As someone who has some experience and expertise in detecting AI-produced texts, Peter, how would you go about assessing (just for example!) the article "Using Thomistic logic ... can the Novus Ordo be reformed?" It is 'remarkable' as you say, even a bit odd(?); but then is it a legitimate question to ask now: Is it AI-generated? (To be clear: This is not a rhetorical question.)
I know this will sound a bit harsh, but when you read the article you can see it's not always perfectly written, there are some confusing or awkward parts, the sentences are of different lengths and qualities. It is altogether unlike AI, which produces lifelessly "perfect" products.
Re: "Leonine unity" - I'm old enough to remember when JPII was constantly on about "unity" and what he meant by it was religious indifference. Novusordoists are all like this; they think "unity" means something like chumminess, Kumbaya togetherness. It's because doctrine isn't something they know or care anything about. So, no. Whatever ecumenist indifferentist rubbish the pope of the Novusordoists are selling, Catholics aren't buying.
So when Gavin Ashenden says that the queen has no choice but to endorse evil legislation enacted by parliament, and that the pope is similarly powerless against the evil Roman curia (presumably because popes and queens are primarily accountable to their courts, not their God; they are not obliged to follow Christ in the way of the cross; Peter may be permitted to prudentially deny Christ in order to avoid the cross)... you're not convinced?
However, I think he was drawing an analogy about the way authorities can be limited by the actual circumstances in which they find themselves. And that is as true for a pope as it is for any ruler. One can do a lot of damage with the "Rambo" attitude of "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!"
I'd suggest you could as well have written "do a lot of damage with the 'Strickland' attitude..." (it's not just a pope problem). And I'm tempted to think these days that the only good diocesan priest (i.e., one who's not some kind of culpable coward, liar, infidel) is a cancelled priest. (Not being cancelled is strong evidence that you're at least an accessory participant in the institutionalized evil.)
Certainly that's true about the limitations of circumstance. There's an inherent moral hazard of surrounding yourself with semi-closeted homosexual advocates. It becomes almost impossible not to keep promoting more of them. But if the celebrity mode of popes (since Piux XII?) is adopted, against which Fr. Hunwicke used to rightly rail, then the pope is willy-nilly, almost ex officio, putting himself in a morally perilous situation, since at the judgment he will be judged for every idle logorrheic globally scrutinized too-often-scandalous word that he utters. Circumstances will be duly considered. Will they be enough to exonerate? I suspect in many cases the circumstances of the pope, as pope, will in fact be aggravating.
all true and fair enough, but I think it important to acknowledge that there is an important difference between "surrounding yourself with semi-closeted homosexual advocates" and "being surrounded by semi-closeted homosexual advocates"--even as it is not always easy to tell which is which at the time.
You're right, there is an important difference but not in point of moral hazard, and one takes on that moral hazard not only by (personally) promoting perverts but also by accepting office where one (ex officio) will be surrounded by them. (Moral hazard, of course, is different from moral fault.)
As someone who has some experience and expertise in detecting AI-produced texts, Peter, how would you go about assessing (just for example!) the article "Using Thomistic logic ... can the Novus Ordo be reformed?" It is 'remarkable' as you say, even a bit odd(?); but then is it a legitimate question to ask now: Is it AI-generated? (To be clear: This is not a rhetorical question.)
I know this will sound a bit harsh, but when you read the article you can see it's not always perfectly written, there are some confusing or awkward parts, the sentences are of different lengths and qualities. It is altogether unlike AI, which produces lifelessly "perfect" products.
Interesting. Thank you.
Re: "Leonine unity" - I'm old enough to remember when JPII was constantly on about "unity" and what he meant by it was religious indifference. Novusordoists are all like this; they think "unity" means something like chumminess, Kumbaya togetherness. It's because doctrine isn't something they know or care anything about. So, no. Whatever ecumenist indifferentist rubbish the pope of the Novusordoists are selling, Catholics aren't buying.
So when Gavin Ashenden says that the queen has no choice but to endorse evil legislation enacted by parliament, and that the pope is similarly powerless against the evil Roman curia (presumably because popes and queens are primarily accountable to their courts, not their God; they are not obliged to follow Christ in the way of the cross; Peter may be permitted to prudentially deny Christ in order to avoid the cross)... you're not convinced?
The case of the queen is very different from that of the pope, as well explained here:
https://www.amazon.com/Defence-Monarchy-Catholics-under-Protestant/dp/1621389596
However, I think he was drawing an analogy about the way authorities can be limited by the actual circumstances in which they find themselves. And that is as true for a pope as it is for any ruler. One can do a lot of damage with the "Rambo" attitude of "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!"
I'd suggest you could as well have written "do a lot of damage with the 'Strickland' attitude..." (it's not just a pope problem). And I'm tempted to think these days that the only good diocesan priest (i.e., one who's not some kind of culpable coward, liar, infidel) is a cancelled priest. (Not being cancelled is strong evidence that you're at least an accessory participant in the institutionalized evil.)
Certainly that's true about the limitations of circumstance. There's an inherent moral hazard of surrounding yourself with semi-closeted homosexual advocates. It becomes almost impossible not to keep promoting more of them. But if the celebrity mode of popes (since Piux XII?) is adopted, against which Fr. Hunwicke used to rightly rail, then the pope is willy-nilly, almost ex officio, putting himself in a morally perilous situation, since at the judgment he will be judged for every idle logorrheic globally scrutinized too-often-scandalous word that he utters. Circumstances will be duly considered. Will they be enough to exonerate? I suspect in many cases the circumstances of the pope, as pope, will in fact be aggravating.
all true and fair enough, but I think it important to acknowledge that there is an important difference between "surrounding yourself with semi-closeted homosexual advocates" and "being surrounded by semi-closeted homosexual advocates"--even as it is not always easy to tell which is which at the time.
You're right, there is an important difference but not in point of moral hazard, and one takes on that moral hazard not only by (personally) promoting perverts but also by accepting office where one (ex officio) will be surrounded by them. (Moral hazard, of course, is different from moral fault.)