I don't think of the power as comparable by a long shot.
Did those pronouncements tell you not to donate at collection time?
ossobuco wrote:I don't think of the power as comparable by a long shot.
Did those pronouncements tell you not to donate at collection time?
I agree.
The vatican and the pope are considered infallable and extensions from God himself.
AI, not so much.
Well, maporche, I'm a no longer catholic person, however jesuit associated long ago, but I understand that some pronouncements are ex cathedra and many not, and this one was not.
Although, apparently the magisterium (I remember the teaching church as not being ascribed infallibility) has seemed to have morphed while I wasn't paying attention all these decades under Cardinal Ratzinger's eye. (Timber explained some new view to me, at one point, to my surprise.) At any rate, there is biggo PR power.
Oh come on, Georgeob, when the catholic church makes a pronouncement, there is always that 'do it or you're going to hell' connotation associated with it even if it isn't really there.
With AI, there might be a 'do it or you won't be considered politically correct' connotation. I guess to some that would be horrid, but for most of us, we'd be the ones telling AI to go to hell.
Diane wrote:Oh come on, Georgeob, when the catholic church makes a pronouncement, there is always that 'do it or you're going to hell' connotation associated with it even if it isn't really there.
That may be the case in your perception, but it is not the case for Catholics. You may be viewing the situation through a somewhat distorted lens.
Diane wrote:With AI, there might be a 'do it or you won't be considered politically correct' connotation. I guess to some that would be horrid, but for most of us, we'd be the ones telling AI to go to hell.
How is that any different from the expressed opinions of some of the Catholic clergy - opinions which practicing Catholics ignore with great abandon?
You just struck a chord.
I've had several friends who have practiced birth control, saying that they woud take their chances on heaven rather than have a hell on earth (loads of kids already, abusive husband, for example).
Thank you.
The Church also urges its believers to practice universal charity and love for all, yet few even approach that standard. However, even in the face of somewhat systematic failure, the moral standard involved is beneficial in many ways - including simply dealing with death and the many tragic or inexplicable elements of life.
There is also an interesting moral & practical dilemma in the application of moral boundaries to the actions & policies of government. The laws of unintended and/or unexpected consequences usually prevail. Thus in China government programs strictly enforced to limit births to one child per family led to large-scale infanticide of females and today with a significantly distorted demographic distribution in the population of China. In NAZI Germany the application of "scientific" principles regarding the cost and value of life that led to the euthanazation of seriously deformed or mentally defective individuals laid the intellectual, political and social foundation for the subsequent mass extermination of homosexuals, political and religious dissidents, Gypsys, and Jews. What might be the unexpected consequences of the practical remedies that would follow Amnesty's recommendations?
