 This page is an archive from the previous version of The Row Boat, which is why it doesn't look and work the same as the current version. However, these archives are fully functional and integrated with the new system.
Why does this site permit advertising?
Powered by Little Logger |
The Row Boat"Had we but world enough, and time..." * Tacit Theology3/22/2005 22:24:13The Schiavo case may be seen, and so the case has been made by some, as a question of theology over a person. As a professed Catholic, the theology promulgated by the faith Ms. Shiavo ascribed to when she could has a very clear answer to the question being asked on her behalf -- that food must not be refused in the face of death. Can a person's theologies be legally and practically real grounds for action? What if no direct wishes or opinions on the issue are expressed, only the indirect nod of Church belonging? Here it must truly be asked whether theology is a thing that can be soberly taken seriously; whether theology is a "canopy" that hangs over a person in entirety, in system, or an accidental creature of personal opinion. If theology is to be accounted as a real thing of any importance, it surely has some dominion, some answer regarding a silent adherent's consent. What then if, at the prospect of fifteen years trapped in a motionless body, Schiavo abandoned Catholic theology consciously and decided to die. Suppose she even told her doctors and signed a paper. Should society respect her wishes as they vascillate, or should it press on her the dignity of holding to her principles? Often a person is thankful for being pushed slightly to endure and live up to her beliefs. Perhaps society take this role, the stubborn coach. Suppose also that she didn't know or accept this particular notion of Catholic theology. Is she still responsible for it by virtue of alignment with the Church, as an American citizen is responsible to a law he is not aware of? This speaks to whether a theology is a matter of personal determination primarily or one that calls upon the authority which promulgates it. I propose that these questions of authority are not accidental but absolutely central to the practice of theology in general; theology collapses in the face of any rigor of justification. Its gems are only discoverable ultimately when tacit authority is lent it. Theology could only be the Queen of the Sciences; in any other capacity she would utterly collapse and be lost. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
|
| |
