Thanks Max and Archi.
Originally Posted by SurfSteam
On used shoes: I find the paranoia over used shoes rather amusing. To each their own. I respect those that have no issues re-using shoes, similarly, I respect the opinions of those who choose not to, citing public health concerns.
The amusing part is that no one has a problem dining at a restaurant and putting a public fork in their mouth, putting their lips to public drinkware, and wiping hands and face with public cloth napkins.
As DW mentioned, forks, etc, can be cleaned much more easily and thoroughly than shoes. I own a few pairs of used shoes (all bought several years ago), but I don't think I'll buy another pair. When I was in grad school though, it was a good, cheap way of experimenting so that I knew better later what to buy new.
Originally Posted by DWFII
BTW, I know this is your bailiwick --it certainly isn't mine--and, as a result, I automatically defer to you in these matters. But I find it interesting that if you google "Doctrine of Papal infallibility," you get a very different perspective...at least from Wikipedia. I'll let you do that search yourself but I would make one quote from it:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Now I don't know if this is counter to your explanation or not --I may be misinterpreting one or both. What interests me (aside from spuriously validating any mistaken assumptions I had) is that...knowing you and deferring to your expertise, and if what I'm reading on Wikipedia is correct...it calls into question the validity of all sorts of information being quoted from various sources on the 'Net. Information that has little or no first hand, real-world substantiation. Information that has no connection to the the person posting it and hence no reason/compulsion to take responsibility for the validity of it.
In other words, as a general rule, quotes from the Internet are nearly always suspect (and should be), IMO…unless you're the author or someone who can personally vouch for their truth.
Yes, as you guessed and Archibaldleach mentioned, they are compatible. The part you quoted fills in some things I didn't mention, such as that the pope's authority is grounded on the particular apostolic succession from Peter to whom JC gave the duty of feeding his sheep and the authority of keeping the keys. The Wikipedia passage also adds a further restriction to infallibility that I failed to mention, that it only applies to faith and morals (not science for example). The fact that it has been defined "dogmatically," to which you added emphasis, simply means that it became clear, official teaching at that point. There are of course, levels of dogma, with the highest, most binding being the articles of faith contained in the creed ("I believe in one God, creator almighty…").
Other thoughts from Wikipedia on how limited papal infallibility is:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
In July 2005 Pope Benedict XVI stated during an impromptu address to priests in Aosta that: "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know". His predecessor Pope John XXIII once remarked: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible". A doctrine proposed by a pope as his own opinion, not solemnly proclaimed as a doctrine of the Church, may be rejected as false, even if it is on a matter of faith and morals, and even more any view he expresses on other matters. A well-known example of a personal opinion on a matter of faith and morals that was taught by a pope but rejected by the Church is the view that Pope John XXII expressed on when the dead can reach the beatific vision. The limitation on the pope's infallibility "on other matters" is frequently illustrated by Cardinal James Gibbons's recounting how the pope mistakenly called him Jibbons.
Originally Posted by in stitches
i think this is an excellent point, and while i do not quite disagree, i look at it as follows.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
i do place a great value on charitably using ones money to help others. however, as long as the money one is spending on their clothing is not infringing on what amount they would be using to help others, i think its fine.
certainly you could argue, well by very definition if you spend $500 on shoes and could get different shoes that would be just fine for $200, than you are spending $300 that you could be giving away. but i dont see it that way. by that logic should one never eat out at a fancy diner? should we be buying smaller homes and cars and never sending our kids to private school so we can give every extra penny to others?
maybe for a select few people out there that works, but i would not say that is what should be expected of the vast majority of people out there. the way i see it, everybody is comfortable with a certain level of charity. some people give 10% of their earnings, so more and some less, and as long as ones luxury purchases do not infringe on what they feel comfortable giving away, i do not see it as selfish.
now, what a person may personally struggle with is their own private business, and if a person does not feel right spending copious amounts of money on clothing, when there are people out there who live in cardboard boxes, that is their own personal decision, but i do not think that is a justification that every person should feel the need to make as long as they are comfortable with the amount of money they use for others as compared to how their spend for themselves.
just my opinion
I agree with you, with a caution about "comfort": Remember the scene in Schindler's List
, in which he's lamenting the fact that he could have saved more lives if he had sold his ring, his watch, his car? I think we all need moments discomfort, even extreme discomfort like that…
To put it into a larger context (the one we pm'd about recently on another issue), I'd say it's a matter of virtue as defined by Aristotle and improved upon by Maimonides and Aquinas.
Virtue ethics is a moderate position between the extremes of relativism and legalism/fundamentalism. And it stresses that moderation is the key to virtue. So courage is not having no fear, but having the right amount, something between recklessness (too little fear) and cowardice (too much fear). The moderate amount is unique to each person, even to each situation. And one must have practical wisdom or prudence to make a proper judgement in each situation. To gain prudence, temperance, other virtues, one must experience (or at least know of) the extremes. So it's probably good to go through periods of extreme self-denial, as well as extreme self-indulgence, to learn the virtue of self-control.
Thomas, building on Paul's "faith, hope, and charity, and the greatest of these is charity" (1 Cor 13) would add that to really do the right thing, we need not only prudence, temperance, and other natural virtues, but also the graced virtue of charity. Charity too is commonly misunderstood. It doesn't mean handouts. It means loving whom God loves, how God loves. God loves everyone. And God's love doesn't think people are perfect, it wills them good. Willing all people good (across space and time, Seventh Generation, etc.) is another principle I would add to "comfort."
Originally Posted by AlexE
I praise the thought you put into this and the concern you have about the well being of others. However, I actually believe that by buying high-priced products manufactured by qualified workers who receive decent wages as employees of mid-sized businesses in Northampton or Middleborough (and those are ultimately the companies we talk about here) you do as much good as by saving up your money in order to donate it for scholarships for kids of unemployed manufacturing workers.
I agree. Even better might be to purchase one's shoes from independent artisans who have dedicated their lives to excellence, like DW.