Here's just a quick exchange I had on Facebook with regards to modernism, doctrine and practice.
Comment:
"Unhelpful for LifesiteNews to quote from a particular comment at the Synod. Archbishop Peta would better serve the church by allowing discussion, listening without judgement to other Synod fathers, rather than releasing for public consumption his particular input. It stifles debate, restricts freedom of discussion, sows fear and shows lack of trust and ultimately undermines his brother bishops. If all Synod fathers released there own personal views for the conservative or liberal media, it would destroy any possibility of unity in the Synod deliberations. Where is your faith? DO NOT BE AFRAID."
My response:
The problem Michael is that the modernists want us to believe that certain issues are not closed and are still open for discussion and haven't been declared upon by the Church. I'm all for debate but issues such as Communion for adulterers, homosexual relations, artificial birth control etc. are already settled issues.
The very idea of debating these issues [that are already settled] is part of this "infernal smoke" that the Archbishop is speaking about.
His reply:
These issues need to be debated, not to alter doctrine but to find an appropriate pastoral approach to bring people to Christ. Remember Jesus ate and mixed with adulterers, thieves prostitutes, enemy collaborators and often found greater faith among these "sinners". No doubt he would eat and drink (and even allow himself be photographed) with those we dislike today. What's wonderful is that Jesus even loves those of us who consider ourselves "worthy" to receive communion (as if we ever could be), and we are the most difficult of all to be converted to the gospel and love of enemies!
My response:
You are right Michael, Jesus did eat with sinners and we should welcome all! But Jesus doesn't just go to people and try to understand them in their situation. He also tried to bring them out of that situation! John 8 is a perfect example. The last line is, "go and sin no more." and in fact this call to leave sin behind is part of loving someone.
The issue of Communion for adulterers is already decided and there isn't a debate to be had. None of us are worthy to receive Communion and we all sin! But there is a difference between people trying to live a life in accordance with the Gospel and falling from weakness and those who live a life in rebellion to God's plan and do so willingly. The Church, as a mother, is very merciful towards her children and for those who cannot separate because of children or other circumstances are not condemned but told to live as brother and sister. I haven't heard anyone explain to me what's wrong with the Church's rules as they stand currently. They are in line with doctrine and truth, and also merciful and understanding.
Thursday 15 October 2015
Saturday 29 August 2015
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Worksop
This will be a brief departure from my normal Catholic blog writing but I wanted to share my experience on a certain topic. Be warned, this will be quite a long post.
I was recently invited to do a Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) workshop for the weekend. I will say that I went more out of obligation than of really wishing to attend as I already had some idea of the issues surrounding true Catholic spiritual growth (found by going towards Christ) and personality-profiling which normally believes that growth is acheived through reaching an equilibrium between contrasting traits. Below is my reflection on how I was "typed". I tried to go through each of the sentences/definitions of the alleged profile individually and critically so to avoid confirmation bias and any of the forer effects with dog these kind of things.
What is the MBTI?
Taken from the Report Form for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - Copyright 1976 by Isable Briggs Mters, Copyright 1988 by Consulting Psychologists Press Inc. All rights reserved.
"The MBTI reports your preferences on four scales. There are two opposite preferences on each scale. The four scales deal with where you like to focus your attention (Extrovert or Introvert), the way you like to look at things (Sensing or Intuition), the way you like to make decisions (Thinking or Feeling), and how you deal with the outer world (Judging or Perceiving)."
What did I "score"?
I won't go in to explain each category individually as it will take too long but the test gives you a supposed tendency; how much you would tend to choose one side over the other. Each of the types is the types/tendencies are then given an explanation which I will analyse in more detail below. My scores were as follows:
Extrovert 7 (small tendency), Sensing 25 (good tendency), Thinking 63 (incredibly high), Perceiving 39 (very high).
Extrovert (E) or Introvert (I) - 7 extrovert
This low score is described as a "little E". This means that I don't associate strongly with E and can shift quite easily in to I. With the dangers of confirmation-bias in mind I took a step back and several things became clear, As a "little E" I should feel a slight tendency to choose E over I. However, if I choose the "extovert" option 50% of the time and the "introvert" option 45% (in the arbitrary situations of the initial phase of the test) then I am actually neither E nor I and this I believe would bring in to question the further alleged explanatory nature of the system. Sometimes I'm an extrovert, sometimes I'm an introvert and my tendency depends on inmuerable factors and varies according to situations as shown. Therefore the advice given to an E really would only apply to me in 50% of situations say, and would in fact not apply to me in 45% of situations.
It is also clear that though I am apparently a "type" which is imbedded in to my nature, I have in fact changed. I was undoubtedly a strong introvert even as little as 8-10 years a go. However, I forced myself to become more extroverted by making a conscious choice to speak to others, make decisions without thinking so much etc.This swung me over to the extrovert side and in fact changed my initial sub-conscious reaction to situations (which is what the type tries to identify). So interestingly, it can be shown that conscious decisions can affect the sub-conscious after a long time. I believe this casts doubt on whether types exist at all if one can swing between different ones as I have.
Even without this conscious act of the will, studies have shown that as many as 50% of participants can change type within a period of as little as 5 weeks. The longer the period between tests is extended the higher percentage of changes there are. From this we can draw several options: 1) the initial test is flawed and doesn't give accurate profiles 2) the profiles simply don't correspond to a kind of inmutable nature 3) both 1 and 2.
Sensing or Intuition - 25 sensing
I should have a strong tendency towards choosing the sensing option. However, upon going through the definitions one-by-one - thereby avoiding confirmation bias again - of what constitutes typical behavioural tendencies of an alleged sensing person I found that I was actually a mix with no discernible pattern. Sometimes I was a strong S such as with factual, literal, practical as opposed to imaginative at the expense of observant. Other times I was what is categorized as a tendency of an intuitive person; needing variety and valuing complex conversation as opposed to disliking change and wanting simple conversation. I also work best under inspiration as opposed to perspiration - sometimes apparently sinonomous with an intuitive person. Other times I could be either. For example, a sensate has a tendency to follow instructions, an intuitive forget. Sometimes I do one, and sometimes I do the other. It depends upon many things and I wouldn't say either could be used to type me.
Now, a fan of the MBTI may say that these particular profiles were badly written/explained. However, I had the chance to read through sections of several other books which were made available to use and they fell in to the same issue.
Again from this we can draw several options: 1) the initial test is flawed and doesn't give accurate profiles 2) the profiles simply don't correspond to a kind of inmutable nature 3) both 1 and 2
I raised the concern with the person conducting the workshop that the, in my opinion, arbitrary distinctions between types weren't corresponding to how I actually am and she replied, "you must be a very messed up boy then". Not only is this very offensive it's also a ridiculous statement which I hope isn't shared by others when the evidence doesn't match there expectations. I have noticed this tendency in other fans of the system from personal friends to university lecturers that they tend to dismiss anomilies out of hand. Not that this has any baring on whether the system itself is useful of course, but it is quite telling that this could be a tendency.
The further issue with this jumping between sensing and intuition profiles is that the development which is then encouraged or offered will simply not be applicable. The only way around it would be to cherry-pick those advices which apply to me and reject those which don't, but then this of course undermines the whole idea of the existence of a "type" and this is what the system purports to predict and explain.
I was recently invited to do a Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) workshop for the weekend. I will say that I went more out of obligation than of really wishing to attend as I already had some idea of the issues surrounding true Catholic spiritual growth (found by going towards Christ) and personality-profiling which normally believes that growth is acheived through reaching an equilibrium between contrasting traits. Below is my reflection on how I was "typed". I tried to go through each of the sentences/definitions of the alleged profile individually and critically so to avoid confirmation bias and any of the forer effects with dog these kind of things.
What is the MBTI?
Taken from the Report Form for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - Copyright 1976 by Isable Briggs Mters, Copyright 1988 by Consulting Psychologists Press Inc. All rights reserved.
"The MBTI reports your preferences on four scales. There are two opposite preferences on each scale. The four scales deal with where you like to focus your attention (Extrovert or Introvert), the way you like to look at things (Sensing or Intuition), the way you like to make decisions (Thinking or Feeling), and how you deal with the outer world (Judging or Perceiving)."
What did I "score"?
I won't go in to explain each category individually as it will take too long but the test gives you a supposed tendency; how much you would tend to choose one side over the other. Each of the types is the types/tendencies are then given an explanation which I will analyse in more detail below. My scores were as follows:
Extrovert 7 (small tendency), Sensing 25 (good tendency), Thinking 63 (incredibly high), Perceiving 39 (very high).
Extrovert (E) or Introvert (I) - 7 extrovert
This low score is described as a "little E". This means that I don't associate strongly with E and can shift quite easily in to I. With the dangers of confirmation-bias in mind I took a step back and several things became clear, As a "little E" I should feel a slight tendency to choose E over I. However, if I choose the "extovert" option 50% of the time and the "introvert" option 45% (in the arbitrary situations of the initial phase of the test) then I am actually neither E nor I and this I believe would bring in to question the further alleged explanatory nature of the system. Sometimes I'm an extrovert, sometimes I'm an introvert and my tendency depends on inmuerable factors and varies according to situations as shown. Therefore the advice given to an E really would only apply to me in 50% of situations say, and would in fact not apply to me in 45% of situations.
It is also clear that though I am apparently a "type" which is imbedded in to my nature, I have in fact changed. I was undoubtedly a strong introvert even as little as 8-10 years a go. However, I forced myself to become more extroverted by making a conscious choice to speak to others, make decisions without thinking so much etc.This swung me over to the extrovert side and in fact changed my initial sub-conscious reaction to situations (which is what the type tries to identify). So interestingly, it can be shown that conscious decisions can affect the sub-conscious after a long time. I believe this casts doubt on whether types exist at all if one can swing between different ones as I have.
Even without this conscious act of the will, studies have shown that as many as 50% of participants can change type within a period of as little as 5 weeks. The longer the period between tests is extended the higher percentage of changes there are. From this we can draw several options: 1) the initial test is flawed and doesn't give accurate profiles 2) the profiles simply don't correspond to a kind of inmutable nature 3) both 1 and 2.
Sensing or Intuition - 25 sensing
I should have a strong tendency towards choosing the sensing option. However, upon going through the definitions one-by-one - thereby avoiding confirmation bias again - of what constitutes typical behavioural tendencies of an alleged sensing person I found that I was actually a mix with no discernible pattern. Sometimes I was a strong S such as with factual, literal, practical as opposed to imaginative at the expense of observant. Other times I was what is categorized as a tendency of an intuitive person; needing variety and valuing complex conversation as opposed to disliking change and wanting simple conversation. I also work best under inspiration as opposed to perspiration - sometimes apparently sinonomous with an intuitive person. Other times I could be either. For example, a sensate has a tendency to follow instructions, an intuitive forget. Sometimes I do one, and sometimes I do the other. It depends upon many things and I wouldn't say either could be used to type me.
Now, a fan of the MBTI may say that these particular profiles were badly written/explained. However, I had the chance to read through sections of several other books which were made available to use and they fell in to the same issue.
Again from this we can draw several options: 1) the initial test is flawed and doesn't give accurate profiles 2) the profiles simply don't correspond to a kind of inmutable nature 3) both 1 and 2
I raised the concern with the person conducting the workshop that the, in my opinion, arbitrary distinctions between types weren't corresponding to how I actually am and she replied, "you must be a very messed up boy then". Not only is this very offensive it's also a ridiculous statement which I hope isn't shared by others when the evidence doesn't match there expectations. I have noticed this tendency in other fans of the system from personal friends to university lecturers that they tend to dismiss anomilies out of hand. Not that this has any baring on whether the system itself is useful of course, but it is quite telling that this could be a tendency.
The further issue with this jumping between sensing and intuition profiles is that the development which is then encouraged or offered will simply not be applicable. The only way around it would be to cherry-pick those advices which apply to me and reject those which don't, but then this of course undermines the whole idea of the existence of a "type" and this is what the system purports to predict and explain.
Friday 14 August 2015
Is protesting outside of an abortion clinic harassment/pressuring?
Here is another exchange that I had on the Telegraph forum regarding the claim that we shouldn't be allowed to protest and pray outside of abortion clinics.
Initial poster:
Harassment and humiliation of vulnerable young women at a particularly stressful time of their lives is perfectly legal in the UK, and these protesters get their kicks from it.
My reply:
I'm sorry but we don't "get our kicks from it". We want to help the women who go in, who from my experience feel pressured to have an abortion because they don't see another way forward.
2nd Poster:
My reply:
Final comments
As you can read, there are two battles that we face in arguing for the pro-life cause. The first is the argument to the emotional. The second is that we are somehow anti-woman. Both of these are of course not false arguments. Abortion is wrong because it involved the killing of a human being and we should proclaim this (with respect of course) no matter how we make others feel. The second point is also completely false and is normally used to shut-down any rational debate.
Initial poster:
Harassment and humiliation of vulnerable young women at a particularly stressful time of their lives is perfectly legal in the UK, and these protesters get their kicks from it.
My reply:
I'm sorry but we don't "get our kicks from it". We want to help the women who go in, who from my experience feel pressured to have an abortion because they don't see another way forward.
2nd Poster:
You want to help people who you think have been pressured to go in?
And you want to help them... by putting more pressure on them? Judging them as going to hell?
Just leave them alone.
My reply:
The group that I belong to certainly doesn't "put pressure" on them and we certainly don't judge and say they are going to hell.
I have never stopped or impeded anyone from going in. We pray, and hand out leaflets to those who wish to take them which informs about fetal development (a simple timeline) as well as showing them that there are other options available including financial and emotional support which includes post-abortion support should they go through with it. Often, the women are very poorly informed about these topics.
2nd Poster:
Listen I don't want to make an enemy of you and I'm sure your intentions are good. But you are putting pressure on these people by your simple presence and by implying that you know what's morally right and these people don't.
Please- I don't share your religious views. Some of these young women might and some of them don't. If they want religious advice we have enough churches, mosques and synagogues they can go to.
My reply:
I'm not sure why you think giving me your opinion would make an enemy out of me.
I agree that any women going in to an abortion clinic will feel a lot of pressure, some of which will be caused by the unnaturalness of what they are doing, something which goes against their motherly instinct and then also from their own personal situations which vary greatly from feeling that they don't have the resources to bring up a child, to feeling they can't cope alone and even to being pressured by their social worker to have the abortion.
The care of the woman (and her child) is fundamental to the work we do which is why, at least in my experience, the protests are discreet and we never force ourselves on the women but simply hand out leaflets and ask if they wish to speak - if they don't then they are never impeded to go inside. We know women feel great pressure which is why when we speak to them we try and find out their circumstances and offer alternative solutions if they want them which as stated before includes financial and emotional support which often is what these women need most.
Of course, we don't think that abortion is a good thing and I hope and pray that one day we will be an abortion free country. But you are right that care for women is fundamental to that and it is in fact at the heart of the pro-life movement.
Final comments
As you can read, there are two battles that we face in arguing for the pro-life cause. The first is the argument to the emotional. The second is that we are somehow anti-woman. Both of these are of course not false arguments. Abortion is wrong because it involved the killing of a human being and we should proclaim this (with respect of course) no matter how we make others feel. The second point is also completely false and is normally used to shut-down any rational debate.
Returning to Divorce and "Re-Marriage"
Just wanted to share a short exchange I had recently on Facebook about the issue of divorce and "re-marriage".
Poster:
Everything is just great with the church if you pay them enough for an annulment. Although it doesn't affect my family personally, it does many of my friends that were divorced from their first spouse through no fault of their own. The fact that a bunch of never married clergy men can make these rules is just plain stupid. I don't buy the notion that Jesus made this law for the Catholic Church. These same clergymen claim that God is all forgiving but refuse to apply this to re-married divorcees. This makes them nothing but hypocrites.
And we wonder why Southeast Christian Church has so many former Catholics joining
And we wonder why Southeast Christian Church has so many former Catholics joining
My reply:
Butch, God will forgive any sin that we ask him too and those who have broken their marriage vows are no different. They must, however, do the same as everyone else which is turn away from the sin. It isn't enough to ask for forgiveness knowing full well you're going to carry on in the sin regardless. The Church, as a mother, recognises that in some circumstances separation isn't possible and so asks the two people in question to live as brother and sister.
Remember, that the rules on adultery come straight from Jesus' mouth (Matthew 19, Mark 10). And Jesus doesn't just go around forgiving people with a magic wand. He asked for conversion of heart. Remember the woman at the well accused of adultery? What did Jesus tell her at the end? Go and sin no more. So with those who have broken their married vow the Church too does not condemn them, but welcomes them in to the confessional, asks them to be faithful to the vows they made, and also asks them to "go and sin no more".
Remember, that the rules on adultery come straight from Jesus' mouth (Matthew 19, Mark 10). And Jesus doesn't just go around forgiving people with a magic wand. He asked for conversion of heart. Remember the woman at the well accused of adultery? What did Jesus tell her at the end? Go and sin no more. So with those who have broken their married vow the Church too does not condemn them, but welcomes them in to the confessional, asks them to be faithful to the vows they made, and also asks them to "go and sin no more".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)