Mr. Baker, the question of seemliness aside, in terms of its quality, you might've also listed your own, American Spectator column concerning the Holy Father.
Anyway, thanks for the reply to my letter to TAS. The primary thrust of your argument is spot-on, and well voiced.
I understand your comment as to the direct relevance of my response to your column, but I would say that its relevance is yet in direct proportion to your position as communicated in the column that "conservative" (or, more precisely, orthodox) Protestants "get it" re the Pope's refusal to abandon moral absolutes.
What I was frankly thinking about when I said my piece is contraception, which, near as I can tell, even orthodox strains of Protestantism have accepted, with very rare exceptions, notwithstanding the fact that, as late as three decades into the 20th century, even mainstream Protestant sects rejected artificial birth control. This issue would not seem to neatly fit into the realm of what you call "theological principle", and it is no small matter.
The widely accepted contrived "delinking" of procreation from sexual activity is inarguably a key component of the sexual revolution in its many unfortunate manifestations, having very directly ushered into the lives of millions abortion, perversion, disease, fractured relationships and spiritual ruin. While I cannot prove it, of course, there are fewer things about which I am more certain than that God is gravely offended over the widespread abuse of the gift of sexuality that artificial contraception entails.
Orthodox Protestants would appear to have sound instincts, but it seems to me that their purported appreciation for her adherence to central, immutable truths is called into question by their own abandonment of one of them.
2 comments:
Mr. Baker, the question of seemliness aside, in terms of its quality, you might've also listed your own, American Spectator column concerning the Holy Father.
Anyway, thanks for the reply to my letter to TAS. The primary thrust of your argument is spot-on, and well voiced.
I understand your comment as to the direct relevance of my response to your column, but I would say that its relevance is yet in direct proportion to your position as communicated in the column that "conservative" (or, more precisely, orthodox) Protestants "get it" re the Pope's refusal to abandon moral absolutes.
What I was frankly thinking about when I said my piece is contraception, which, near as I can tell, even orthodox strains of Protestantism have accepted, with very rare exceptions, notwithstanding the fact that, as late as three decades into the 20th century, even mainstream Protestant sects rejected artificial birth control. This issue would not seem to neatly fit into the realm of what you call "theological principle", and it is no small matter.
The widely accepted contrived "delinking" of procreation from sexual activity is inarguably a key component of the sexual revolution in its many unfortunate manifestations, having very directly ushered into the lives of millions abortion, perversion, disease, fractured relationships and spiritual ruin. While I cannot prove it, of course, there are fewer things about which I am more certain than that God is gravely offended over the widespread abuse of the gift of sexuality that artificial contraception entails.
Orthodox Protestants would appear to have sound instincts, but it seems to me that their purported appreciation for her adherence to central, immutable truths is called into question by their own abandonment of one of them.
FH
As to the last para. of my above comment, by "her" I mean the Catholic Church.
FH
Post a Comment