More Reflections on Logic: "It's Just an Opinion"?

As for the fallacy, this is simply an opinion, not a debate; Forensic Rules are not in place and throwing out logical fallacies becomes tiring very quickly. I am just as entitled to an opinion as the protesters.

—Comment from an objection to a statement I made on a logical fallacy

 

Comments like this show the problems with reasoning in modern society.  Because something is said to be an opinion we can ignore the rules of logic.  The problem is, we cannot.  If I should say, for example, I was of the opinion that Obama was promoting certain programs because he would want to promote socialism in America, and because he is a Socialist he promotes these programs this would indeed an opinion.

It would also be the fallacy of Begging the Question.  My reasoning would be muddled using two opinions as proof of each other when both need to be proven.  Any person reading what I advocated would be able to say "This guy is pretty irrational, and his opinions lack any reasonable basis."

Unfortunately, people no longer consider whether what is said has basis of truth for it.  We see slogans like "Bush Lied, Kids Died" or "Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people" or "It's the economy, stupid" and accept it as true without considering "IS it true?"

Opinions are always opinions about something.  This means that their accuracy is based on how well they conform to the facts.  If I am of the opinion that the Sky is green, it is an opinion of the color of the sky.  However, if the sky is not green, my opinion is based on an error of fact.

Likewise, if I were to argue that "Hitler restored National pride to Germany, made the economy stronger and restored security after the chaos of the 1920s, therefore he was a good leader." I would be making an opinion about the nature of Hitler's regime.  However, that opinion would have to be measured up against the facts of the regime.  A person objecting to my opinion could (justly) point to the Holocaust and the Aggressions of Germany leading to war to argue (very justly) Hitler was NOT a good leader for the country.

To argue something is "good" or "bad" is not merely an opinion (though today we tend to use it when we mean we approve or disapprove of something).  It is, from a theological perspective, a statement of fact.

Today we view "good" to mean "to be desired or approved of; pleasing."  However, properly used, good should be understood to mean "that which is morally right; righteousness."

St. Thomas Aquinas once wrote on good leadership, saying:

I answer that, as stated above (Q[90], A[1], ad 2; [1992]AA[3],4), a law is nothing else than a dictate of reason in the ruler by whom his subjects are governed. Now the virtue of any subordinate thing consists in its being well subordinated to that by which it is regulated: thus we see that the virtue of the irascible and concupiscible faculties consists in their being obedient to reason; and accordingly "the virtue of every subject consists in his being well subjected to his ruler," as the Philosopher says (Polit. i). But every law aims at being obeyed by those who are subject to it. Consequently it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to their proper virtue: and since virtue is "that which makes its subject good," it follows that the proper effect of law is to make those to whom it is given, good, either simply or in some particular respect. For if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on true good, which is the common good regulated according to Divine justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good simply. If, however, the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on that which is not simply good, but useful or pleasurable to himself, or in opposition to Divine justice; then the law does not make men good simply, but in respect to that particular government. In this way good is found even in things that are bad of themselves: thus a man is called a good robber, because he works in a way that is adapted to his end.

(Summa Theologica I-II Q 92. A1)

If we keep something like this in mind, we can realize that when offering opinions on whether something is Good or not Good, it has to have some basis in fact if it is to be a reasonable opinion.

Therefore we can see the problem with the claim of "Well, that's just your opinion."  The question remains however: On what basis does one hold an opinion?

1. If I hold an opinion which is logically sound and supported by the facts, it is an opinion which is justified.
2. if I hold an opinion which has no basis other than my own preference, it is an uninformed opinion.
3. If I hold an opinion which is illogical and runs against the facts, the opinion is wrongly formed.

However, we tend to throw around the phrase "Well that's just your opinion" as a negation, a denial of absolute truth.  If I make an argument as to why something is wrong, and the rebuttal is "That's just your opinion," the rebuttal fails to rebut.  It just says "I disagree but have no basis for it other than what I like."

The problem is, if everything is just "an opinion," then my opposition to slavery, to racism and to genocide is "just my opinion," and who am I to push it on others who think it is a good thing?

We can see the problem of ignoring logic and seeking to use "opinion" as a word to either protect one's own view from scrutiny or to deny another's statement without proving it to be false.

More Reflections on Logic: "It's Just an Opinion"?

As for the fallacy, this is simply an opinion, not a debate; Forensic Rules are not in place and throwing out logical fallacies becomes tiring very quickly. I am just as entitled to an opinion as the protesters.

—Comment from an objection to a statement I made on a logical fallacy

 

Comments like this show the problems with reasoning in modern society.  Because something is said to be an opinion we can ignore the rules of logic.  The problem is, we cannot.  If I should say, for example, I was of the opinion that Obama was promoting certain programs because he would want to promote socialism in America, and because he is a Socialist he promotes these programs this would indeed an opinion.

It would also be the fallacy of Begging the Question.  My reasoning would be muddled using two opinions as proof of each other when both need to be proven.  Any person reading what I advocated would be able to say "This guy is pretty irrational, and his opinions lack any reasonable basis."

Unfortunately, people no longer consider whether what is said has basis of truth for it.  We see slogans like "Bush Lied, Kids Died" or "Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people" or "It's the economy, stupid" and accept it as true without considering "IS it true?"

Opinions are always opinions about something.  This means that their accuracy is based on how well they conform to the facts.  If I am of the opinion that the Sky is green, it is an opinion of the color of the sky.  However, if the sky is not green, my opinion is based on an error of fact.

Likewise, if I were to argue that "Hitler restored National pride to Germany, made the economy stronger and restored security after the chaos of the 1920s, therefore he was a good leader." I would be making an opinion about the nature of Hitler's regime.  However, that opinion would have to be measured up against the facts of the regime.  A person objecting to my opinion could (justly) point to the Holocaust and the Aggressions of Germany leading to war to argue (very justly) Hitler was NOT a good leader for the country.

To argue something is "good" or "bad" is not merely an opinion (though today we tend to use it when we mean we approve or disapprove of something).  It is, from a theological perspective, a statement of fact.

Today we view "good" to mean "to be desired or approved of; pleasing."  However, properly used, good should be understood to mean "that which is morally right; righteousness."

St. Thomas Aquinas once wrote on good leadership, saying:

I answer that, as stated above (Q[90], A[1], ad 2; [1992]AA[3],4), a law is nothing else than a dictate of reason in the ruler by whom his subjects are governed. Now the virtue of any subordinate thing consists in its being well subordinated to that by which it is regulated: thus we see that the virtue of the irascible and concupiscible faculties consists in their being obedient to reason; and accordingly "the virtue of every subject consists in his being well subjected to his ruler," as the Philosopher says (Polit. i). But every law aims at being obeyed by those who are subject to it. Consequently it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to their proper virtue: and since virtue is "that which makes its subject good," it follows that the proper effect of law is to make those to whom it is given, good, either simply or in some particular respect. For if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on true good, which is the common good regulated according to Divine justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good simply. If, however, the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on that which is not simply good, but useful or pleasurable to himself, or in opposition to Divine justice; then the law does not make men good simply, but in respect to that particular government. In this way good is found even in things that are bad of themselves: thus a man is called a good robber, because he works in a way that is adapted to his end.

(Summa Theologica I-II Q 92. A1)

If we keep something like this in mind, we can realize that when offering opinions on whether something is Good or not Good, it has to have some basis in fact if it is to be a reasonable opinion.

Therefore we can see the problem with the claim of "Well, that's just your opinion."  The question remains however: On what basis does one hold an opinion?

1. If I hold an opinion which is logically sound and supported by the facts, it is an opinion which is justified.
2. if I hold an opinion which has no basis other than my own preference, it is an uninformed opinion.
3. If I hold an opinion which is illogical and runs against the facts, the opinion is wrongly formed.

However, we tend to throw around the phrase "Well that's just your opinion" as a negation, a denial of absolute truth.  If I make an argument as to why something is wrong, and the rebuttal is "That's just your opinion," the rebuttal fails to rebut.  It just says "I disagree but have no basis for it other than what I like."

The problem is, if everything is just "an opinion," then my opposition to slavery, to racism and to genocide is "just my opinion," and who am I to push it on others who think it is a good thing?

We can see the problem of ignoring logic and seeking to use "opinion" as a word to either protect one's own view from scrutiny or to deny another's statement without proving it to be false.

Muddled Thinking and The Need For Reason

Writing a blog and scanning the news of the world for things to write on, one often comes across examples of muddled thinking.  A problematic assumption is grasped and the individual then reaches a conclusion which does not work but because the assumption is not investigated, the flaws in the conclusion are not considered.

Then we have the gall to claim the Law of Unintended Consequences when the plan goes awry: that any purposeful action will produce some unanticipated or unintended consequences.  Now of course some things cannot be anticipated based on a lack of knowledge which cannot be corrected through study (invincible ignorance).  However, other things can indeed be learned of through study, common sense and observation of the Natural Law.  In those cases, "unintended consequences" are due to negligence and could be avoided with the proper consideration.

The state of the West today is certainly one resulting from negligence.  We started by questioning whether man could know absolute truths.  Now, there is nothing to appeal to to tell people not to do things we find repugnant.  This is because the problematic assumption "we cannot know absolute truths" was accepted by a large portion of the population without considering whether or not it is true.

(The fault in the assumption shown in the example, by the way, is it is self-contradictory: An absolute statement that one cannot know absolutes).

In the political arena today, we see this muddled thinking.

1. The person I disagree with opposes this view because he is partisan
2. Therefore we can negate what they say

The problem is, we have muddled thinking in premise one.  The first statement holds an enthymeme (an unspoken assumption) which is: "My view is correct and any opposition must be done as partisanship, not as real truth."

When the enthymeme is recognized, the argument becomes:

1. My view is correct and any opposition must be done as partisanship instead of from any true concern.
2. Person X disagrees with me
3. Therefore person X is partisan.

The muddled thinking here is the assumption one has the correct view of what their opponent is thinking.  However, if the person does not have the motive ascribed, the argument becomes false.

Take for example the Catholic bishops in America who have taken a public stand on Obama and his approval of abortion rights.  The assumption is they are opposing Obama because of political issues (the enthymeme is that abortion is a political issue), and therefore their motivation is partisan and can be discounted.

The problem is the Catholic Church has taught abortion was evil as far back as the first century, long before the presidency of Obama, or of Roe v. Wade, or the existence of the Democratic Party, or the existence of the United States of America.  The Church believes that human life is human life from the time of conception.

From this the argument can be made:

1. The human life of a person begins at the moment of conception
2. Abortion ends the existence of a person after conception
3. Therefore abortion ends a human life

Because the Church does hold this, it means it must oppose any politician or political party which acts contrary to this understanding of life.  It does not matter what the affiliation of the party.  if the party or government promotes the ability of another to end a human life freely, the party or government must be opposed.  It would be muddled thinking then to assume that the opposition to a government is based on partisan reasons.

Because of this, when analyzing claims made, we need to start with the question of what is true.  If a claim is made, we need to look at it from the perspective of exploring whether or not it is true, and whether the conclusions made from that assumption logically follow.  If the assumption is false, or the conclusion does not logically follow from the assumption, the end result is error.

I believe that for the Christian, we need to consider that if we believe the teaching of Christ and the teaching about Christ is true, we need to see the logical conclusions of that belief.

CS Lewis once created the famous dilemma: Aut Deus aut homo malus.  (Either God or a bad man).

The assumption is a person claiming to be God cannot be a merely good man.  Either Christ was speaking the truth or he was not.  If he was not speaking the truth, the consequences are either He was deluded or He was lying (famously summed up as "Liar, Lunatic or Lord.")

If He was lying or deranged, then his words lack the authority to bind anyone.  However if he is God, then what He says has complete relevance over our lives.

Yet many people choose the most illogical option: That he was a wise man who taught a philosophy about being nice to each other.  To do this, they must choose certain words they agree with and ignore the ones which require changes to behavior.  This makes the teaching about Christ and the teaching by Christ superfluous.  If it agrees with what one already believes it is unnecessary.  If it contradicts, it is wrong (or "added later.")

This is muddled thinking again.  It moves the focus away from God and towards the self.  What God teaches is reduced in comparison to "This is what I would do if I were God…"

To return to the main point, the belief there is an absolute truth and the denial of there being an absolute truth are the two roads to take.  Either one requires proof for their claims.  Christianity has provided 2,000 years of explanations as to why there is an absolute truth.  One is free to reject this of course, but then they need to provide justification for their own assumption.

Unfortunately this is not done.  This assumption is made from the faulty reasoning that: "I disagree with there being an absolute truth.  Therefore there is none.  Prove me wrong."  The fact that one disagrees with arguments from the Christian perspective neither proves them wrong nor the opposite right.

Yet this assumption goes unchallenged in the West nowadays.

To see the end results of this faulty assumption, we need only to pick up a newspaper.

Nobody should just blindly accept a statement is fact unless it is established to be true or that the one making the statement is reliable as being knowledgeable on the subject.  If one wishes to challenge the view of another, let it not be made on an unquestioned assumption, but on a well reasoned exploration of what we know to be true.

Muddled Thinking and The Need For Reason

Writing a blog and scanning the news of the world for things to write on, one often comes across examples of muddled thinking.  A problematic assumption is grasped and the individual then reaches a conclusion which does not work but because the assumption is not investigated, the flaws in the conclusion are not considered.

Then we have the gall to claim the Law of Unintended Consequences when the plan goes awry: that any purposeful action will produce some unanticipated or unintended consequences.  Now of course some things cannot be anticipated based on a lack of knowledge which cannot be corrected through study (invincible ignorance).  However, other things can indeed be learned of through study, common sense and observation of the Natural Law.  In those cases, "unintended consequences" are due to negligence and could be avoided with the proper consideration.

The state of the West today is certainly one resulting from negligence.  We started by questioning whether man could know absolute truths.  Now, there is nothing to appeal to to tell people not to do things we find repugnant.  This is because the problematic assumption "we cannot know absolute truths" was accepted by a large portion of the population without considering whether or not it is true.

(The fault in the assumption shown in the example, by the way, is it is self-contradictory: An absolute statement that one cannot know absolutes).

In the political arena today, we see this muddled thinking.

1. The person I disagree with opposes this view because he is partisan
2. Therefore we can negate what they say

The problem is, we have muddled thinking in premise one.  The first statement holds an enthymeme (an unspoken assumption) which is: "My view is correct and any opposition must be done as partisanship, not as real truth."

When the enthymeme is recognized, the argument becomes:

1. My view is correct and any opposition must be done as partisanship instead of from any true concern.
2. Person X disagrees with me
3. Therefore person X is partisan.

The muddled thinking here is the assumption one has the correct view of what their opponent is thinking.  However, if the person does not have the motive ascribed, the argument becomes false.

Take for example the Catholic bishops in America who have taken a public stand on Obama and his approval of abortion rights.  The assumption is they are opposing Obama because of political issues (the enthymeme is that abortion is a political issue), and therefore their motivation is partisan and can be discounted.

The problem is the Catholic Church has taught abortion was evil as far back as the first century, long before the presidency of Obama, or of Roe v. Wade, or the existence of the Democratic Party, or the existence of the United States of America.  The Church believes that human life is human life from the time of conception.

From this the argument can be made:

1. The human life of a person begins at the moment of conception
2. Abortion ends the existence of a person after conception
3. Therefore abortion ends a human life

Because the Church does hold this, it means it must oppose any politician or political party which acts contrary to this understanding of life.  It does not matter what the affiliation of the party.  if the party or government promotes the ability of another to end a human life freely, the party or government must be opposed.  It would be muddled thinking then to assume that the opposition to a government is based on partisan reasons.

Because of this, when analyzing claims made, we need to start with the question of what is true.  If a claim is made, we need to look at it from the perspective of exploring whether or not it is true, and whether the conclusions made from that assumption logically follow.  If the assumption is false, or the conclusion does not logically follow from the assumption, the end result is error.

I believe that for the Christian, we need to consider that if we believe the teaching of Christ and the teaching about Christ is true, we need to see the logical conclusions of that belief.

CS Lewis once created the famous dilemma: Aut Deus aut homo malus.  (Either God or a bad man).

The assumption is a person claiming to be God cannot be a merely good man.  Either Christ was speaking the truth or he was not.  If he was not speaking the truth, the consequences are either He was deluded or He was lying (famously summed up as "Liar, Lunatic or Lord.")

If He was lying or deranged, then his words lack the authority to bind anyone.  However if he is God, then what He says has complete relevance over our lives.

Yet many people choose the most illogical option: That he was a wise man who taught a philosophy about being nice to each other.  To do this, they must choose certain words they agree with and ignore the ones which require changes to behavior.  This makes the teaching about Christ and the teaching by Christ superfluous.  If it agrees with what one already believes it is unnecessary.  If it contradicts, it is wrong (or "added later.")

This is muddled thinking again.  It moves the focus away from God and towards the self.  What God teaches is reduced in comparison to "This is what I would do if I were God…"

To return to the main point, the belief there is an absolute truth and the denial of there being an absolute truth are the two roads to take.  Either one requires proof for their claims.  Christianity has provided 2,000 years of explanations as to why there is an absolute truth.  One is free to reject this of course, but then they need to provide justification for their own assumption.

Unfortunately this is not done.  This assumption is made from the faulty reasoning that: "I disagree with there being an absolute truth.  Therefore there is none.  Prove me wrong."  The fact that one disagrees with arguments from the Christian perspective neither proves them wrong nor the opposite right.

Yet this assumption goes unchallenged in the West nowadays.

To see the end results of this faulty assumption, we need only to pick up a newspaper.

Nobody should just blindly accept a statement is fact unless it is established to be true or that the one making the statement is reliable as being knowledgeable on the subject.  If one wishes to challenge the view of another, let it not be made on an unquestioned assumption, but on a well reasoned exploration of what we know to be true.

Reflections on the Readings for the Twenty Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time

Source: USCCB - (NAB) - September 13, 2009

The readings this week seem to speak strongly about what it means when we go through hardships. In modern times, we tend to support a gospel of prosperity. When things are good, it means God is with us. When things are hard, we think God has “abandoned” us.

However the readings this week tell us otherwise. In the first reading we read of Isaiah speaking of the hardships he is undergoing. He does not speak of God as having left him in hard times. Rather he accepts the sufferings he is going through because he knows God is with him, and he will not be put to shame ultimately because he is doing God’s will and God will uphold him.

The second reading speaks of the consequences of knowing this. It is not enough to say “I believe in God.” What are we doing to show we believe in God. If we believe in God and believe He is who He says He is, then we need to put that faith in the center of our life, and to produce works that shows Christ is the center of our lives. Not just say “Sure I believe in God” but only behave this way for an hour on Sundays yet live the rest of the week as if our faith had no right to intrude.

The Gospel reading shows us of how easy it is to fall into the “If God is with me all will go well” form of thinking. The Apostles see truthfully that Jesus is the Christ. However, they have the mindset of “If God is with us, all will go well with us.” So when Jesus speaks of the suffering Messiah, Peter objects. It is not how he thinks it should be. So Jesus reprimands him, saying “You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

In the world today, the move is away from God and towards the self. We think that God is supposed to provide for our physical needs and forget that the ultimate state of our soul is what matters. The world may hate us for speaking out and acting according to our beliefs. However, when a man of the world does us wrong because we live according to our faith we should say as Isaiah did: “Let that man confront me. See, the Lord GOD is my help; who will prove me wrong?”

Reflections on the Readings for the Twenty Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time

Source: USCCB - (NAB) - September 13, 2009

The readings this week seem to speak strongly about what it means when we go through hardships. In modern times, we tend to support a gospel of prosperity. When things are good, it means God is with us. When things are hard, we think God has “abandoned” us.

However the readings this week tell us otherwise. In the first reading we read of Isaiah speaking of the hardships he is undergoing. He does not speak of God as having left him in hard times. Rather he accepts the sufferings he is going through because he knows God is with him, and he will not be put to shame ultimately because he is doing God’s will and God will uphold him.

The second reading speaks of the consequences of knowing this. It is not enough to say “I believe in God.” What are we doing to show we believe in God. If we believe in God and believe He is who He says He is, then we need to put that faith in the center of our life, and to produce works that shows Christ is the center of our lives. Not just say “Sure I believe in God” but only behave this way for an hour on Sundays yet live the rest of the week as if our faith had no right to intrude.

The Gospel reading shows us of how easy it is to fall into the “If God is with me all will go well” form of thinking. The Apostles see truthfully that Jesus is the Christ. However, they have the mindset of “If God is with us, all will go well with us.” So when Jesus speaks of the suffering Messiah, Peter objects. It is not how he thinks it should be. So Jesus reprimands him, saying “You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

In the world today, the move is away from God and towards the self. We think that God is supposed to provide for our physical needs and forget that the ultimate state of our soul is what matters. The world may hate us for speaking out and acting according to our beliefs. However, when a man of the world does us wrong because we live according to our faith we should say as Isaiah did: “Let that man confront me. See, the Lord GOD is my help; who will prove me wrong?”

More Conspiracy Theories from CWN

I wrote last week about CWN and their conspiracy theories about Bishop Martino's resignation.  Today I receive from my email updates this bit of commentary from CWN:

Robert Moynihan, the editor of Inside the Vatican, admits that he was "perplexed" by Pope Benedict's talk at his regular weekly audience on Wednesday. The Pope spoke about the influence of St. Peter Damian, the great 11th-century theologian and reformer. He mentioned that St. Peter Damian "was not afraid to denounce the state of corruption that existed in the monasteries and among the clergy." However, Moynihan points out, the Holy Father did not mention the particular sort of corruption that the saint had renounced.

That's a very significant omission, because St. Peter Damian was implacable in his condemnation of homosexuality among the clergy-- a problem that has made a dramatic reappearance today, almost 1000 years after the saint wrote his fiery Book of Gomorrah.

Moynihan wonders: was the Pope deliberately skirting that issue? Or was he dropping a hint, confident that others would make the obvious connection? We can't say what Pope Benedict intended, but we can draw our own conclusions about what St. Peter Damian might have to say to the Church of today.

So the dilemma offered from CWN is:

1. Either the Pope is willfully ignoring the issue of homosexuality
2. The Pope hopes we will make the connection ourselves

I'm inclined to go with option #3: None of the Above.

What the Pope wrote on St. Peter Damien was, according to the Vatican Press Release:

ST. PETER DAMIAN: MONK AND CHURCH REFORMER

VATICAN CITY, 9 SEP 2009 (VIS) - Benedict XVI dedicated the catechesis of his general audience, held this morning in the Paul VI Hall, to St. Peter Damian (1007-1072), "a monk, lover of solitude and, overall, an intrepid man of the Church who played a leading role in the reforms undertaken by the Popes of his time".

Peter Damian, who lost both his parents while still very young and was raised by his siblings, received a superlative education in jurisprudence and Greek and Latin culture. As a young man he dedicated himself to teaching and authored a number of literary works, but he soon felt the call to become a monk and entered the monastery of Fonte Avellana.

The monastery "was dedicated to the Holy Cross, and of all the Christian mysteries the Cross would be the one that most fascinated Peter Damian", explained Pope Benedict, expressing the hope that the saint's example "may encourage us too always to look to the Cross as God's supreme act of love towards man".

As an aid to monastic life Peter Damian "wrote a Rule in which he placed great emphasis upon the 'rigour of the hermitage'. ... For him hermitic life is the apex of Christian life. It is 'the highest state of life' because the monk, free from the ties of the world and of his own self, receives 'the pledge of the Holy Spirit and his soul felicitously unites with the heavenly Bridegroom'. Today too, even if we are not monks, it is important to know how to create silence within ourselves in order to listen to the voice of God. ... Learning the Word of God in prayer and meditation is the path of life".

For this saint, who was also an accomplished theologian, "communion with Christ creates a unity of love among Christians. ... Peter Damian developed a profound theology of the Church as communion. ... Thus, service to the individual becomes an 'expression of universality'.

"Yet nonetheless", the Holy Father added, "this ideal image of the 'holy Church' as illustrated by Peter Damian did not, as he knew, correspond to the reality of his own time. And he was not afraid to denounce the state of corruption that existed in the monasteries and among the clergy, the result, above all, of the practice of the civil authorities conferring investiture to ecclesiastical office".

In order to combat this situation, in 1057 he left the monastery to accept appointment as a cardinal. "Thus he came to collaborate fully with Popes in the difficult task of reforming the Church", in which context "he courageously undertook many journeys and missions". Ten years later he returned to monastic life, but continued to serve the papacy. He died in 1072 on his return from a mission to re-establish peace with the archbishop of Ravenna.

Peter Damian, the Holy Father concluded, "was a monk par excellence, practising forms of austerity which today we might even find excessive. Yet in this way he made monastic life an eloquent witness of God's primacy and a call to everyone to progress towards sanctity, free from any kind of worldly compromise. He expended himself with great coherence and severity for the reform of the Church of his time, and dedicated all his spiritual and physical energy to Christ and to the Church".

AG/PETER DAMIAN/...

It seems to me that the Pope is celebrating the life of the Medieval saints, much as he celebrated the lives of the Apostles and the Apostolic Fathers in previous weekly addresses.  In these past addresses, the Pope spoke on these individuals and their significance for us today.  St. Peter Damien was a faithful monk who behaved rightly and did not sanction wrong.  That homosexuality was one of the issues he denounced (he wrote in Letter 31 about it).  However, unless the Pope intended to teach directly about homosexual issues, there is no reason why he should have brought this up.

For CWN to make this dilemma, it seems they are less interested in the reporting of what was said than they are with scandal-mongering.

It saddens me to see CWN come to this.  Now the Vatican is not trusted.  People are looking for secret signs as to what it means by things said or unsaid, instead of giving the Pope credit for speaking with good will on a subject encouraging the faithful to be saints.