Whether (insert Church doctrine here) is trueFunny. And I cannot really disagree. Stylistically, the Summa isn’t the kind of massive tome I’d write if I were to write a massive tome. I’m old friends and sincerely cordial with both questions and answers, but I prefer the company of the inquirer to the pontificator. I spend more time and energy on deconstruction than I do on reconstruction. I find more satisfaction from problem-posing than from problem-solving. Maybe I’m just intellectually lazy, but I’ll suggest an alternative explanation, just in case.
It seems not.
For (insert some arguments against here)
OK, that was interesting. Now on to the next question!
While I know diddly–squat about theology, I’m reasonably well catechized. I’ve cracked open the catechism before, sometimes even annually, and I think I’ve understood it. I figure I could hold my own against Stephen Colbert. However, I’m admittedly less than learned when it comes to some of the arguments for the positions laid out in the catechism, and I’m doubly curious about non-religious based arguments for those positions. So, for example, I’ve asked before whether or not the procreative and unitive meanings of the sexual intercourse can be defended without reference to revelation. Why do I ask such questions? Well, to learn, really. There are a lot of erudite browsers in the sphere, and I aim to take advantage of their knowledge. Some bloggers have much to give. I have much to gain.
True, I tend to move on to another question without settling on a definitive answer to the present inquiry. Sometimes I’m unsatisfied with the answers. Sometimes I’m reasonably sure the problem’s been solved, but I want more time to mull it over. Sometimes I’m lazy. And sometimes my attention’s been captured by some other question.
Also, my wife says I’m a sanguine. She’s a melancholic-choleric, so I drive her nuts. (VN)