposals might flow from them.
First statement: From the very earliest stages of its life, the unborn offspring of human beings constitutes an individual member of the human species deserving the same protections from harm and destruction owed to born humans.
Second statement: This conviction, taught by the Catholic Church and shared by many people, religious and non-religious, is nowhere near as obvious as many of us who hold it suppose.
David Rieff sees trouble in the calls for "humanitarian war" in Syria:
If the conditions on the ground in Syria today, after two years of unbridled civil war, were more akin to those in Libya at the time French president Nicolas Sarkozy persuaded his NATO partners to act, or to those in Mali at the time of the recent French military intervention than they are to the conditions in Iraq or Afghanistan, then the ardor of the liberal hawks and the neoconservatives for intervention there would not seem so reckless. After all, the interventions in Libya and Mali both seemed to recapitulate the so-called humanitarian interventions of the 1990s, where the core of the debate was never whether a U.S. or NATO intervention would be successful—this, probably rightly, was taken for granted—but only whether there was really a will in Washington, Brussels, London, or Paris to intervene in a Bosnia, Rwanda, or Kosovo. But even most of those who think the United States must act in Syria concede that not only is an effective military intervention there likely to prove far more difficult than in Iraq, let alone in Mali or Kosovo; it is also by no means sure that any political result that is now imaginable will be much of an improvement over a continuation of the Assad dictatorship.
Also, Richard Alleva reviews The Great Gatsby, and E. J. Dionne Jr. remembers Fr. Andrew Greeley, the "loving pugilist."
About the Author
Dominic Preziosi is Commonweal's digital editor.
58 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
From Peter's essay: re: this misstep : ""the thoroughgoing integration of the prolife cause into the culture-wars agenda and the hard-nosed politics of the Religious Right and its conservative allies in the Republican Party" -- Perhaps that was a misstep; but my understanding of the history of Catholic pro-life advocacy's relationship with the Democratic Party is that it is not the case that former voluntarily walked out on the latter.
Inasmuch as abortion is a legal and political issue, pro-life advocates need to recruit political allies where they're able to find them and who are willing to work with them. For the last 30 years, that place has been the GOP. It would be a very good thing for the pro-life cause and for the Catholic Church for pro-life advocates to foster more bipartisan alliances, but it is scarcely an exaggeration to note that interest among Democratic Party policy-setters in building such alliances is zero. My own view is that the Democratic Party already pays an electoral price for this intransigence - it may well be one of the chief reasons that the GOP has controlled the House for the last two election cycles and has been able to stymie a more expansive Obama Administration agenda.
As a practical matter, the best way to unyoke Catholic pro-life advocacy from its problematic alliances in the GOP would seem to be for the Democratic Party to articulate a pro-life advocacy that is more aligned with core Democratic Party values. There remains a sort of rump group of Catholic Democrats that advocates for pro-life positions within the Democratic Party, but its influence is marginal at best. Catholic liberals' capitulation to Democratic Party orthodoxy regarding abortion is Catholic liberalism's great failure of our time.
JP - you say: "My own view is that the Democratic Party already pays an electoral price for this intransigence - it may well be one of the chief reasons that the GOP has controlled the House for the last two election cycles and has been able to stymie a more expansive Obama Administration agenda."
This is a *huge* stretch and opinion with very little to support it. Any analysis of House districts by state and voting patterns will show that redistricting over the last 20 years has pushed the US House to this point - it has little to do with prolife issues. And this same redistricing pattern has led to only continued divisiveness and partisonship.
Would agree that the Democratic *center* has capitulated on prolife but wonder if that has more to do with much of what Mr. Steinfels outlines in this article.
"Catholic liberals' capitulation to Democratic Party orthodoxy regarding abortion is Catholic liberalism's great failure of our time.
You are absolutely correct, Mr. Pauwels.
Here is a sad news item about Gov. Cuomo's proposed bill to extend abortion rights.
Jim Pauwels is correct. For a long time, the price formerly pro-life Democrats have paid in order to advance to national importance in the Democratic Party has been the renunciation of opposition to abortion. Pro-life Democrats who became "pro-choice" in order to pursue national political office inlcude Jesse Jackson, Dick Gephardt, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, and Dennis Kucinich.
Bill - I agree that redistricting is huge. But Democrats recaptured the House in 2006 and held it the 2008 elections. There was no redistricting before each of those elections; the same districts were in effect as had elected a GOP majority in the three previous Congressional elections. Then, in 2010 elections, with the same districts still in effect (i.e. the redistricting in the wake of the 2010 census hadn't yet taken effect), the House swung back to the GOP again. Redistricting can't explain those swings. I believe it's a pretty conventional explanation that Democratic success in the first half of the decade, leading to their winning the House in 2006, followed from a strategy of running relatively conservative candidates in swing districts.
Frank and Thorin, I agree that there is a roll call of shame among Democratic elected leaders. But the failure goes much deeper than that. Unless pro-life Catholics who are staunch Democrats call their leaders and their party to account, nothing will change.
Count me as a skeptic there is any deep GOP desire to change the abortion stalemate. They started the push for abortion in the 60's, and keeping the Dems on their heels over it plays into their agenda.
That said, a number of Catholic liberals have left both parties over the matter, and we find it fine to direct our votes and political activity in truly pro-life ways, and not how either the GOP or the GOP political pro-life mainstream wishes to dictate to us.
Also, I want to point out that scientifically, there is no permanent individuation until several days after conception. Twins (or more) may fuse and multiple siblings develop long after the union of sperm and egg.
Part of the problem for pro-life Democrats, as Peter Steinfels' article notes, is that they aren't supported by national pro-life groups. Why should "pro-life" concerns be taken seriously by Democrats if pro-life groups aren't anything more than an arm of the Republican party?
The larger problem is that "pro-life" isn't seen by others as meaning anything beyond "anti-abortion". For instance, Peter brings up in his piece the obstacle posed by the pro-life movement's "lack of highly visible solidarity with women's struggles for equality". But this would require the pro-life movement to go beyond being just anti-abortion.
Or take this beautiful article that's been shared several times today by female friends on Facebook: "Why Finnish Babies Sleep in Cardboard Boxes". Is this truly pro-life? Yes! Can I imagine this happening soon in the U.S.? No!
I join Todd Flowerday in skepticism of the GOP's desire to change anything on abortion. When they have had the chance to do something about abortion, they distracted themselves with taxes to cut. But it makes a nice issue with their base, so I expect them to keep not doing anything about abortion so they can keep opposing it.
When I left the Democratic Party, mainly because it is brain dead, I couldn't find a Republican I could vote for. I hope Catholic liberals' inability align themselves with phony GOP wedge issues won't be their second "great failure of our times," but the possibility seems to be there.
Qui cum canibus concumbant cum pulicibus surgent.
This was supposed to connect to Jim P's very first comment ....
Who's the dog in this analogy?
Catholic liberals' capitulation to Democratic Party orthodoxy regarding abortion is Catholic liberalism's great failure of our time.
I get down on my knees in thanksgiving that someone at this blog finally bites the bullet and speaks truth to the commonweal aristocracy.
I was wondering if html tags would still work in the new version. Thanks for finding out for us.
Count me as a skeptic there is any deep GOP desire to change the abortion stalemate.
Todd (and Tom), I disagree that the GOP is do-nothing about abortion, particularly if we look at what happens at the state level; for example, there is a pretty long track record of Republican-controlled states passing laws that restrict or attempt to outlaw abortions. There is also a long track record at all levels of government of Republicans attempting to restrict government funding of abortions (cf the Hyde Amendment); of Republican leaders nominating and approving judges who are perceived to have pro-life views; etc. It seems inarguable that since the current party alignments took effect, sometime around President Reagan's first election, the GOP is far, far better (or, if you wish, far less bad) than the Democratic Party at pursuing concrete measures to attenuate or roll back the effects of Roe v Wade and its successor rulings.
BUT - to the extent that your suspicions are justified, isn't that another compelling reason to cultivate a Democratic Party that is more receptive to pro-life concerns?
Jim McCrea - I'm not very good at Latin; something about marijuana and police sergeants? :-)
The larger problem is that "pro-life" isn't seen by others as meaning anything beyond "anti-abortion". For instance, Peter brings up in his piece the obstacle posed by the pro-life movement's "lack of highly visible solidarity with women's struggles for equality".
I'm sure that that anti-abortion advocates could broaden their view of what constitutes "pro-life". But Peter's article isn't about some expansive, squishy notion - it's about abortion. And abortion is a pro-life issue; it is, by a country mile, the single most important pro-life issue. Anti-abortion advocates needn't apologize for not expending equal energy on a dozen other things. Other people who are energized by other injustices can and should work on those things. And there is no reason I know of that they couldn't build coalitions and alliances with anti-abortion advocates - including within the Democratic Party.
Inasmuch as we're contemplating Catholic pro-life advocacy: what should the church do to exhibit "highly visible solidarity with women's struggles for equality" that she isn't already doing? I'm asking this in all sincerity, as one who believes that, for example, the church could do much more than she does to exhibit highly visible solidarity with LGBTQ struggles for equality. Naturally, the church can't reverse her doctrinal views as they effect policy on abortion and contraception (and marriage). I hope that "highly visible solidarity with struggles for equality" doesn't reduce to an insistence that the church changes her views on abortion and contraception. There should be a wide field of possibilities beyond those two issues; what are some concrete things that the church should do?
Jim Pauwels, Surely you jest (8:43 a.m.). Yes, Republican lawmakers and governors have been amassing an impressive (if it is the sort of thing that impresses you) record of passing laws limiting abortions and having them (this is the impressive part) thrown out by the courts. One of the Dakotas has the legal abortion period down to six weeks. That is a constitutional right it is trying to limit through salami tactics.
Abortion will remain a constitutional right until five of the six Catholics of the Supreme Court -- none of whom I've seen turned back in the Communion procession -- decide to un-make it a constitutional right. I really wish the Democrats could open their hearts on this issue. But the headstands conservative Catholics do to deny that all they are getting from the GOP is chin music show how unlikely it is that there is any political gain to be had if the Democratic Party has a change of heart.
Peter S makes a huge blunder in my opinion when he writes: "First statement: From the very earliest stages of its life, the unborn offspring of human beings constitutes an individual member of the human species deserving the same protections from harm and destruction owed to born humans.
Second statement: This conviction, taught by the Catholic Church and shared by many people, religious and non-religious, is nowhere near as obvious as many of us who hold it suppose."
I don't think this is obvious to those who "hold it" either. The unborn fetus does have human dna. But that in no way proves that it is a person. There is just no science to support it. Other than the dna is human. While we must always cherish all that God has given us we must not make dogma where there is none.
But here we go again with the comments showing more passion about the unborn than the born.
Bill M, Peter S didn't get hung up on the concept of persons. He said the unborn fetus constitutes an individual member of the human species. Try this thought experiment: Suppose a disease nearly wiped out the milk-giving species on earth (give the chemical companies a few years...). There are only a handful of milk cows, yaks and goats left. And here we have a pregnant cow. Would we consider the cow's fetus eliminatable since it isn't yet milk-yielding? Or would we have a team of scientists trying to bring it to term? Yeah, we'd have the team. So I'd say it is obviously a cow.
"Naturally, the church can't reverse her doctrinal views as they effect policy on abortion and contraception (and marriage)."
Jim P. =
Discussion of this idea would not be highly relevant at this point on this particular thread, but, it seems to me, that it is an unresolved issue that underlies much of the Catholic discussions on the issues you mention (espcially abortion). I'm talking about the principle which seems to be foundational for conservatives Catholics, including especially the Vatican: "Dogma cannot change" is itself an unchangeable principle.
This principle is fundamental in the SSPXers objections to VII, but it also seems to br fundamental in your arguments about abortion.
My question to you is: how do conservatives *know* that this principle is true? What makes you so sure that dogma cannot be changed ever? Or, if you think that some teachings can be changed, how do you tell which ones they are?
I realize that part of this problem has to do with the ambiguity of "dogma/teaching". And we really need 20 threads on this problem, but we need to think about it explicitly sometime. What I really would like to know now is where your thinking begins on this issue. What is your ground for this view? What fact(s) tells you that the principle is true?
(Yes, it's a matter of theological epistemology.)
"He who lies with dogs will rise with fleas."
Is it in every case that "...the church can't reverse her doctrinal views..." without betraying God's revealed truth? Or is it that "...the church can't reverse her doctrinal views..." without suffering embarrassment and loss of credibility?
The easy answer and maybe the only correct one is "both." But I suspect there's often more weight in one pan of the scale than the other. And sometimes—impious as I am!—I think it's on the self-regarding side.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/on-abortion-and-defining... .
On Abortion and Defining a 'Person'
"The traditional argument for the Church's teaching that there is never any justification for abortion; direct killing of the innocent is always and everywhere a sin. During the Second World War, the American, British and German air forces deliberately bombed cities with the intention of killing civilians. There was no pretense that these deaths were the consequence of the victims living close to military targets. The use of atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki also had the intention of killing civilians. Even if it were argued that the civilian populations contained war workers who were not "innocent" in the context of war, their deaths would not justify the killing of the children and fetuses in these populations. Nor can the dropping of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki be justified on the score that what was being done was to end the war and the deaths of the inhabitants were side effects. Double effect can be invoked only when the act is in itself morally legitimate, even though in the particular circumstances it will have foreseeable evil side effects. Nothing can be a side effect if it is the means by which the objective of the act is realized. In any case, the prime purpose of bombing whole cities was not to kill workers but to break civilian morale, and/or to bring the war to an early close. To the best of my knowledge, neither the Catholic hierarchies in the countries concerned, nor the Pope, condemned these bombings. And no Catholic participating in them was excommunicated."
(Letter to The Tablet, April 4, 2009)
My question to you is: how do conservatives *know* that this principle is true? What makes you so sure that dogma cannot be changed ever?
I hope that the referees don't rule this branch of conversation to be off-topic, because I think it's both interesting and germane to Peter's article.
I don't claim that doctrines and dogmas can't change - in fact, I believe they can and do develop (development being a form of change), and as they develop, they may lead the community of believers to change their policies and positions, as we've noted many times on dotCom: with regard to slavery, and the charging of interest rates, and so on.
At the same time, the game is somewhat rigged against bald doctrinal reversals, in that the Catholic view of doctrines is that their source is a deposit of faith that the church itself didn't write or create, but rather received as divine revelation. Only the Source of that revelation can tell the church that up is now down, or black is now white.
(If you or anyone is interested, this is laid out in this section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, cf #72-100).
At the risk of worrying my friends who praised my first comment on this thread, let me just add this: I don't think there is a doctrine, per se, about contraception. But I do think that the church's teaching on contraception within marriage, as laid out in Humanae Vitae, depends on doctrines as interpreted and taught by the church's magisterium. The teaching in Humanae Vitae is an application of the church's doctrinal foundation. Some of the hard cases regarding contraception or abortion that we're presented with here on dotCom from time to time may spur theologians and other thinkers to go back and revisit the doctrinal foundations of those teachings. I expect that this is the sort of thing that motivates the development of doctrine. It seems to me to be possible that the doctrines that underpin the teaching in Humanae Vitae could develop to the point that HV's teaching would need to be qualified in some way - the church's teaching would develop, perhaps to accommodate some of the hard cases in a way that corresponds more closely to our moral intuitions. There are people who hang out here who can talk about the nuts and bolts of how this occurs more expertly than I'm able to. But it would seem to require that theological work can lead to new and fresh thinking on the part of those with teaching authority.
The claim that the Church cannot change its teachings on abortion, divorce and remarriage and contraception lacks sufficient explanation and is misleading.
The Church has changed its doctrines and those teachings claimed to be the truth. Usury was immoral for centuries. The negative injunction or prohibition against usury was pronounced as truth and divine law (e.g., written in scripture) by 3 ecumenical councils and 2 papal bulls. Yet, the Church found a way to reform it.
For centuries there was no such thing as "freedom of religion" and the torture of heritics was licit and common (e.g., the inquistion). Today, torture is immoral and you are not considered a heretic if you are not a Roman Catholic.
The Church can "bind and loose" for good reasons as it deems it appropriate and fitting. This means that responsible reform cannot cause scandal or be in contradiction with tradition. However, the Church has always found ways to justifiy the evolution of a teaching. This does not mean that it is "ipso facto" contradictory or inconsistent with scripture or tradition.
If doctrine can develop in such a way that what is now declared to be illicit and sinful may at some point become licit and acceptable, would it not behoove those who formulate and promulgate it to be somewhat less assertive about its changeless and compelling truth at any one time? Or are we to understand that sinners of today may be judged (and condemned or excluded) by a standard that is later seen to be incomplete, misunderstood, or perhaps plain wrong? And whatever else it may be, is not the doctrine of development of doctrine all too sly a way to avoid saying, "After forcing hundreds of millions of the faithful to conform to teachings that made their lives measurably more difficult, we now acknowledge that we were wrong, we hope we have learned from that experience, and we're going to try to be more cautious from now on"?
If my memory isn't completely shot, it was Cardinal Pericle Felici who said, "The Church is never in doubt. It moves serenely from certainty to certainty."
" --- are we to understand that sinners of today may be judged (and condemned or excluded) by a standard that is later seen to be incomplete, misunderstood, or perhaps plain wrong? "
In my day it was a major sin to knowlingly and deliberately eat meat on Friday. How many sinners were consigned to the netherworld because of that?
And there is the famous Patty Crowley comment, albeit in another context:
"During the 1966 Papal Birth Control Commission, at which Chicago Catholics and co-directors of the Christian Family Movement Patty Crowley & her husband Pat were members, a heated discussion about how the church could save face if it were to allow couples to decide how to limit offspring, Marcelino Zalba, a Spanish Jesuit member of the commission, asked, "What then with the millions we have sent to hell" if the rules are relaxed? Patty immediately responded in what became perhaps her most memorable quote. "Fr. Zalba," she said, "do you really believe God has carried out all your orders?""
What Michael , John and Jim wrote. This is why I maintain that Peter is phrasing the question incorrectly. This is why he and similar authors have gotten nowhere in 50 years. It is positing some fairness in a side that gave 250 million to settle claims against the Vatican bank, builds spiraling edifices for hundreds of millions and sends Cardinal Law on a million dollar, honorable sabbatical. And keeps bishops who are arrested for fleeing scenes of accidents and continues to cover-up and send pedophile priests to mingle with children. 26,000 people in the armed forces were sexually assaulted last year, up from 19,000 in 2010. And we may have had one or two blogs on it
As far as the bloggers here, it is usually men who are strident on the issue alla George Bush who would have let his daughter get an abortion. Not that some women don't agree. But the passion is telling.
Republican lawmakers and governors have been amassing an impressive (if it is the sort of thing that impresses you) record of passing laws limiting abortions and having them (this is the impressive part) thrown out by the courts. ... But the headstands conservative Catholics do to deny that all they are getting from the GOP is chin music show how unlikely it is that there is any political gain to be had if the Democratic Party has a change of heart.
Tom, check out this exhibit *(.pdf) from the Guttmacher institute. It summarizes, state by state, the various restrictions on abortion that states have managed to enact. It tracks these categories of restrictions:
- Must be peformed by a licensed physician
- Must be performed in a hospital if at (certain conditions such as gestational age or development milestone)
- 2nd physician must participate if at (certain conditions such as gestational age development milestone)
- Partial-birth abortion prohibitions
- Public funding restrictions
- Private insurance coverage limitations
- Conscience protections for individuals and institutions
- Mandated counseling
- Waiting period after counseling
- Parental consent or notice
There is no category tracked for ultrasound requirements.
Is there any doubt that GOP politicians, working in conjunction with pro-life advocates, have driven the enactment of most of these restrictions? Or that in many cases they were enacted despite well-funded, well-coordinated opposition from Democratic politicians, working in conjunction with pro-abortion adovcates?
I take the whole point of Peter's statement, which initiated this conversation, to be that it is not good for the pro-life movement, and the church, to be allied with a single political party, and specifically with the GOP. The question which I've put on the table is, how does one work for pro-life legislation and be allied with the Democratic Party?
I don't scoff at these statewide measures. This is not "chin music". These measures are real and concrete. Within the legal regime of Roe v Wade and its successor rulings, this is what is possible, today. Perhaps some of these restrictions won't survive court challenges but many of them have. Do they save any lives? Almost certainly.
Jim P. ==
I agree with you that dogma can be changed in the sense of developed. That is not a problem.
Unfortunately, I didn't make my question clear. When I asked, "What makes you so sure that dogma cannot be changed ever?" I was asking about *reversals* of dogmas. So now I ask, what makes you so sure that dogma cannot be reversed ever? That position is also dependent on the principle that "Dogma cannot be reversed". My question is: what fact(s) lead you to think that dogma cannot be reversed? What are the facts presented by the Vatican/Popes/whoever which make you accept this principle as true? In other words, what is the evidence for its truth? Surely you don't think that the Catechism's or the Vatican's merely *saying* it is so makes it so.
Others on this thread and I myself in other threads have pointed out that there is overwhelming evidence that there have been instances of reversals of dogma (e.g., the reversal of the usury dogma that John Prior point to). Do you deny all this evidence? Or what?
Jim P (10:04 p.m.), If you let your eye skip over the regulations marked with the triangle (for "permanently enjoined") on the Guttmacher list, it gets a lot smaller.
You need also to cast a dim eye on rules and regulations that are in effect but unchallenged. Some are waiting for an enforcement action as a prelude to filing the lawsuit. Republican administrations are perfectly capable of passing laws, taking bows for them and then not enforcing them.
This is the problem: Abortion remains a constitutional right as long as five of the six Catholic justices on the Supreme Court don't say otherwise. Lawmakers and governors may harass people for exercising their right, but they can't take away the right; only the Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment can. The governors and lawmakers are acting as their predecessors did when they denied African-Americans rights the 13th and 14th Amendments gave them. (But not as effectively.) That parallel is not lost on critics of the right-to-life movement; that is a tactical consideration but beside my main point.
I don't deny the sincerity of some of the Republicans who pass these laws. I have interviewed them. Unfortunately, their knowledge of the state and its laws have not always matched their fervor for abortion reform. We elected one who was unable to come within three digits of guessing the size of the state budget he was going to Tallahassee to help write. Am I required by my church to vote for such clowns?
Ann - I don't think the teaching (now superseded), "Lenders must not charge interest" is a dogma. Nor do I think the teaching in its current form (something along the lines of, "lenders must not exploit the poor by charging exorbitant interest rates") constitutes a reversal of that teaching - rather, it constitutes a development of that teaching. (Wouldn't a reversal be more along the lines of, "lenders must charge interest"?)
What is the doctrinal underpinning of this teaching regarding the charging of interest? The Law, the Prophets, the wisdom literature, and the teachings of Jesus, as interpreted by those with teaching authority. And yes, I do accept the say-so of scriptural and magisterial authority on this matter - at least on one level. I try. I can't stop my internal questioner who asks, "wait a minute - does this make sense?" In this case, I think it does make sense - it conforms with my sense of what is morally right. And so I accept it.
Tom - no, don't vote for clowns. If you vote in Democratic primaries, then find some Democrat non-clownish candidates who are pro-life, and vote for them.
A non-clownish Democrat who is pro-life? Hmm. Well, I just got word that a South American Variegated Flycatcher was just spotted for the first time in Florida. So I suppose there could be an example of the species around. But there is still the problem that the selected voters under gerrymandering guarantee the election of one party or the other, clown or not.
I agree with Jim Pauwels about the development of a teaching claimed to be the truth. However, usery was claimed to be "divine law" because it was written in scripture. By the 16th century this teaching was confirmed by 3 ecumenical councils and 2 papal bulls issued by 2 popes. When it was reformed (and even today), no one could explain how something declared as "divine law" could be reformed.
As a result of the so-called Council of Jerselum, regarding the "sign of circumcision", that set apart the people of God, the advice given to the gentiles was "we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write them, telling them to astain from blood polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." That was it, the sum total of what was left over from the 613 stiupulations of Hebrew law that were to be "imposed" on the converts. Thus, the Church can bind and loose as it sees it to be appropriate and fitting.
Today, we know there is Biblical exegesis and many scriptural texts are interpreted differently by Christian, Jewish, and Islamic faiths. One example is the meaning in Matt 5:27-32 where Jesus said "But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchasity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery". Some Christian religions use this as a reason to allow, in certain circumstances, divorce and remarriage.
Abortion is another disputed issue because while every major religion believes that direct abortion for any reason is immoral, there are exceptions because of the meaning of certain concepts such as direct/indirect, viable/non-viable, and personhood/human life.
The distinction being made between Democrats and Republicans fail to emphasis the fact that both policial parties (and many individual politicians) favor exceptions to abortion that the RCC condemns. What has not been discussed in this blog is Cardinal Ratzinger's use of proportionality when voting for political candidates. No candidate holds positions that are in complete agreement with all RCC teachings and no one issue defines a candidate. Thus, one must use the concept of proportionality in making voting decisions.
Having said this, Cuomo's proposed legisllation does not make sense and is against common morality. I cannot envision any reason why it would be morally licit to abort (kill) a viable fetus after 24 weeks (or less) when the fetus could be delivered alive and survive. That would be unjustly killing a viable human being.
"Development of Dogma" , as I see it , is a euphemism for "the church was wrong but let's say it developed" It is a product of the "Church of Dogma." About ten years ago on one of these groups, now graduated to blogs, I mentioned that the notion of infallibility was tainted and that neither the church nor the pope is infallible. Several liberals in the group protested. The exact words of one was telling: "Belief in infallibility" is part of my identification as a Catholic." Nowadays many are hardly miffed about the pope or church not being infallible. And how about sex!
I will say it for the umpteenth time that abortion is more than a political football. It is a fraud issue. Yet many still define being Catholic with it. Talking about helping the poor, most would consider it socialism if we mandating that everyone should be helped with having the necessities. Yet no one balks at government interference when opportune legislators , introduce laws night and day on abortion.
Jesus equated anger with murder. Yet the religious right condemn everyone night and day with unconscionable anger. The late Henry Hyde, the protoype for politicizing abortion, responding when criticized for living with a woman, not his wife, for 20 years termed it a "youthful discretion."
Ditto for the hypocritical bishops who resent pedophiles to ravage children. And they punished priests like Tom Doyle for telling the truth. Yet it took graphic uncontestable evidence to get across the fact that this was happening. Whereas, abortion anger has been going on daily for over 50 years without success mind you.
Save us from this hypocrisy.
JIm P. ==
How do the Popes/Council/Popes with Councils define "dogma"? Sometimes the official Church seems to mean simply "teaching", sometimes "official teaching", and sometimes "infallible teaching by a pope or a pope with a council who make it clear that they are speaking in their official, not-possibly-wrong capacity".
So what kind of "dogma" is it that cannot be reversed -- a teaching, an official teaching, an infallible teaching? Or what??? To oversimplify: what does the Church mean when it says that Catholic dogma cannot be reversed?
JIm P. =
I have been using the word "reversal" as meaning a contradiction. Apparently you don't see all reversals as contradictions -- you think that when you take part of a statement away (such as "never") and add something else to the statement, then the result is a development, not a contradiction. For instance, suppose that you tell your little girl on Tuesday, "No swimming in neighbor Brown's pool this week", but then Wednesday you change your mind, and you tell her, "No swimming in neighbor Brown's pool unless Mrs. Brown is outside", you would not consider that a reversal but a development?
The Church said in the 13th century, "Lenders may never charge interest" and in the 20th it says, ""lenders must not exploit the poor by charging exorbitant interest rates". You seem to be implying that because the Church has dropped the "never" part and added the part about exorbitant interest that the new statement is a matter of development which involves no contradiction.
But how in the world can the statement "charging interest is never OK" ever be consistent with the statement "charging interest is sometimes OK"? And why call it a "development"?
So what kind of "dogma" is it that cannot be reversed -- a teaching, an official teaching, an infallible teaching? Or what??? To oversimplify: what does the Church mean when it says that Catholic dogma cannot be reversed?
Ann - dogmas are part of the deposit of faith, which has been divinely revealed, i.e. it is revelation. Revelation can't be reversed or added to or rewritten because the church doesn't have the authority to do so. The church is only the guardian and teacher of the deposit of faith that has been divinely entrusted to it.
The way by which those with teaching authority teach what is doctrinal is described in Lumen Gentium 25.
It may be worth noting that paragraph 25 of that conciliar document states that the bishops " bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old". We shouldn't assume that everything contained in the deposit of faith has already been articulated and fully elaborated. There could well be additional things that need to be "unpacked".
Perhaps the teaching that marriage must be between a man and a woman would be an example of a "new" thing. I don't believe that particular item was included in the sacramental catechesis I received as a schoolboy, because in those days, it wasn't thought that the church needed to be "vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock"by teaching that particular thing. But nowadays, the church does perceive that need. The teaching itself is not brand new, but the church's articulation of it seems new to me.
I'm guessing that this is not a completely satisfying explanation of how the church stewards the deposit of faith. We like things that are already fully explained, fully understood, already fully organized and systemetized. We like processes to be completely explicable and codified. And we like the ability to change whatever doesn't conform to our desires. Teaching from the deposit of faith may not lend itself very well to those expectations. Perhaps the process by which the Supreme Court determines the meaning of the Constitution would be a rough analogy: the Court doesn't write the Constitution, but it is the steward of the Constitution. It attempts to preserve the integrity of the Constitution in the face of new developments and unforeseen events. And sometimes that requires that previously-unconsidered aspects or implications of the Constitution are brought forth to meet a particular situation.
For instance, suppose that you tell your little girl on Tuesday, "No swimming in neighbor Brown's pool this week", but then Wednesday you change your mind, and you tell her, "No swimming in neighbor Brown's pool unless Mrs. Brown is outside", you would not consider that a reversal but a development?
Good analogy. Yes, I would consider that a development, and the new rule doesn't out-and-out contradict the old rule. There is some essential content about risk and safety and responsibility for one's children that underlies both of those rules, and neither of those rules represents a change of that essence.
Why might the rule have changed? Perhaps because circumstances have changed; the first rule might have been prudent when my little girl was a pre-schooler. Perhaps she is older now and has learned to swim.
It may even be that preserving the old rule in the face of those changed circumstances runs the risk of distorting how the underlying essence is perceived; my daughter might erroneously conclude that going into the water is a grave danger that must be avoided at all costs, even to save another's life.
The Church said in the 13th century, "Lenders may never charge interest" and in the 20th it says, ""lenders must not exploit the poor by charging exorbitant interest rates". You seem to be implying that because the Church has dropped the "never" part and added the part about exorbitant interest that the new statement is a matter of development which involves no contradiction
Right. I'm arguing that there is something essential that underlies both of those rules, and that essence hasn't changed. To do a deeper dive on that, we might inquire about the scriptural basis for both rules, and about whether the circumstances of economic activity and wealth creation has changed drastically between the 13th century and today.
Jim Pauwels -- I don't think the Church, Roman Curia, would completely agree with your interpretation of "development".
For example, consider the teaching on contraception where the unitive and procreative aspects of marital intercourse must never be separated under any circumstances. The only liict means permitted for birth control is periodic continence (PC) or natural family planning. Yet, PC involves the physical acts of meausuring temperature and cervial mucus and plotting them on a calandar to ensure that sexual intercourse will be infertile and non-procreative. How is this NOT separating the unitive and procreative aspects of marital intercourse? Most theologians and Catholics think this is a contradiction in principle.
What if, in the future, the Church said: artifiical contraception is licit under the following conditions:
> the marriage is open to procreation
> the spouses have chiildren and want no more for good reasons (e.., Pius XII's 1951 address to the midwives)
> the spouses want children but want to space births in accordance with their family obligations and objectives in a secure and predicatable manner.
> if a child is conceived by accident, the spouses will accept the child into their family with unconditional love (e.g., they do not have a contra-life attitude or motivation)
> the spouses have been educated appropriately about all means of birth control, weighted all the factors and decided that PC was not sufficiently secure, would not work for them and their decision was not in conflect with virtue (e.g., the female spouse has irregular mentrual cycles or her physical and emotional condition and informed conscience/judgment opted for articial birth control, and her reasons were prudent, just and charitable).
Would this, in your opinon, be a "development" of doctrine or a "contradiction"?
Michael, that sounds like an interesting discussion to have - some other time. We've already got abortion in flight in these comments, isn't that enough? :-). Fear not, contraception will come around again, probably pretty soon!
Jim, as in most articles the discussion morphs into side issues. The one in question was about development versus irreformable when it comes to doctrine and dogma. I could have easily gave an example of abortion to save the life of the mother when the fetus cannot survive (e.g., is not viable), under any circumstances (e.g., the Phoenix case). In this case, the issue boils down to allowing both the mother and fetus to die with certainty or to save the mother life. Would this example have been more acceptable to you? If so, would this be a development or a contradiction?
"It may be worth noting that paragraph 25 of that conciliar document states that the bishops " bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old". We shouldn't assume that everything contained in the deposit of faith has already been articulated and fully elaborated. There could well be additional things that need to be "unpacked". "
Jim P. --
It seems to me that what we're discussing as a "development" includes a dogmatic deductive system, one with revealed statements as axiomatic and the derived statements as theorems or added dogma.
My problem with this as stated is that when the theologians derive "new" truths from the axioms they include some principles that are not to be found within the axioms. I mean those cases when, in trying to interpret Scripture, they bring in purportedly historical facts that are not themselves part of Scripture, and they also presuppose principles of interpretation which are not themselves to be found in Scripture but are to e found in various philosophical and linguistic authorities. I conclude that in fact there are not very many "new" truths that are "developed" exclusively from Scripture/Revelation because the interpreters regularly include non-Scriptural facts and principles.This, of course, cannot be avoided, and the hybrid conclusions can be valuable, but I don't see how they can be said to be certainly faultless.
True, there are some new developments which are derived exclusively from what is explicitly said in Scripture. An example: 'Christ was born of Mary, therefore Mary was Christ's mother.' That is known by the definition of the terms "born of" and "mother" and doesn't require any wandering from the deposit of faith. I think your example of 'Marriage is between one man and one woman' is another example of such a truth. It merely analyses out what is already there in the old definition of "marriage". Another example: All Jews were bound by the laws of God. David was a Jew. So he was bound by the laws of God.
But other "developments" are not examples of logical inference. They are more like artistic intuitions than reasoning. Consider the theological understanding of the Persons of the Trinity as relations. Nowhere in Scripture is it said explicitly that what each person of the Trinity is is a relation. Scripture might suggest this, but it seems to me (based on my ignorance, of course :-) that that statement cannot be strictly inferred from what Scripture actually says. That teaching is really just an unproven theory which seems quite consistent with what Scripture says, and it certainly seems to deepen our understanding of what the Trinity might (!) be or even probably is. But strictly speaking it cannot be said of that theory that it is a sure as, say, the view that God is unlimited love. In other words, it is an unproven but useful hypotheses which we have strong reason to think might be true, or is probably true, or is something in some important way *like* or analogous to the truth, and therefore helps explain other statements which we know to be surely true..
What I'm saying is that it appears that much of the development of theology is a matter of aesthetic intuition, not scientific necessity. It "makes sense", though it can't be proven. As such it has a contingency about it that is not found in the cut and dry derivations of certain dogmas that are derived completely from Scripture, whether from explicit statements or from implied conclusions.
It seems to me that when Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would always be with the Church to guide it, He was largely referring to those contingent, aesthetic intuitions. He was promising that the Holy Spirit will help us with those sorts of intuitions which are beyond our poor powers of reasoning. He was promising that the Holy Spirit will incline us towards accepting our true or analogous intuitions which we can't be entirely sure of. I'm thinking of such teachings as "the Bishop of Rome is central in Church administration" and "Mary the Mother of Jesus did not suffer original sin". They are the best available answers to important questions for which we do not have any certain answers. To speak metaphorically, they sort of fill in the theological blanks that need filling in, or they complete a jig-saw puzzle that has no certain pieces to complete it.
"Ann - dogmas are part of the deposit of faith, which has been divinely revealed, i.e. it is revelation"
Jim P. --
But aren't there other teachings which are called "dogmas" which are neither explicitly in Scripture nor derived from Scripture using reason? I mean such teachings as "the bishops as a group have teaching authority which they do not possess as individuals" and "After her death Mary's body was assumed into Heaven".
Aren't matters of Tradition (with a capital "T", whatever that means) considered dogma? And isn't the statemet "Tradition is dogma" itself not in Scripture, but isn't it too considered to be "dogma"?
(All of my questions would need a solid theological epistemology to answer well. Sigh.)
"Ann - dogmas are part of the deposit of faith, which has been divinely revealed, i.e. it is revelation"
Jim P. --
But aren't there other teachings which are called "dogmas" which are neither explicitly in Scripture nor derived from Scripture using reason? I mean such teachings as "the bishops as a group have teaching authority which they do not possess as individuals" and "After her death Mary's body was assumed into Heaven".
Aren't matters of Tradition (with a capital "T", whatever that means) considered dogma? And isn't the statemet "Tradition is dogma" itself not in Scripture, but isn't it too considered to be "dogma"?
(All of my questions would need a solid theological epistemology to answer well. Sigh.)
Here's a recent article "John Henry Newman on the Ppsychology of Faith and Reason" that some might find useful. I find it murky, but it seems relevant to our questions. (I generally find Newman murky on kinds of thinking.)
He was apparently ahead of his time with his notion of an unconscious "implicit reasoning". Contemporary psychologists say they have clear evidence that there is such a thing, or at lest there is something like what Newman talks about.
"What I'm saying is that it appears that much of the development of theology is a matter of aesthetic intuition, not scientific necessity. It "makes sense", though it can't be proven. As such it has a contingency about it that is not found in the cut and dry derivations of certain dogmas that are derived completely from Scripture, whether from explicit statements or from implied conclusions. It seems to me that when Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would always be with the Church to guide it, He was largely referring to those contingent, aesthetic intuitions."
Ann, I agree, and it's an interesting point. I've read that theoretical scientists (like those Olympians of physics who help us understand particles and dark matter and such) are also guided by an aesthetic intuition - they see "elegance" as an important character of a theory, an indicator that a given theory has the ring of truth about it. I am not sure, though, what you mean by "contingent" unless you mean "contingent on the Holy Spirit's guidance to help discern it."
"But aren't there other teachings which are called "dogmas" which are neither explicitly in Scripture nor derived from Scripture using reason? I mean such teachings as "the bishops as a group have teaching authority which they do not possess as individuals" and "After her death Mary's body was assumed into Heaven". "
Right - in Catholic theology, the deposit of faith is not coextensive with scripture - it is broader than scripture. The Council of Jerusalem described in Acts probably is a scriptural basis for what is taught about the college of bishops, but Acts is not a theological tract, and certainly the Council Fathers of Vatican II, in their elaboration of that teaching, relied on sources other than the New Testament. And your example of Mary's Assumption makes your point even more strongly.
" I could have easily gave an example of abortion to save the life of the mother when the fetus cannot survive (e.g., is not viable), under any circumstances (e.g., the Phoenix case). In this case, the issue boils down to allowing both the mother and fetus to die with certainty or to save the mother life. Would this example have been more acceptable to you? If so, would this be a development or a contradiction? "
Hi, Michael, yes, that Phoenix case was definitely one of the things I had in mind as a hard case when I commented in an earlier comment that hard cases may cause theologians to go back and revisit the doctrinal underpinnings of what the church teaches. I can only say that I'm not competent to speculate about your hypothetical example, but it seems pretty unlikely to me that even a hard case like that would cause those with teaching authority to *reverse* what it teaches now about abortion. And in fact, didn't the Holy See confirm the bishop of Phoenix's judgment in that instance? (I'm not certain about that; it's been a while).
Jim P. --
I'm using "contingent" in the philosophical sense -- that which can be otherwise or which could not be at all. It contrasts with "necessary" -- that which must be what it is or which must exist. History and aesthetics are about the contingent, while the sciences and math are about the necessary.
Yes, some scientists value simplicity in science. (See Richard Feynman for instance). But some apparently don't realize the in their demanding one fundamental physical explanation of all nature that they are making a non-scientific demand. In fact, physics has become incredibly complex (there are now said to be many dozens of "elementary" particles and forces), and Nagel maintains that the typical scientist has left out or cant possibly account for a whole big part of nature -- consciousness and its contents. Here's a fine recent article by Margaret Wertheim on "The Limits of Physics" which discusses the whole current mess. She and Nagel agree about a lot.
P. S. I meant that the Holy Spirit guides the Church's search for new truths, truths which are often about contingent matters. e.g., the contingent fact that Christ chose to become man, the fact that God chose to create the world in the first place.
'Christ was born of Mary, therefore Mary was Christ's mother.'
Once I asked my catechism youth: 'How can Jesus be God's only son, yet we are all sons and daughters of God?', a question none of them had considered before. My answer drifted into the side question of what 'son' means, but the usual genetic/biological versus adoptive distinction failed, I suddenly encountered the 'begotten, not made' and the 'eternally begotten' expressions, which I had never carefully considered before, my ill-prepared argument drowned in that bog, and one youth concluded: 'In other words, Jesus is not really the son of God'. That day it is possible that the youth went home and told their parents: 'today we learned that Jesus is not really the son of God'.
Jim P,
Rome choose not to interfere in the decision of the Bishop of Phoenix for they did not want to enter the dispute especially to comment on the Report that Catholic Health Care West (parent organization of St. Joseph's Hospital) submitted to the Bishop of Phoenix. This Report was a moral analysis of the procedure conducted by moral theologian Theresa Lysaught of Marquette University.
The Report referenced 3 orthodox theologians and their opinons. Of note was the opinion of Germain Grisez considered one of the Church's most prominent moral theological experts and strongest supporters of the Magisterium. Other prominent moral philosophers and theologians referenced by Lysaught were Martin Rhonhiemer and Bill Murphy. Both are highly regarded and historic defenders of the Magisterium.
The Report concluded that the procedure at St. Joseph's Hospital was "indirect abortion" not direct. This was disputed by an Bioethics commmittee of the USCCB and Lysaught responded with a strong defense of her moral analysis and demonstrated the many issues the Bioethics committee overlooked or mininimized.
This case is a perfect example of a Church that offers unconvincing and unreasonable answers for its teachings and the opinions offered in books, articles or reports where the Church's teaching is called into question. There are many other examples.
It will take decades for the Church to reform many of its teachings. When it does, it will be called a "development". In the meantime, the consequences of unconvincing and unreasonable answers to the many cases that cause suffering and pain for millions of Catholics fuel profound non-reception, distrust, lower Mass attendance, and a loss of baptized Catholics to other faiths. In the end, a teaching must ring true to the deepest levels of one's mind, heart and soul. When it does not for the overwhelming majority of Catholics, the Church must not dismiss non-reception as a misunderstanding or self-induced delusion of the Holy Spirit who guides us all to the truth.