http://www.sblogs.com/153/2007/01/06/on-the-prudential/ Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:06:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 http://www.sblogs.com/153/2007/01/06/on-the-prudential/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Michael Liccione Sun, 07 Jan 2007 01:39:48 +0000 http://www.sblogs.com/153/2007/01/06/on-the-prudential/#comment-10 Paul: I think that, to some extent, we've been talking past each other. When I asserted that you supported Cardinal Martino, I did so on the basis of what you had said in the combox to my post on Saddam's hanging. It was in that context that I interpreted your criticism of Miller. Although the latter is logically independent of the former, you seem to maintain both. If I am in error, I shall be happy to stand corrected. That said, I agree that Miller was not as clear as he should have been. I have assumed all along that, when he spoke of "empirical" judgments that Catholics need not accept from the hierarchy, he was speaking of empirical judgments that can be <i>reasonably disputed</i> as such. In some kinds of cases, such as ones you cited in your previous post, such judgments cannot be reasonably disputed. But I'm sure Miller knows that, and I'm equally sure that that's why he didn't seem to find it worth saying. I now see that he should have said it, so as to forestall criticism that he's denying what is obvious in some cases. If we can get these things clarified, I shall then respond more substantively to your post. Best, Mike Paul:
I think that, to some extent, we’ve been talking past each other. When I asserted that you supported Cardinal Martino, I did so on the basis of what you had said in the combox to my post on Saddam’s hanging. It was in that context that I interpreted your criticism of Miller. Although the latter is logically independent of the former, you seem to maintain both. If I am in error, I shall be happy to stand corrected.
That said, I agree that Miller was not as clear as he should have been. I have assumed all along that, when he spoke of “empirical” judgments that Catholics need not accept from the hierarchy, he was speaking of empirical judgments that can be reasonably disputed as such. In some kinds of cases, such as ones you cited in your previous post, such judgments cannot be reasonably disputed. But I’m sure Miller knows that, and I’m equally sure that that’s why he didn’t seem to find it worth saying. I now see that he should have said it, so as to forestall criticism that he’s denying what is obvious in some cases.
If we can get these things clarified, I shall then respond more substantively to your post.
Best,
Mike

]]>