(ctd)
Perhaps the difference was that my father did not trust the anti-theist school I went to, whereas I trusted too much the Catholic girls' school in Australia my daughter attended, that - in my opinion - acted rather as a damper in this respect.

When I came to my father with something the ideology-driven teacher said (interpreting this or that scientific fact, historical event, etc.), that I felt went against what my father would say, his reaction was NEVER "he/she is wrong, the right answer (based on the Bible, the teaching of the Church or other authority) is this or that."

His reaction was a more or less lengthy elaboration on the topic, showing that the teacher's approach was not entirely wrong only an oversimplification, and so was its direct opposite, that the "truth", the most acceptable interpretation, lies somewhere in-between and that I must find it for myself (while he was unobtrusively guiding my teenage mind).

During my 1968 stay in Paris I found the following (probably known to you):

A 6 ans: "Papa sait tout!"
A 10 ans: "Papa sait beaucoup de choses!"
A 15 ans: "J’en sais autant que papa!"
A 18 ans: "Décidément, mon père ne sait pas grand chose!"
A 30 ans: "Nous pourrions tout de même demander l'avis du vieux!"
A 40 ans: "Mon père sait quand même quelque chose!"
A 50 ans: "Mon père a raison!"
A 60 ans: "Ah! Si nous pouvions encore le demander à papa!"

Perhaps my father's approach is related to what theologians (e.g. Cardinal Avery Dulles, the son of the 1953-59 US Secretary of State) call pre-critical/countercritical, critical and post-critical theology that can also be seen as a kind of thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics.

Let me now turn to the personal questions.

>> (whether) you adhere unconditionally to all the official dogma of the Catholic church.<<
The question hinges on the word "dogma". They are the basic tenets, axioms, of a rationally organised system, mostly dealing with undefined concepts that make no sense beyond the particular religious language, referring to "ultimate reality" only as symbols. (ctd)

(ctd)
The title of the book, where Dulles explains his ideas, is "The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System". I concede, that the Catholic Church, more than other Churches or non-Christian denominations, clings to the concept of dogma, as misunderstood and misused it is by outsiders.

I think the French poetry in my last post reflects (perhaps with a shift upwards in the corresponding ages) to a large extent many Catholics' lifelong attitude towards their Church (despite it being referred to as Mother not Father), except that we hope the "A 60 ans" situation will remain only as a threat.

The symbolic world of religious - in this case Catholic - concepts and dogmas about them building up into a system, somehow reflects a reality that goes beyond the physical, material. Here the individual "observer" and the cultural envelope where the concepts and tenets evolved play an essential role, certainly much more important than in case of science (physics) and its theories, although in both cases one can speak of "models of reality"

It is hard to put these things into a few words. So my answer would be yes, I "adhere unconditionally to all the official dogma of the Catholic church", where "unconditionally" means that I would not openly criticise those, who cannot accept the world of religious symbols unless they give them meanings familiar to them from everyday life. Like I would not criticise the way a primary school teacher explains mathematics to children, although I might rightfully think I have a deeper understanding of it. For example, all Catholics believe that the consecrated host becomes the Body of Christ, but even the most "uneducated" know that no laboratory procedure would detect a difference, so even they know the dogma is not about physical reality.

I shall always remember the answer Frank Little, then Archbishop of Melbourne, gave to an interviewer who kept on interrogating him about some ethical questions "If you cannot understand any other answer only yes or no, then the answer must be no." (or yes, I forgot what the question was). (ctd)

(ctd)
Problems arise when the level at which a person understands matters of religion (or mathematics for that matter) is much lower, naive, in comparison to his/her general level of education: then he/she must either accept or reject it uncritically.

>>I cannot recall having ever read anything from you that could possibly be interpreted as expressing doubt or criticism of your Catholic faith<<
Doubt in matters of faith is a state of mind, that one experiences, not expresses to the outside world, and for me only constructive criticism can serve a positive purpose. This is not unlike one's attitude towards one's family, one's parents. I just finished a 10 page paper (in Slovak) about how I see the present crisis in the Catholic Church, which is almost entirely caused by their outdated understanding of sexual psychology and its moral teachings built on this. Criticism without rebellion is the art I tried to practice in these inward directed remarks.

>>are there any subjects you consider "out of bounds", excluded from the field of criticism for whatever reason<<
No, there is nothing a priori "out of bounds", as long as criticism is not confused with denigration, ridicule or outright insults. If you say that your father is superior in whatever sense to Mr X's father, I would object without knowing anything about the respective fathers. The same about world-views (based on this or that religion or none), irrespective of whether "superiority" is couched in moral or rational terms.

I do not see "freedom to offend" as part of our "freedom of speech". I am against the "freedom" to burn the Koran or to draw caricatures of Mohammed because it hurts contemporary Muslims, the same as some centuries ago the burning of the Bible and caricatures of Jesus would have hurt Christians, and probably called for similar reactions from them (by now most Christians have grown a thick enough skin allowing them to ignore such outburst of infantility).

Well, I have to finish, although I am not sure I actually addressed what you challenged me to.

.

Dear George,

.

Whilst waiting for your "continued" post, I should say I find your dictionnary's definition of "criticism" somewhat incomplete. Here are my findings:

Etymological Origin:

1575–85; < L criticus < Gk kritikós skilled in judging (adj.), critic (n.), equiv. to krit ( es ) judge, umpire ( kri ( nein ) to separate, decide + -tes agent suffix) + -ikos -ic

c.1600, "action of criticizing," from critic + -ism. Meaning "art of estimating literary worth" is from 1670s.

Criticism:

1. the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.

2. the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.

3. the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.

4. a critical comment, article, or essay; critique.

5. any of various methods of studying texts or documents for the purpose of dating or reconstructing them, evaluating their authenticity, analyzing their content or style, etc.: historical criticism; literary criticism.

6. investigation of the text, origin, etc., of literary documents, esp. Biblical ones: textual criticism.

Quotations:

"To be just, that is to say, to justify its existence, criticism should be partial, passionate and political, that is to say, written from an exclusive point of view, but a point of view that opens up the widest horizons ... It is from the womb of art that criticism was born." (Baudelaire)

"Without the meditative background that is criticism, works become isolated gestures, ahistorical accidents, soon forgotten." (Kundera)

"Culture is only true when implicitly critical, and the mind which forgets this revenges itself in the critics it breeds. Criticism is an indispensable element of culture." (Adorno)

"The greatest honor that can be paid to the work of art, on its pedestal of ritual display, is to describe it with sensory completeness. We need a science of description.... Criticism is ceremonial revivification." (Paglia)

As you find my comparison with a dictionary an over-simplification, I propose that contradictory debate in a court of justice is a technique enabling the emergence of "truth" similar to criticism .

.

.

Dear George,

.

That's strange, your "continued" posts had not arrived when I hit the button to send my last post. When I did they suddenly appeared from nowhere.

The OLO internet server or whatever must have slept on them and suddenly woke up when I hit the button to send mine.

I shall study your posts carefully and come back soonest.

.

.

Dear George,

.

"One usually consults a dictionary with an a priori acceptance of its authority either on facts or on generally agreed upon definitions and interpretations. On the other hand, one should listen to criticism in order to broaden one's own perspective on the matter, and only sometimes dismissing or accepting it completely."

Naturally, I only seek criticism from those persons whom I consider to be an "authority" on some particular aspect of the "work in hand".

By "authority" I mean "whose opinion I value" (including perhaps the opinion of those whom I value simply for their "good common sense").

By "some particular aspect" I mean the "subject matter" (in part or in whole), the diction or mode of expression employed, the literary or aesthetical qualities (or lack thereof), or various other aspects such as clarity, logic, comprehensibility, possible interest, originality, possible reactions, objections, improvements, etc.

Just as I found your dictionary's definition of "criticism" to be incomplete and sought alternative definitions, so I might seek alternative sources of criticism.

It is in this sense that I seek criticism as I consult a dictionary. I consider they have a similar function and serve the same purpose. Neither is an "imposed" or "absolute" authority. They only have whatever authority I accept to accord them.

Naturally, unless I indicate my own definition for a particular word, the commonly accepted dictionary definition applies. However, I feel no more bound by any particular dictionary than by any particular criticism.

Exactly what value should be attributed to either of them is my decision and my decision alone.

Needless to say, I particularly appreciate criticisms which reveal genuine defaults, omissions and errors. I regard these as positive contributions to the "work in hand" as they allow it to be corrected and improved. Failure to seek such criticisms or simply choosing to ignore them would inevitably result in considerable embarrassement which I, personally, would prefer to avoid.

Peremptory judgements, unwarranted denigration, personal abuse, slander and insults are, of course, totally excluded from I would consider "criticism" in the noble sense of the term.

.