Hat tip to Fr. Robert Hart for alerting me to Hunwicke's piece. Several more hat tips are indicated. Even though the blog to which Fr. Hart posts, The Continuum, is on my roll and this blog is on their roll, I first learned of his post by perusing the religion forum at Free Republic. I was there in turn because I had been alerted by John of Ad Orientem, in the combox to my post on "The Concept of the Intrinsically Evil," to a long discussion of that post of mine at Free Republic—a reputedly "conservative" site, even though I find the main thing I have in common with most self-described "conservatives" is an aversion to what is now called "liberalism" in America, which itself isn't very liberal...but that's another story. The FR discussion took place because a fellow with the handle 'Huber', whom I know to be one of my more-or-less regular readers, posted my post there. (Thanks!) Although few of the comments were positive, I can only wish for the same amount of discussion here when I post on moral philosophy or theology, on the principle that all publicity is good publicity. Usually, the posts of mine that draw the most discussion are those on ecclesiology, and much of that discussion is of the why-my-church-is-better-than-your-church variety. For that, I have mostly myself to blame.
That said, it's time for another "Development and Negation" piece. Fr. Al Kimel has reminded me that, since the Pope published Spe Salvi a month ago, there's been a lot of discusson of Church teaching on purgatory, purification, punishment, and indulgences, sparked mainly by his intriguing observations thereon in §44-§48. In certain quarters of the blogosphere, it is claimed that the CCC's explanation of the doctrine on indulgences contradicts the traditional teaching of the Church. I have even heard it said that the Pope himself does so in SS. It's all bosh, of course. Stay tuned for why.
