[In feminist language, ‘free to choose’ is a slogan designed to control the situation by manipulating the definitions of words.
‘Freedom’ means ‘freedomabstract’ (that is, without obligation or consequence).
Feminists deny the concrete responsibilities of the fetus to die. The fetus has the responsibility to die for the woman to be free.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 76 and 77
[The irony of the translator’s use of words cannot go unremarked.
Today, in 7816 U0’, 50 years after Schoonenberg’s book was translated into English, the words ‘freedom of choice’ precisely (that is, by definition) veil a particular sin, in order to reduce the capacity of our freedomconcrete to virtuously remedy a situation.
The feminist’s slogan and the title of Milton Friedman’s television series both use the words ‘free to choose’, but the corresponding symbolic orders are radically different. They are talking different languages. Consequently, each cannot comprehend the other.
One must exclude the other using sovereign power. This is what feminism, as an (infra)sovereign religion, does.
Feminism belongs to the Progressive sovereign religion. Milton Friedman’s libertarianism does not.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 76 and 77
[How does sin influence the situation?]
Sin restricts the space and community where one can come to love and practice authentic virtue.
For example, a person, in a situation poisoned by sin, may feel that she is in love with another person, but that love lacks important attributes, such as trust.
A situation poisoned by sin restricts concrete freedom.
The person can never find real love, total self giving, simply because it was never a possibility. The ‘never finding’ does not derive from lack of powers, but from the situation, which on account of sin, both personal and original, blinds us to all our powers, especially our freedom to choose.
[When “man” acts, exercising “his” free will, “he” alters the situation.
Sin does not compromise this freedomconcrete, because as long as a person is alive, “she” can take concrete action.
Sin, however, compromises the situation, restricting the exercise of freedomconcrete.
To me, this seems to match the contrast between the states of grace and self-destruction.]
[Does ‘freedom in the abstract’ have a contrast?
What would the contrast be?
Could it be ‘bondage in the abstract’?
For Schoonenberg, ‘freedom’ or ‘free will’ is located in the concrete situations that we humans face.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 76 and 77
[What does the term ‘freedom’ mean?
Amazingly, current usage means to do whatever you want to do without obligations.
‘Freedom’ is the removal of bounds and restrictions. ‘Freedom’ is the removal of responsibility.
Current use corresponds to Schoonenberg’s freedom in the abstract.]
Summary of text [comment] page 76
When the person is considered abstractly, he is capable of willing anything.
But, decisions are finite. They are based on one’s circumstances.
Also, decisions are self-realizations.
Also, decisions change the ongoing situation, which is characterized by finiteness and concreteness.
In the domain of natural activities, concrete freedom is always bound and limited. When sin binds us and limits the operation of our freedom, the binding and limits are concrete, statistical, and situational.
Summary of text [comment] page 76
The influence of sin, with its loss of the supernatural gifts, is portrayed in the parable of the good Samaritan.
How does Schoonenberg see this parable?
‘The man who was the victim’ is robbed and wounded by sin. He is robbed of the gifts of grace. His natural powers are wounded.
The man who is a victim of sin still has his supernatural powers. He lacks freedom to operate them openly, as if his free will has been restricted. His spiritual powers are lacking. This is especially true when he bases his recovery on ‘an abstract freedom’, rather than ‘the freedom that he concretely possesses’.
[For me, the situation level of the interscoping form for sensible construction contributes to the horizontal level of an intersection. The content level contributes to the vertical level of an intersection.
Participation occupies the horizontal (or hidden) axis.
Recognition occupies the vertical (visible) axis.
One single actuality accounts for the union of two actualities.
The single actuality is ‘the state of grace’ or ‘the state of self-destruction’.
In practice, the nested form containing this single actuality should not interscope with lower levels. It may interscope with higher levels. It usually belongs to the content level of an interscope.]
