3DOP

I just saw this after another post to you. I am listening. But some revelation had already begun in the Old Testament, no? Are saying that truth simply IS? True truth? There are truths of nature and supernature that remain unrevealed, no? To be revealed or discovered in the future? I am not trying to assertive. I want to understand you rightly, but I fear our definitions of truth might not be the same. Could that be what is making my hesitant? Catholics say that truth is conformation of the mind with reality. That has been my working definition for a while. But I can't conform it to all reality like God. I can only have bits and pieces of it.

"Before Abraham was, I AM." The truth exists. We cannot own the truth like a possession. Can we conform our minds to things that are true, and have by faith a level of dark understanding about supernatural reality? I think you would grant that through the light of reason we can conform our minds to demonstrable truths about natural reality with much greater certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, as they say in the courtroom? You have written a lot about this and have given it more thought than I have. I am interested to know if you find it problematic to understand truth in the way I have described? Maybe you could describe hour own relationship to certain truths as you understand them, could be corrupted into "having truth" rather than ____________truth. Maybe you could fill in the blank?

Hi longview and TheNehor. I can follow-up with a little more "clarity" longview. The Church has used imagery from the physical cosmos to symbolize the blessed just in eternity. Dante famously used this in his epic poem the Paradiso, while borrowing from other traditional sources. "And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever." (Dan 12:3) I would propose that the firmament is the whole collection of the stars that illuminate the night skies. This would be the glory of all the saints together as one hierarchical and harmonious, beautiful whole. But then there are the individual stars, uniquely special in their assigned place and glory, according to God's will. This is why I agree that there are degrees of glory in heaven as well as in the physical creation with which we are familiar. "But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is alike, but there is one kind for men, and another for fish." (I Cor. 15:39) Here again we see as well as with the verses that follow, a deliberate hierarchy in creation, which all announce God's glory. A fish is certainly a tremendous creation which sings a greater "song" to God than does unanimated matter. But everything God makes gives its praise to God, according to its capacity, to what the created thing is: "O ye fire and heat, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. O ye cold and heat, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. O ye dews and hoar frosts, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. O ye frost and cold, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. O ye ice and snow, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever." [Daniel 3:66-70] Back to Corinthians and the verse TheNehor was discussing with you longview: "There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glory of of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another." (I Cor. 15:40) Once again we see creation's hierarchy, with a sharp distinct between earthly and heavenly. I think no one would ascribe the praise of fire and heat, blessing or glorifying God, with that of the brute beast. A magnificent horse is a beautiful beast and surely praises God more in obedience to its own nature and capacity. But will fish and horse, or fire and heat be accounted as terrestrial or celestial? I propose that it is plausible to limit the celestial glories to the creature made in God's image. I fear that the Latter-day Saints are understandably focused with God's image as physical (because of all the flak you have to take about it), as to sometimes look past an even sharper distinction between man and the good animals. The animals made without powers of reasoning (an intellect) and loving (free will). I am not trying to convince the LDS of anything except that I wish you could appreciate a little better how the Catholic is filled with wonder at being made in a spiritual image of God. Will and intellect are invisible to the senses. What a responsibility for such a creature to choose to rationally love and obey and praise God? Unlike the always good (obedient to their natures) beasts, we have the potential for evil, to disobey our natures, but we can only do so through disobeying our reason and choosing. This is what the good beasts can never attain, the image of God in man, by our own powers of reasoning and loving. "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory." (I Co. 15:41) This is too long already. If anyone is curious, I will try to explain the plausibility for why one might hold that Jesus is the Sun, His Mother is the moon. and the wise, just, and redeemed will join them shining in the celestial glory of the stars. I do not think a Catholic has to accept this belief, so I certainly don't expect LDS to accept it. But the teaching is supremely beautiful to my beholding of it. Dante immortalizes it with loving poetical fire. According to Artificial Intelligence, Aquinas argues this position in his Commentary on I Corinthians. I would add that if AI is correct, Aquinas follows a respectable school of thought immortalizing a beautiful teaching with cool intellectual rigor. I just love the idea of the loving poet, and rational intellect, representing the two sides of our understanding of the image of God in us. It seems so fitting - coming round to magnify the same theological positions in two different ways! The will and the intellect. Love and reason, like mercy and justice, kissing in peace and harmony! Thanks for your consideration.

The intimacy of sharing? I think we all have probably experienced and enjoyed that. But I have never heard it expressed in such a plain way. It reminds me of a mysterious passage in the last book of the New Testament: "To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone, which no one knows except him who receives it." ---Rev. 2:17b It sounds like a secret that the just shares with our dear Lord alone. I like your idea a lot. It seems very fitting. Yeah. Nobody is going to be mind reading the new name that is given to the just, who conquers! It reminds me of a song from the 80's after my time. This band called Radiohead made a song called Creep. The singer had the saddest lament of any Psalmist or Jeremiah. He talks about the human desire to be "special". No one can claim that name except he or she who receives it. It is unique and perfectly fulfills the natural human desire to be special.

I don't have the answers. It seems like there are degrees of glory for sure. I would only suggest that every soul of the just is unique and has glory that pertains to him or her alone in different qualities and quantities. I am only speculating. I hold that there is more that is unrevealed than revealed. We seem to be required to accept mysteries. Heh, longview. Thanks for the reply. But I don't think my Church has been told the answers. That is why I cautiously "suggest". All the best longview. I appreciate your questions.

I suppose us oldies will be relieved of walking across the house and when we get to where we were going; it seems like we should remember why we were going there?

There is a list. There are seven attributes of the resurrected bodies of the just. The unjust have only the first three attributes. 1) Identity, "Resurrected bodies will retain their original identity; we will be essentially the same persons as before we died." 2) Integrity, "Resurrected bodies will retain all of the parts of their old bodies – resurrected bodies will be complete. This property or condition is called integrity." 3) Quality, "Our bodies will be youthful and will retain our original gender, a condition called quality." 4) Impassibility, "We will be immune from death and pain, a condition called impassibility." 5) Subtlety, "Our bodies will be free from restraint by matter, yet palpable. This is a property called subtlety. To St. Thomas, subtlety means perfect subjection of the body to the soul." 6) Agility, "We will have complete freedom of movement, our souls will direct our bodies without hindrance." 7) Clarity, "The glory of our souls will be visible in our bodies. We will be beautiful and radiant, a property called clarity." ---copied from the following website: https://thoughtfulcatholic.com/on-the-resurrection-of-the-body/ #4 is obvious to all. #'s 5 and 6 might seem similar. #5 One would not be hindered from passing through solid objects. But because such a body would be palpable, made out of matter, the soul would also be able use matter in the way we are accustomed at this time. I don't think we know how this operation of subtlety would work. Will the just have some kind of control over matter, or will it consist in control of one's body? #6 Movement could be instantaneous, or at least light speed perhaps! It seems like instantaneous. I say that because of someone who might like to explore the physical heavens. If it were only e at light speed it would seem to take almost forever to finish seeing things. Of course, time doesn't exist anymore. There are so many more questions that these proposals raise. It can be edifying to ponder any of them. Each are so full of mystery, and prompt questions to wonder about. This seems like an inkling of what would be in store, but it is revealed that it hasn't entered our thoughts or hearts what God has really prepared for those who love Him. Which is the greater motivation for behaving ourselves before God? Would it be the fear of being one of the unjust, or the desire of being among the just. I know belief in both hell and heaven continue to be factors in making me try to be better. How often do I put these things out of mind? Often. Daily. Praise God for His mercy and love towards us. The list above was written by a webmaster who took them from St. Thomas Aquinas. If you don't know, in the articles of the Summa Theologica, Thomas tries to avoid straw men by first listing some reasons why his eventual proposition might be in error. It can be pretty dry reading. There are good summaries of the Summa that are more accessible to the ordinary faithful. Obviously, non-Catholics will not necessarily accept any or all of these. But one should at least be able to recognize and respect the intellectual rigor which he poured into his entire works. When at the end of his life, he called his writings straw, we do not think he was saying his work was erroneous, but rather was acknowledging how that it lacked the brilliance of a single glimpse of what heaven is really like.

Cal. Hi. You always put so much loving thought into your beliefs. May we meet in a happy place of peace. I won't say more until then.

Thanks cal. You are always so generous.

In medieval times, it had not yet been determined that the soul comes into existence at conception. It wasn't that Aquinas would have accused the Mother of God of having sinned. Rather, it was undetermined at that time when the soul came into the body. It had to have occurred at least by the time of quickening, when the baby had mobility in the womb. In medieval times the timing of the entrance of the soul was undetermined. The teaching in the New Catechism (#366) is recent and does not affirm the timing. It only affirms that the soul is created "immediately" by God. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1912 argues for why the current position of the Church satisfies the major premises of three schools of thought. But it does not reference a defined statement of the Church's doctrine either. www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm The question of timing appears to be more difficult than I have previously considered. For instance, twins are sometimes joined in the womb, before they split bodily. Are there two souls in one body before they split? I don't think we have that information at this time. The only hints I can think of is not from reasoning but revelation. When the Blessed Virgin visited Elizabeth after the Incarnation, the Christ child would have been only weeks old at the most. Elizabeth referred to Mary as "the mother of my lord." But even Elizabeth's inspired remark could be referring to the future. Ps. 51 has David saying that in sin he was conceived. Assuredly he is not referring to the marriage act. The Psalmists frequently resort to hyperbole. This could be another example of that. It would be a sola scriptura argument which as always, never settles doctrinal controversy. My reading of the New Catechism leaves the timing open according to how I read in #366. I think one would have to resort to the fallible teachings of St. Paul VI (Humanae Vitae) and John Paul II in regards to contraception and abortion. We are still learning all the time. We are trending towards ensoulment at conception. I have to admit that I do not think we are all the way there yet. Edit: Or maybe Catholics should infer ensoulment at conception because of the defined teaching of the Immaculate Conception. This does little for non-Catholics, but I think we could affirm that Mary could not be "immaculately conceived" without a soul for a length of time.

Thanks for being forthcoming Tony. Cal talked about "quickening". When Mom feels the baby move. That is why, if I correctly understand, Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception. You followed what you were taught, and St. Thomas agreed. Before the Council of Nicea, St Justin Martyr, who died for the name of Jesus, and who we Catholics honor to this day, had some views that 150 years later, after Nicea, would have been questioned. More than me, you have submitted to what you thought the Church taught you. In my eyes, and I think in the eyes of God, you are a very good son of the Church.

Hi again, Cal. It is undefined, but I believe in love. God isn't going to punish a baby, or a fetus, made in His image. One of my daughters has only four lovable children that have been born. She laments her many miscarriages. Gabriel was big enough and old enough to have a name and to have been buried. My unborn grandson has a grave. No one can accuse me of denying the Catholic faith for believing that he beholds the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in heaven this very moment. I used to tend to believe that he would be in what we call Limbo of the Children. That might be also. Even that is a pretty great deal, if you will, for never even having the chance to sin. But I now tend to think that I will see him, and know him, and love him someday, unless I apostasize. Gabriel is okay. But according to our faith, that hope doesn't give anybody the right to cut our little ones short, who can't even make a choice, short of having a longer mortal life.

Hi calm. I don't know about your first question. The principle is that one always favors life both with regards to procreation and abortion. Catholics who understand these things (most of our bishops) that come up in our modern scientific world are always in favor of that which is healthy. This comes from the belief that everything that God created is good. First chapters of Genesis. If its good and works, leave it alone. The Church doesn't agree with anything that would "frustrate" good health. That means that we can't oppose nature. Nature is good. We are against abortion or sterilization unless it is the only option that allows for the most life. There are natural ways to limit pregnancies for many good reasons. We can't oppose nature. But we can use nature. But here is the problem. Unlike many Christians and virtually all non-Christians, Catholics believe that an immortal soul is supernaturally created simultaneously with natural human conception. So how can we approve of the destruction of a person with an immortal soul? Only be dehumanization. And I approve of that intellectual process! I don't believe that pro-choice folks believe in murder, praise God. There is no getting around it as a Catholic. But we would be wrong to think that secular folks who don't believe in immortal souls are guilty of murder. That makes it easier to love them. None of us are promoting murder. So we aren't in favor of sterilization either. But we are "stuck", if you will, with our theology, while loving it, and seeing it as good. We cannot approve of the destruction of healthy organisms (sterilization). Nor can we approve of any abortions that would medically result in certain anticipated deaths, unless we are saving one (the mother or child), for the sake of the other. If two are going to die without medical intervention, and one can live with medical intervention, then intervention is the good and moral choice.

Thanks Eschaton and Seeking Understanding. I wasn't aware of this public discourse which seems to pit anti-empathy against pro-empathy. It appears to me to be more nuanced than presented by the poll, or the NCR article which baited them into foolishly arguing against something called empathy, but which demands more than is prudent or reasonable. It made them look like terrible people, but if we have empathy, we will try to understand them better. I said that "I do not know of a single person who publicly argues that it is imprudent or immoral to try to understand and appreciate motives and feelings of everybody." It seems to me that what is bolded and italicized is not the same as the "empathy" that the conservatives are opposing. If they are all really against what I described as empathy above, they have not declared themselves against that. Do either of you take issue with how I have described empathy? The NCR article begins as follows: "There's a growing movement, among some conservatives, pushing back against traditional notions of empathy. What's behind it, and what might it mean, especially for Christian conservatives?" From what I could see in the subsequent article, the conservatives were accepting a new definition of "empathy" which views those who are against unlimited immigration as lacking in the same. Hopefully not. Many of us can't accept a novel kind of empathy that is certainly not traditional, and which requires us to accept as good and moral everything that anyone with whom we empathize believes or does. To empathize with someone does not traditionally require agreement with all of their beliefs and actions. However, to empathize with those with whom we disagree is a very traditional Christian virtue. It is natural and easy to empathize with those with whom we agree. How much merit is there in that? I am afraid I don't see much empathy on the non-conservative side either, beyond those with whom they already agree about morals and law. I did like a lot of what you said SeekingUnderstanding above. I certainly wouldn't include you among those who paint the other side in the worst possible light. I appreciate that while you are probably what is called pro-choice, you do not approve of calling a fetus, a clump of cells. I am what is called pro-life, but I have to recognize that pro-choicers do not believe as I do, that God imparts the immortal soul of a human person at conception. How can it be a crime if the fetus is no more human at the start than is a mouse full-grown? I disagree with anyone who thinks empathy should be the supreme rule by which civilization should be governed. Hyperbolic comments against the word by conservative commentators are unfortunate. But if those who are against the conservatives in this debate wanted to empathize with the conservatives, they would see that they are not against traditional ideas of empathy. They are only against empathy if it requires them to try to coherently accept the beliefs and behaviors of everybody they disagree with at once. Even Elon Musk was quoted as saying that empathy is good in its proper place: "Empathy can be good, but it's too often weaponized to persuade well-meaning people to support bad ideas." No one said anything against trying to "understand and appreciate motives and feelings of everybody."

I challenge these contentions. You say that "we all know certain extremists..." I am not familiar with a single person who publicly argues that it is imprudent or immoral to try to understand and appreciate the motives and feelings of everybody. Has everybody here heard of this phenomenon except me? For those who are in the know about this ugly phenomenon, with empathy, maybe you might see these "certain extremists" in a more favorable light? Maybe you have misunderstood them? I cannot possibly see someone who disapproves of empathy having so much influence over a population in such a short time. You call it "slow poison"? This would have to be one of the swiftest acting social poisons ever if you were even correct in your theory. Regarding your opinion about White Evangelicals...Do you know a lot of them, other than through the internet? Besides this poll, what leads you to find them so deep in anti-empathy as to be "probably a lost cause at this point"? Are there any other categories of people in the world that in your opinion are "probably a lost cause at this point"? I am confident that the evangelicals I have known, even the white ones, if they knew you, would be empathetic about your view of them. They have much good in them as do you. Everyone alive has good nature as a foundation upon which God's grace can build a virtuous and loving person, another Christ! I do not know your background, but I know God loves you, in spite of it and because of it. We are all the same in that regard. We all have some bad and some good in us. God does not consider anybody a "lost cause" and neither should His children. That alone is enough truth for empathy with our fellows in the same condition. There are reasons, almost entirely hidden from us, that have shaped the characters of those who we are tempted to despise the most. As your brother in the God-Man Jesus Christ, I admonish you to try to understand everybody, all of our brothers and sisters in Jesus. We can't give up on any one, and certainly not an entire group of Jesus' brothers and sisters as "a lost cause", not at any point. I am happy to note that you qualified your comment with "probably". I say definitely NOT...a lost cause! I am a former white Evangelical and minister, who will always be thankful for their help as God's instrument in a beginning of a life in Jesus many years ago. I have firm hope that He that willed a beginning of His life in me, through these white Evangelicals, will continue it in me until the day of Christ Jesus. 3DOP

Eschaton, hi. Accept my heartiest best wishes. The idea you raise is truly important! It is quite likely that I do not know what is meant by the word empathy. It is because Christians seemed more wary of empathy than those with no religion, it made me think that there is perhaps a misunderstanding on the part of participants in the poll as well. I am all in favor of "weeping with those who weep and rejoicing with those who rejoice." We should try to understand and appreciate the joys and pains of people who aren't Christians too. My Church teaches that "through the Incarnation of Christ as man, He has in a certain sense, united Himself with every human person". That is a paraphrase of a document from the Second Vatican Council called Gaudium et spes. It is in ch. 22. I have it partly memorized because that certain sense, spoken of, must be maximized. It is a radical recognition that He who our religion is named for, Christ, doesn't identify persons as what they have done, but as His, Who came to deliver all of the sons and daughters of Adam into the liberty and freedom to renounce the ties that bind them to that which is not God. He identifies with all of us together, through His most Sacred and Loving Heart in willing the best for everyone. Of course, He will not violate anyone's freedom to reject His love. Everyone we encounter in any way is a brother or sister in Jesus. They may not have faith. They might be unbaptized. This isn't to say that they enjoy God's peace in a life indifferent to God's laws or in the next life. But it should mean that in justice, Christians should have the deepest compassion, (or empathy?), for everyone in this world of restlessness and sorrows, without ever ourselves being indifferent or triumphalist because of some self-imagined superiority. We have to want the best for those who might appear to be the farthest away from our beliefs. They are ever so close because Jesus is the God-Man. I suppose this is a truth that will be even more obvious to the Latter-day Saint who believes we are all God's spirit children. Coming at it differently, with a transcendent God, we join you, perhaps with more wonder, because of the belief that a God who is wholly content, who does not need us, would sacrifice that contentment for a time, to enter Creation, and become one of us. It is stupendous; faith alone makes it credible. Thanks for the post. Regards, Rory

From the results, it seems like "empathy" as understood by those responding, might be more of a non-Christian value than Christian. It appears that the Christian value of good will and the need to love our neighbors includes a balance that recognizes that loving everyone cannot blur the distinction between good and evil behaviors which we might discover among those for whom we are called to love. Unconditional love and good will to all? Yes. But that cannot mean unconditional approval of every possible kind of human behavior.

I have been thinking of Robert Smith as well as Mark Bukowski. I am glad for your report about Robert.

Stargazer "If you want to see something that rather resembles ritual magic, read how baptisms are conducted in the Catholic Church." 3DOP I note that you use the expression, "rather resembles ritual magic". You didn't accuse our baptisms of actually being magic. Good. One reason for analyzing this statement is that even in the Roman rite, this form of baptism is used only in a few traditional communities that have permission from the Holy See to use the 1962 Missal. The Church has always recognized that her rituals tend to become repetitive and ever-growing in various ways and places. There is an expression which has become somewhat popular among Catholics who find themselves exasperated, mainly with private devotions that seem to be ever growing in length, but also with the public liturgy. It is sometimes called "piety sprawl". I will give just one example out of many. When the 1962 Missal came into use, it deliberately trimmed one of two prayers we call the Confiteor, that existed from a reform of the Mass promulgated by Pius XII in 1955. So what happened? Apparently nothing. I have been to probably a thousand Masses supposedly celebrated according to the 1962 MIssal. I have never been to an old Mass with one Confiteor. Two are so unnecessary. All it does is extend the length of a Mass that is already repeating every reading from the Latin, and then again in the vernacular. Finally, the 1970 reform of St. Paul VI, with the approval of 99% of the bishops at Vatican II, succeeded in reducing the Confiteor from two to one, while trimming the number of intercessions from individual saints. The Mass is also made shorter by only allowing one reading of the same text. I really don't know how the Church ever decided to read the same exact readings twice, once in Latin, and again the vernacular. Piety sprawl? So yes, one can make an argument against the way baptisms were conducted in the Catholic Church. But that has not been the norm since 1970. I have not been to a baptism in the New Rite for two decades. But I understand it is significantly shorter today. Some dislike the New Rite. Most don't care. Some don't like the Old Rite. The Church is a rich and diverse Body that includes all types. Even in our current age of communication, a church composed of one and a half billion baptized souls is difficult to micromanage. The pope and his bishops, I think wisely, often allow variations to the official set words and gestures (rubrics) of the liturgies without exercising their disciplinary authority. Why aren't the authorities more strict? It doesn't change the essential efficacy of the sacrament. The point above is that all the breathings, saliva, salt, and any other odd gesture are completely unnecessary to a valid baptism. They might "rather resemble ritual magic", but mistakes or disobedience does not annul the sacrament. It is not to be applauded, but many words and gestures can be added or left out at the whim or ineptitude of the minister. For that reason, it seems like the Old Rite of baptism should not be equated with the strictness which is commonly understood as necessary to ritual magic. Stargazer, you rightly avoided saying that our older baptisms were actually ritual magic. Those who don't understand it might read that description you linked and find it bizarre or yucky. I am considering explaining my theory about why the Church would ever have approved it originally. When understood properly, it beautifully symbolizes some very important Catholic beliefs.

My fellow Washingtonian, right? Hi Stargazer! You seem to be enjoying exile in the U.K. Good for you. My wife and I avidly watch this program out of your current home country, Escape to the Country. Maybe you have seen it? It makes your "exile" seem possibly quite tolerable. In contrast to what appears on the show as what could be an idyllic exile, I am happily homesick here as an exile in Kansas, living in in a new built house that won't last a hundred years. (Happy in God's apparent will, and missing an Evergreen State that I never quite appreciated for more than sixty years). I am amazed at how the Brits of old made houses that are still lovely and livable centuries ago. I hope you have one of those with a beautiful garden! If you've told us where you live I missed it. I hope you are not in a London slum, but God's will be done, right? So anyway, I like your posts and by extension, you. I truly hope all good things for you in your new life. You should believe that after I critique your long post which included some apparent misunderstandings about Catholic teaching and ritual. In following posts, I intend to use a format that will not notify you that I have responded to this original prompting to my participation here. In contrast with your occasional uninformed ideas about my faith, there are two reasons why I enjoy you here. The first and most important is that I firmly believe that you mean well. The second reason is for much shared cultural appreciation. Thus, Yes, Prime Minister, will not be included in my hopefully charitable critique. I am thinking that even if I can only be charitably wrong, it will still be a win for my side! God bless you and yours, I hope to be back soon. Rory

I am not sure if this post gives a complete description of what the Catholic Church has taught and practiced regarding these grimoires. If it was unintended, I am maybe overly sensitive, and thought that the post reflected negatively on the Catholic faith in medieval times. For practical purposes, from what I have recently heard about this issue, is that these superstitious and possibly Satanic books were usually written in Latin. Few non-clerics spoke Latin. But rogue priests passed them around quietly among themselves. The reason for this secrecy is because the Church in which they were supposed to minister had serious canonical penalties for believing in these incantations, owning the books, and passing them around among themselves. I did a quick online search and the AI directed me to some very strong and specific denunciations of this kind of practice from the Council of Trent. This is certainly a firm renunciation of grimoires by the highest magisterial authority in the Church. However, as I pointed out to my non-personal interlocutor, you all might find that unsatisfying if you were to know that Trent was convened in the 16th Century, over two hundred years after the practice had begun to be detected. I then mentioned this problem of potential time-line critiques of using Trent to the AI. It responded this way: "To make your online response entirely airtight, you should point to the 14th Century, right in the heart of the Middle Ages. The medieval Church absolutely did not tolerate this practice; in fact, they explicitly rewrote the legal system to hunt down clerical magic. The exact historical text you need is the Papal Bull, Super illius specula, issued by Pope John XXII in 1326. This is the definitive medieval decree where the papacy officially classified ritual magic as formal heresy, giving the Inquisition the power to prosecute it. Key points for your forum response based on this 1326 decree: 1. It Redefined the Law: Pope John XXII shifted church law from viewing magic as mere superstition to declaring the use of grimoires and commanding spirits as heresy. 2. It Explicitly Targeted Grimoire Content: The text targets physical items like, rings, mirrors, and phials used to ensnare demons, matching Solomonic ritual magic. 3. It Triggered the Inquisition: Classifying this as heresy handed direct jurisdiction to the Inquisition to prosecute offenders. 4. The "Undergound" Nature: The decree confirms that magical practices operated strictly as a criminal subculture outside official approval, where clerics acted in secret... Using Pope John XXII's 1326 bull provides a rock-solid medieval source showing the Church actively fought to destroy these books rather distribute them." ------------ I am afraid I had never heard of a grimoire. I had no quick knowledge at hand without AI. As a Catholic, I was certain that the Church disapproved of these practices if they were even real. I was surprised that they were at least real, however it made me feel like some further history might be helpful to some here, who while not being Catholic, have always been respectful, and might like to see what I tried to learn. I don't like using it (AI). It might have mistakes. It might have noticed how I am Catholic. It is very obsequious and flattering. It tries to say what it thinks will please you. Maybe this is one of those times? The sentence above that is cut short with ellipses was my doing because I could not figure out how to finish the sentence using single space. It would have continued as follows: "...knowing discovery meant severe punishment."

But you beat me to it, Doc! Chonk fingers are troublesome on a phone where you are hitting multiple keys at the same time.

I think so too. This is exactly what Pope John Paul II speaks about with regard to the Theology of the Body. We should not personify things, nor should we "thingify" persons. (I got that nomenclature from a podcast by Christopher West), I have only been studying it for the last year. I am not an expert. But it seems like much more than about only marriage and dating. It is about the dignity of persons, but emphasizes how easy it is for men and women to get emotionally attached to each other, and enjoying an emotional and physical consolation from the marriage act, without a chaste regard for the other person's well-being, and imagining it to be love. The concept extends to all humanity, married and unmarried. We should guard against having a utilitarian attitude towards anyone for any reason. Physical desire between the sexes is natural and good. It is part of our nature. But when it is uncoupled from a sincere desire to satisfy the entire mental and spiritual good of the other, it is not charity. It is not what we can call "true love". It does not mirror the kind of unity which God designed us for, and for which Jesus prayed for us in John 17, and which St. Paul speaks of where marriage is seen mystically in Ep. 5:31, 32 as typifying the unity between Christ and His Church, which like the marriage act also is an embrace which results in "one body". "The virtue of chastity, whose function it is to free love from utilitarian attitudes, must control not only sensuality and carnal concupiscence, as such, - but - perhaps more important - those centres deep within the human being in which the utilitarian attitude is attached and grows. There can be no chastity unless the forms of volitional subjectivism, of which I have spoken, and the varieties of egoism which they conceal are overcome: the more successfully the utilitarian attitude is camouflaged in the will the more dangerous it is; 'sinful love' more often than not, is not called sinful, but simply 'love', since those who experience it try to convince themselves and others that love is just this and cannot be otherwise. To be chaste means to have a transparent attitude to a person of the other sex - chastity means just that - the interior 'transparency' without which love is not itself, for it cannot be itself until the desire to 'enjoy' is subordinated to a readiness to show loving kindness in every situation." ---Karol Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility, English translation copyright 1981 by William Collins Sons & Co., London, reprinted (1993), Ignatius Press, p. 170, San Francisco (written and published in Polish before he was Pope John Paul II. His last name is pronounced Voy-tee-wah. Italics are not mine. For any Solzhenitsyn fans out there, the translator, H.T. Willets was Alexander Solzhenitsyn's much preferred translator into English of all of his works.

Hi again Mustard Seed. Pope Leo published an encyclical on this subject this past May that you might find interesting. It is called Magnifica Humanitas. The full English translation can be found here: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html I think you might find some helpful insights from what appears to be a very balanced approach to this new technology. As Tony suggested, we need not and probably cannot suppress this information if we tried. AI can be used for good. Only good things can be abused. AI is a good thing and as such, can be abused. I used AI to talk about the encyclical and the dangers that you have highlighted Mustard Seed. I must make a disclaimer. I only recently discovered what the encyclical was about and haven't read it yet. The sub-heading in English is titled "ON SAFEGUARDING THE HUMAN PERSON IN THE TIME OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE." I used AI to locate specific passages that you might find interesting. It directed me to paragraphs 118-122 for a philosophical critique of this technology and to paragraphs 142-150 for parents, educators, and youth ministers. Presumably it might offer some thoughts for someone in your profession to consider. There is also an excellent Table of Contents with chapter headings that explain what subject matter each section of the encyclical is discussing. You might want to consult that to see if there is anything in particular that interests you. AI is a useful tool. But it mimics personality if we allow it. Like a shovel, we should only use it, and never mistake an invention for a person. In my opinion, the evil one, who hates magnificent humanity (Magnifica Humanitas), has always sought to destroy humanity by making us egocentric so that we are persons who use persons, as we would use a shovel, for our own benefit. Of course, Christians know that we are supposed to love everyone because of their own dignity as our neighbors. With AI, it seems plausible that the greatness of any particular human soul can get lost now not only through egocentrism, but even further, while ignoring our true neighbors, we can opt for trying to satisfy our human social needs by interaction with a mere tool, AI. (reshaping my own tin foil hat, heh.) So anyway, to whet your appetite, or someone else's, here is para. 122: 122. "Finitude, when truly accepted, does not diminish us but opens us to recognizing the face of God and others. Indeed, precisely because we experience limits — vulnerability, suffering and failure — we can recognize the inviolable dignity of every person, both our own and that of others. In this same experience, we remain capable of intuiting a fraternity greater than ourselves and of perceiving injustice as a scandal. Authentic culture and art preserve this spark, resisting the normalization of evil. For this reason, certain works have taken on an almost prophetic significance: Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony can be seen as a desire for unity; Guernica as a denunciation of dehumanization; Schindler’s List as a call not to consign the past to oblivion." and... 139. "In an era when truth is often distorted in order to serve particular interests and communication strategies, the field of education assumes decisive importance. Yet rapid technological transformations reveal just how unprepared we are on the educational level. The pervasiveness of digital media fosters a culture of immediacy and hyper-stimulation, which gives rise to fatigue, boredom and apathy concerning the effort required for seeking the truth. 140. Education, by contrast, is a long journey requiring patience, and therefore needs time for development and for engagement with reality beyond appearances. This is a fundamental issue because every technology shapes those who use it. Educating people about the use of AI, then, involves teaching them to decide when and for what purpose it ought not to be used. The speed and ease with which answers or summaries can be obtained risk extinguishing the desire to ask questions, which is a process that bears fruit only over time. As Plato wrote, the deepest and most important things are learned only after much time and effort, by engaging in discussion with others, “striking upon” ideas and experiences together like flint until the spark of understanding is kindled within us. We must learn, then, how to exercise restraint in the use of AI and to protect our young people from the promise of the perfect machine, from that subtle temptation which renders human thought seemingly superfluous precisely when it is most needed."