 sj |
||
|
||
BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Bill D Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:10 PM Ok, Joe... that was a lot of typing, but it opens a whole new image of what the Catholic church is....and how it operates on a daily basis. I suppose my views, as well an many others', were formed by the historical image of a monolithic church 'controlled' by various factions at various times. (why does the phrase "herding cats" come to mind?) Obviously, someone like yourself who comprehends the system CAN do 'good works' by working within it and creating paths where some just see forest. I have my concerns about such huge, unwieldy institutions where the callous and conservative have as much freedom to manipulate things selfishly as the reasonable and progressive have to do valuable stuff....but it sure ain't going away soon, so I'm glad that there ARE folks 'inside' who try..... thanks for the effort |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:51 PM Jurisdictional rights and prerogatives of the pope In virtue of his office as supreme teacher and ruler of the faithful, the chief control of every department of the Church's life belongs to the pope. In this section the rights and duties which thus fall to his lot will be briefly enumerated. It will appear that, in regard to a considerable number of points, not merely the supreme control, but the whole exercise of power is reserved to the Holy See, and is only granted to others by express delegation. This system of reservation is possible, since the pope is the universal source of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence it rests with him to determine in what measure he will confer jurisdiction on bishops and other prelates. (1) As the supreme teacher of the Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the faith, the following are the rights which pertain to the pope: * it is his to set forth creeds, and to determine when and by whom an explicit profession of faith shall be made (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 24, cc. 1 and 12); * it is his to prescribe and to command books for the religious instruction of the faithful; thus, for example, Clement XIII has recommended the Roman Catechism to all the bishops. * The pope alone can establish a university, possessing the status and privileges of a canonically erected Catholic university; * to him also belongs the direction of Catholic missions throughout the world; this charge is fulfilled through the Congregation of the Propaganda. * It is his to prohibit the reading of such books as are injurious to faith or morals, and to determine the conditions on which certain classes of books may be issued by Catholics; * his is the condemnation of given propositions as being either heretical or deserving of some minor degree of censure, and lastly * he has the right to interpret authentically the natural law. Thus, it is his to say what is lawful or unlawful in regard to social and family life, in regard to the practice of usury, etc. (2) With the pope's office of supreme teacher are closely connected his rights in regard to the worship of God: for it is the law of prayer that fixes the law of belief. In this sphere very much has been reserved to the sole regulation of the Holy See. Thus * the pope alone can prescribe the liturgical services employed in the Church. If a doubt should occur in regard to the ceremonial of the liturgy, a bishop may not settle the point on his own authority, but must have recourse to Rome. The Holy See likewise prescribes rules in regard to the devotions used by the faithful, and in this way checks the growth of what is novel and unauthorized. * At the present day the institution and abrogation of festivals which was till a comparatively recent time free to all bishops as regards their own dioceses, is reserved to Rome. * The solemn canonization of a saint is proper to the pope. Indeed it is commonly held that this is an exercise of the papal infallibility. Beatification and every permission for the public veneration of any of the servants of God is likewise reserved to his decision. * He alone gives to anyone the privilege of a private chapel where Mass may be said. * He dispenses the treasury of the Church, and the grant of plenary indulgences is reserved to him. While he has no authority in regard to the substantial rites of the sacraments, and is bound to preserve them as they were given to the Church by Christ and His Apostles, certain powers in their regard belong to him; * he can give to simple priests the power to confirm, and to bless the oil of the sick and the oil of catechumens, and * he can establish diriment and impedient impediments to matrimony. (3) The legislative power of the pope carries with it the following rights: * he can legislate for the whole Church, with or without the assistance of a general council; * if he legislates with the aid of a council it is his to convoke it, to preside, to direct its deliberations, to confirm its acts. * He has full authority to interpret, alter, and abrogate both his own laws and those established by his predecessors. He has the same plenitude of power as they enjoyed, and stands in the same relation to their laws as to those which he himself has decreed; * he can dispense individuals from the obligation of all purely ecclesiastical laws, and can grant privileges and exemptions in their regard. * In this connection may be mentioned his power to dispense from vows where the greater glory of God renders it desirable. Considerable powers of dispensation are granted to bishops, and, in a restricted measure, also to priests; but there are some vows reserved altogether to the Holy See. (4) In virtue of his supreme judicial authority * causae majores are reserved to him. By this term are signified cases dealing with matters of great moment, or those in which personages of eminent dignity are concerned. * His appellate jurisdiction has been discussed in the previous section. It should, however, be noted * that the pope has full right, should he see fit, to deal even with causae minores in the first instance, and not merely by reason of an appeal (Trent, Sess. XXIV; cap. 20). In what concerns punishment, * he can inflict censures either by judicial sentence or by general laws which operate without need of such sentence. * He further reserves certain cases to his own tribunal. All cases of heresy come before the Congregation of the Inquisition. A similar reservation covers the cases in which a bishop or a reigning prince is the accused party. (5) As the supreme governor of the Church the pope has authority over all appointments to its public offices. Thus * it is his to nominate to bishoprics, or, where the nomination has been conceded to others, to give confirmation. Further, he alone can translate bishops from one see to another, can accept their resignation, and can, where grave cause exists, sentence to deprivation. * He can establish dioceses, and can annul a previously existing arrangement in favour of a new one. Similarly, he alone can erect cathedral and collegiate chapters. * He can approve new religious orders, and can, if he sees fit, exempt them from the authority of local ordinaries. * Since his office of supreme ruler imposes on him the duty of enforcing the canons, it is requisite that he should be kept informed as to the state of the various dioceses. He may obtain this information by legates or by summoning the bishops to Rome. At the present day this jus relationum is exercised through the triennial visit ad limina required of all bishops. This system was introduced by Sixtus V in 1585 (Constitution, "Rom. Pontifex"), and confirmed by Benedict XIV in 1740 (Constitution, "Quod Sancta") . * It is to be further observed that the pope's office of chief ruler of the Church carries with it jure divino the right to free intercourse with the pastors and the faithful. The placitum regium, by which this intercourse was limited and impeded, was therefore an infringement of a sacred right, and as such was solemnly condemned by the Vatican Council (Constitution, "Pastor Aeternus", cap. iii). To the pope likewise belongs the supreme administration of the goods of the Church. * He alone can, where there is just cause, alienate any considerable quantity of such property. Thus, e.g., Julius III, at the time of the restoration of religion in England under Queen Mary validated the title of those laymen who had acquired Church lands during the spoliations of the previous reigns. * The pope has further the right to impose taxes on the clergy and the faithful for ecclesiastical purposes (cf. Trent, Sess. XXI, cap. iv de Ref.). Though the power of the pope, as we have described it, is very great, it does not follow that it is arbitrary and unrestricted. "The pope", as Cardinal Hergenröther well says, is circumscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficent use of the duties attached to his privileges....He is also circumscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy — to "feed" — and finally by the respect indispensable in a spiritual power towards the spirit and mind of nations ("Cath. Church and Christian State", tr., I, 197). Source, The new advent http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: akenaton Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:40 PM Its your world view that looks tired Royston.....try listening to the people not the politicians Your arguments on Hiv/ aids testing appear to be in the process of crumbling also....High risk groups will be targeted. Joe...maybe you should just join your tormentors....if you really believe homosexual practice to be "godly" or homosexual "marriage" to be reconcilable with Catholic doctrine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Royston Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:23 PM Joe: "P.S. Ake says: The Pope has no option than to state and uphold the beliefs of his church, and if you are serious about your faith....neither have you. You're partly right, Ake - but perhaps that means I'm more powerful than the Pope, because I'm free to say exactly what I believe. Lay Catholics don't get excommunicated for saying what they believe - but priests and bishops don't have that freedom. I do think that promiscuous sex is wrong - so homosexuals should be encouraged to get married. I can't teach that as a catechist representing the Catholic Church, but I certainly can say it outside of a teaching situation. The Pope can't; although I understand that he may be more sympathetic to the concerns of homosexuals, than people think he is." Well said. But some people just can't stand the fact you're not holding prejudiced views against certain minorities. Ake, the longer you stay here, the more your comfortable stereotypes just keep crumbling away. When I speak, for instance, I speak in part as a confessed and practicing Muslim, and, in part, as a gay man. So I have no difficulty relating to people of faith over a wide range of issues. All in all your world view looks quite tired and worn out, as many here keep trying to explain to you more patiently perhaps than I do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Feb 10 - 05:39 PM Ah, Bill, there's the rub: "Who's in charge?" is not a relevant question. In a huge church with com;letely voluntary membership, nobody really is in changes - or at least, the people in charge can't realistically hope to have their wishes obeyed. And this may be part of the key to the mystery of the sex abuse scandal - those "in charge" had very little power to control it. From the outside, the Catholic Church looks like a rigidly-controlled structure. The myth is that all Catholics follow every dictate of the Pope, who gets his orders from Christ himself. In reality, the Catholic Church is a very loosely-connected union of largely autonomous structures. The bishop may hold the deed to our church, but he wouldn't dare try to tell us how to spend our Sunday collection money. Now, the bishop does audit parish accounts to ensure the money is used honestly, and one of my seminary classmates lost his job last year because of financial discrepancies - but that was because $25,000 was not properly accounted for, not because he didn't use the money as the bishop instructed him to spend it. Our congregation has its own structure and spirit, which we have molded over the years. I have found that as an individual, I can have an amazing amount of power in the molding of that structure and spirit, if I have patience and know how to play the game. I want a parish that has quality music and intelligent instruction and preaching, a welcoming and generous and gentle spirit, and a feeling of obligation to help the poor and the sick and those in need. Now, it helps that I sing and tell funny stories and wear plaid and talk with a Wisconsin accent - maybe that's why everybody in the parish seems to know me. In my old parish, people thought I ran the place. They'd come up to me and say, "You can talk to the paster - can you get him to do this?" I got married in 2002 and moved to a very conservative area. The Catholic parish was ruled by a small but strong conservative faction. Icy stares ensured silence in church before and after Mass. The conservatives sent a steady stream of angry complaint letters to the bishop, who felt compelled to follow up on every complaint. Our three-church parish went through forty priests in ten years, until the bishop sent a strong-willed former FBI agent to take over as pastor in 2003. That pastor cleaned things up a lot, and selected a team of progressive-minded volunteers to guide parish activities. In 2005, he hired me as RCIA director (RCIA = Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults = a one-year program instructions preparing for Baptism). And right after he hired me and before I started to work, he got transferred to another location. We were left with two young, foreign-born priests and no pastor for almost a year. During that year, there were two Sundays when we had no priest, so I directed Sunday worship and preached the homily (but no, we couldn't have Mass). I had worked in parishes for well over twenty years, but this was the first time I had worked in the RCIA program; and I found this was a tough row to hoe without a boss to back me up. Somebody wrote a letter of complaint about my "incorrect" teaching to the bishop, and and a man from the bishop's office came and held a hearing and absolved me of any wrongdoing and we went out and had hamburgers. But the hearing scared our young Polish priest, who wanted to become pastor of his own parish; and he demanded that I change my curriculum (from my own outline to a publisher's program that was actually more progressive than I felt teaching in a conservative parish). After almost a year with no pastor, the bishop split the parish and assigned a conservative American-born priest to the two smaller churches and a middle-of-the road Irish-born priest to the larger one. I had known the Irish priest for twenty years and I went with him to the larger church. I liked him, but we had some pretty serious disagreements in the 1980s. He coaxed me into resigning, saying that the bishop wanted him to cut staff because of financial pressures; but he kept me on as a volunteer and more-or-less let me continue what I had been doing as a lay minister in the parish. But for two years, he never let me teach in the RCIA program, and got a deer-in-the-headlights look whenever I asked if I could teach a class. The third year, he removed me from the RCIA program completely, and refused to tell me why. I stopped donating to the church and gave my money to the poor instead; and I removed myself from all positions where I had to answer to the pastor - but I kept active in many things and still worked at the church several days a week. This hurt a lot, because there were many things I liked about the pastor, especially his compassion for the sick and bereaved. It was strange, because there was a major issue that divided us; but yet he continued to confide in me about most issues confronting him and the parish. He and I think alike in most things to do with the church, so it really bothered me that he had pushed me aside. After a year of feuding with the pastor, our youth program director asked me to work as the catechist (religion instructor) in the youth program. My wife told me I should ask the pastor about it, since he hadn't permitted me to teach for three years. So we talked, and the pastor said he had no question about me from a doctrinal standpoint, and he'd be happy to have me teaching religion to high school students. He said he had been put under a lot of pressure about my participation in the RCIA program, and that's why he had removed me. I understood immediately - in a redneck town, you have to choose your battles; and I knew the pastor had a hard time defending himself in a lot of things. So, the pastor and I are back on completely good terms and I have another teaching position. I have built myself a niche as sort of a parish concierge. I station myself at the back of the church and make sure everyone is welcomed and acknowledged and made comfortable, and I handle any problems that come up. People come to me when they don't feel comfortable going to a priest or deacon or nun, and I see that they're taken care of. And gradually, the parish has built a reputation for having a friendly, generous, welcoming spirit. And even when I wasn't allowed to teach in most programs in my own parish, I remained leader of a weekly bible study and taught occasionally in other places in the diocese. So my point in all this is that the Catholic Church is a hotbed of conflicting political factions - but due to the fact that all Catholics have a high degree of autonomy, anyone can build a power base within the Church and accomplish something significant. No one person, not even the Pope, can have all-encompassing power over anything in the Catholic Church - but they can accomplish a lot if they can deal with the amorphous political structure of the Church. Saints like Teresa of Avila and Francis Assisi accomplished marvelous things by holding firm to their ideals, but not without a lot of heartache from the political structure of the Church. Another thing - take a look at this Associate Press story. You may remember the story of the 9-year-old Brazilian girl who was raped by her stepfather and had an abortion of her twin fetuses. Bishops in Brazil condemned the girl, her family, and the doctors - and at least some of them were excommunicated. Well, the article says that the "Vatican's top bioethics official," Monsignor Renato Fisichella, wrote an article in the Vatican's newspaper, saying that the doctors didn't deserve excommunication because they were saving the girl's life. Fisichella was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to head the 145-member Pontifical Academy for Life. Five members of the academy have demanded Fisichella's resignation because of the statment, but not that the Pope and the other 140 members of the academy haven't joined in that demand. Another thing to note is that the article appeared in the official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. This newspaper gives a very ood "insider" view of what's really happening in Vatican politics, and its articles are often very distressing to conservative factions in the Catholic Church. I would suggest that the Catholic Church is the most volatile political entity in the world. Nobody writes its script, and nobody is in charge. Now, Bill, I have to admit that I had only a one-semester course in Whitehead's process thought, taught by my Italian-born pastor who had a PhD in Theology. Still, I think I got a pretty good general idea of Whitehead's ideas. I view the Catholic Church through my limited knowledge of Whitehead and Darwin, mixed with a dose of the ideas expressed in The Tipping Point. I see every moment as having the possibility of radical change, and every individual as capable of being the agent of profound change. If you look at the Catholic Church that way, I think it begins to makes sense. Nobody is really in charge, and there are no straight lines. And it is my firm belief that although many horrible things happen in the Catholic Church, integrity and justice win out in the end. Francis Assisi and Teresa of Avila proved that, and they inspire me to believe that I am (potentially) every bit as powerful as the Pope. -Joe- P.S. Ake says: The Pope has no option than to state and uphold the beliefs of his church, and if you are serious about your faith....neither have you. You're partly right, Ake - but perhaps that means I'm more powerful than the Pope, because I'm free to say exactly what I believe. Lay Catholics don't get excommunicated for saying what they believe - but priests and bishops don't have that freedom. I do think that promiscuous sex is wrong - so homosexuals should be encouraged to get married. I can't teach that as a catechist representing the Catholic Church, but I certainly can say it outside of a teaching situation. The Pope can't; although I understand that he may be more sympathetic to the concerns of homosexuals, than people think he is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: akenaton Date: 23 Feb 10 - 04:51 PM Joe mate.....you've got to get your act together, these people will have you for breakfast...on toast! You believe what your church teaches? That homosexual practice is wrong. That promiscuity is wrong. That Christian marriage should be between a man and a woman......then dont be afraid to say it! Start to Qualify and the "liberals" will Crucify. The Pope has no option than to state and uphold the beliefs of his church, and if you are serious about your faith....neither have you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Bill D Date: 23 Feb 10 - 02:48 PM Smokey...I would think that would 'generally' be true, but Joe suggests that those controlling many Catholic media are a special case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Smokey. Date: 23 Feb 10 - 02:25 PM It seems obvious to me that those in authority, on average, are the ones who lean more toward conservatism. Isn't that a natural consequence within any heirarchical structure? 400 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Bill D Date: 23 Feb 10 - 12:49 PM Joe... as you post, I see even more clearly the attitude of the conservatives and how they have co-opted the media to push their agenda. 'Tis truly a problem.....but what I am interested in is why they are allowed to get away with it. I keep asking "who is in charge, and why don't the BE in charge". from yesterday's post: "IF the conservatives who distort the message with sound bytes are so sneaky, why don't those who issue those 'official statements' RE-issue strongly worded statements RE-clarifying what they really mean? Why bother to make an official statement and then ALLOW media distortion? ...so, you see, we are back to my earlier remark about 'various church leaders not bothering to clarify things or disavow misleading ideas.'" Now, perhaps it is unfair to ask YOU to explain the mindset of the upper realms of the hierarchy... but you did volunteer as "... a reasonable "authority" on the Catholic Church." ☺ You see my concern? Surely those who have the authority to issue those balanced and reasonable statements would also have the authority to correct mis-interpretations of them! I can't imagine that biased Conservative websites or TV programs are the ONLY outlets for 'official' documents. Obviously, just reading comments on Mudcat, we can see some concerns with the perceived attitudes of the Catholic church in general, and I'd think that there would be more effort by progressives to shore up an unfortunate image. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 23 Feb 10 - 08:00 AM Thanks for that explanation Joe. My question came from a genuine puzzlement....as to why the Pope, who has some level of legal and moral responsibility to the RC faith, publically focuses on issues related to women, fears of the impact of homosexual activity outside the church, bringing Anglicans inside the RC church and of course condoms (i.e. condoms and Africa)....and to me (possibly incorrectly) puts the internal issues on a less pressing route. I suspect many others may share this view, right or wrong. While I accept he has a right to publically express personal opinion on what he sees as church issues, I suspect he has a moral (if not broader) responsibility to take care of and keep hol;y what many RCs see as Gods house. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Jack Blandiver Date: 23 Feb 10 - 04:57 AM Maybe SO'B thought I was talking about HIM (SO'B) when I said all I can say about him is that he hasn't been as bad as I feared he would be - I was talking about Benedict XVI. I did think that, Joe - in the light of recent exchanges. I hereby apologise & retract my earlier invective. The joys of syntactical ambiguity! Interesting what you said back there about JPII being less open to discussion than Ratty given that JPII was Ratty's puppet from the off. I know a lot of RCs who acknowledge neither for their increasingly reactionary interpretations of the doctrine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Feb 10 - 03:03 AM Well, Bill, the conservatives have a different mindset and speak a different language. I've tried to answer them in classes; and I find that when I use their language, I dig myself into a hole. They see religious faith as some sort of quasi-judicial process - I see it as broad concepts that are a source of joy and hope, and a call to serve the needy. The official documents published by Rome and by the American bishops, often take years to produce. As I said, they're usually quite rational and balanced. Even what they've said about homosexuality and birth control is quite balanced. They produce videos and study guides and all sorts of excellent instructional materials based on their documents - and most people listen to the sound bites. Several months ago, I did a presentation to my parish of the American bishops' document called "Welcoming the Stranger," about justice for immigrants. It was a wonderfully insightful document, with an excellent video to go with it. I doubt that the video would be shown on the EWTN Catholic TV network, because it might be offensive to the network's conservative donors. We progressive Catholics tend to spend our money on serving the poor. Conservatives spend their money on broadcasting. What can I say? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Smokey. Date: 22 Feb 10 - 11:39 PM Why bother to make an official statement and then ALLOW media distortion? Maximum publicity for a minimum outlay? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Bill D Date: 22 Feb 10 - 10:26 PM Thanks, Joe...that clarifies a few things.......but...... (You knew that with me, there'd be a 'but'...*smile*) IF the conservatives who distort the message with sound bytes are so sneaky, why don't those who issue those 'official statements' RE-issue strongly worded statements RE-clarifying what they really mean? Why bother to make an official statement and then ALLOW media distortion? ...so, you see, we are back to my earlier remark about 'various church leaders not bothering to clarify things or disavow misleading ideas.' I guess it boils down to: Who's in charge here and why don't they BE in charge? It makes me appreciate the Quaker...or Amish... way of doing things. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Feb 10 - 09:19 PM Hi, Ed. T. I guess I could call myself a reasonable "authority" on the Catholic Church. I attended a Catholic seminary for eight years, and completed a B.A. in Theology there in 1970, and I've worked in the Catholic Church as a (mostly volunteer, occasionally employed) teacher of religion almost continuously since about 1977. And I read constantly and attend a lot of seminars. So yeah, my perspective is fairly valid. I probably study the issues more thoroughly than most priests and nuns, and many ask my advice on church issues. And I'm in a one-year program preparing me to become an associate member of the Sisters of Mercy (so maybe Spaw should be calling me SISTER JoeBro). Although the structure of the Catholic Church is called "THE hierarchy," it is not purely hierarchical. The governing principle is supposed to be collegiality - although that principle is honored more in theory than in practice. So, the Pope is supposed to be "first among equals" (primus inter pares), and each bishop is supposed to be the supreme authority in his own diocese. Bishops are rarely overruled by Rome, and that (I think) is as it should be. Same goes for the pastors of parishes - they are rarely overruled by their bishops. And pastors are supposed to collaborate with their paid staff and congregations. Ed asks:
If non or few, Why so? There's still a big question: why was this child molestation covered up or ignored in so many dioceses in the U.S.? I haven't seen a satisfactory answer to that question. Some bishops lost their jobs as a result of this scandal - but probably a good number more deserve to lose their jobs. They still have a lot of questions to answer. The Catholic Church in Ireland is just barely beginning to deal with its child abuse and molestation scandal, which appears to have been far worse than anywhere else in the world - four successive Archbishops of Dublin were able to prevail upon the Irish Government to stop any investigation. The price of that arrogance will be very high. I don't know much about child abuse in other places - I know there were priests and a bishop or two in Africa who took sexual advantage of nuns, and I've heard of a number of cases of child molestation in England and scattered cases on the European continent. Thinking about SO'B's question about whether I was a papal apologist, maybe I can explain it this way: if popes were American Presidents, my ideal Pope (John XXIII) would be Barack Obama, or maybe Harry Truman. John Paul II would be Ronald Reagan, and the current Pope Benedict XVI would be George H.W. Bush. We've have to go back to Pius IX and Pius X to find popes as bad as George W. Bush. Maybe SO'B thought I was talking about HIM (SO'B) when I said all I can say about him is that he hasn't been as bad as I feared he would be - I was talking about Benedict XVI. And George H.W. Bush wasn't as bad as most Presidents the U.S. has had in my lifetime. Bill D questions this statement of mine: "But Catholic teaching does not require uniformity on most issues, despite the simplistic teaching you'll hear from the conservatives." Bill says various church leaders do not bother to clarify that, and many of their followers rely on their opinions as if they were official pronouncements. (And I seldom see those leaders disavowing the idea.) Well.....most official statements from the Catholic Church are published in very balanced, diplomatic language. They're usually quite rational and balanced - but very few people bother to read them. Even priests and nuns don't take the time (and I'm sure many bishops sign off on things without reading them). I do read a fair amount, since I'm pretty conscientious about not teaching what I don't know. So, carefully worded documents get reduced to sound bites, and conservative Catholics (who control the U.S. Catholic media with brewery and Domino's Pizza money) mold the sound bites to fit their agenda. Mother Angelica's EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) is very popular with Catholic lay people, but not so popular with many priests and nuns. As for myself, I detest EWTN. Most of the extreme stuff doesn't get spoken from the pulpit. My pastor comes unglued when our conservative deacon talks about "sodomists" (homosexuals) from the pulpit, and the deacon has learned not to do that any more. Yes, there are rigid right-wing parishes when abortion and homosexuals seem to be the only topics of discussion, but parishes like that are generally in the minority. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 22 Feb 10 - 07:06 PM So, back to the pope making (talking) sense: OK Joe....(with alll respect to your, my faith, and that of other mudcatters, as this is debate, and not personal) ...since you seem to have taken on a role as an authority on the RC church....a couple of puzzling questions. My understanding is the one RC pope is the boss of the 3000 or so world RC bishops in th e 220,000, or so, global RC parishes ( I believe there are between 30-410 Roman Catholic denominations, depending on how you count 'em up). The Bishops are the spirital advisors of the local churches and bosses of the priests. ( let's set aside th e cardinals who mostly have a role to advise and elect the pope). Since it has been proven that some (and I suspect a lot of) priests broke RC church (and Christ's) laws through pedophile ( or related) acts....how many non-moral priests and their bishop bosses, some of whom it is known had knowledge of and condoned their acts, have been relieved of their clerical duties and excommunicated from the RC Church? If non or few, Why so? Such imoral priests would be incapable of fulfilling the moral requirement for consecrating the Holy Eucharist. A non moral priest's inability to consecrate the Eucharist would invalidate all mass offerings in their parish, over a number of years. A result would be that Jesus did not become spiritually present in the local RC neighborhoods to discourage the presence and influence of Satan among the RC populace. Would such deception and consequences, lasting over many years or decades, not be considered a serious situation for the RC Church, it's organization and the faithful? If so, who was punished, and who lost their job...from the non-moral priest, up top the Pope, through the Bishops? If this and previous Popes were ultimate bosses....where was the action (or, maybe I missed it) to address this important matter? I note that swift action was recently taken to put a halt to initiatives in a RC church enabling women to take a greater role within the RC Mass (we discussed this last year in another thread) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Smokey. Date: 22 Feb 10 - 06:11 PM I'll second that, Bill. Any man as reasonable, patient and civilised about his beliefs as Joe is deserves the same respect in return. I may be a heretic, probably an irritating one, but manners is manners, aint they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Bill D Date: 22 Feb 10 - 04:44 PM That was a moderate, thoughtful passage! It shows both respect for the Pope's position in Joe's church, without obsequious agreement with all the Pope's opinions. "...more than considerate." I don't think I want to know how you respond to things you REALLY dislike.... You sure have a different standard of 'consideration' than I recognize. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Jack Blandiver Date: 22 Feb 10 - 03:56 PM Here's the passage to which I was responding: SO'B wondered if I were a Papal Apologist. Well....about all I can say about him is that he hasn't been as bad as I feared he would be. But that ain't sayin' much. Nonetheless, I do believe the man has a right to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church, not that I'll always agree with him. But rather than arguing about his right to speak, I think it is proper to argue for or against his positions. In the light of which, I think my response is more than considerate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: MGM·Lion Date: 22 Feb 10 - 03:49 PM Well, Sweeney, regret I must agree with Bill that I thought it an unnecessarily unmannerly and provocative response ~ "appropriate" is the very last adjective I should apply to it. Similarly, I admire the alliterative effectiveness of your last post, but deplore its sentiments. Regards ~ M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Jack Blandiver Date: 22 Feb 10 - 03:33 PM Can't bother to deal with the details of well thought out opinions, huh? Sorry to have upset you, Bill D - just giving appropriate response to the pompous pontificating on the part of our esteemed pontiff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Bill D Date: 22 Feb 10 - 12:56 PM Suibhne O'Piobaireachd.... your post about Joe Offer strains my resolve not to get into name calling myself! Can't bother to deal with the details of well thought out opinions, huh? Just make nasty remarks instead! I don't always agree with the fine points of everything Joe says, (as I note below), but he cares, tries and is decent...and I'd rather 'discuss' with him than listen to your one-sided bloviations, even if I agreed with you. If you can't talk without insults, why should anyone listen? So, Joe...*grin*...you said: "But Catholic teaching does not require uniformity on most issues, despite the simplistic teaching you'll hear from the conservatives." Somewhere above, I said "... various church leaders do not bother to clarify that, and many of their followers rely on their opinions as if they were official pronouncements. (And I seldom see those leaders disavowing the idea.) These are the 'conservatives' you refer to, and these days they are active in many religions. It seems to me that Catholics, just like other groups, don't go out of their way to remind their parishioners that "uniformity is not required". It is MUCH easier to conduct things when you don't get alternate opinions from below. It seems to me that those who have a need for religious structure in their lives, but who reject authoritative hierarchies, are the ones who end up in Humanist or Unitarian groups...or splitting off from some main group to form their own sect...which then becomes 'authoritative' about its own small details. (Emo Phillips joke routine about Lutheran synods comes to mind) (note... I am just brainstorming here. This is a really knotty subject, and obviously, there are no easy ways to decide what makes the most sense...on either side.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 22 Feb 10 - 10:01 AM mousethief, I suspect your wish is what is mostly in place in many countries. In many of the countries, where gay marriage is permitted by civil law, it is like you state. Government recognizes both type of marriage, those within a church (christian or otherwise) and those outside. And, as stated earlier, a few christian churches have no issue with performing gay marriages (but, not the RC church....which is its choice). Most issues relate to those inside some christian churches opposing the state recognition to gay marriages...and the use of the word marriag, which they claim (incorrectly) that the word belongs to christians (but, not to those who perform christian gay marriages, of course. Those that condone gay marriage push for the "word civil" union for gay marriage. This, of course, lessens the full meaning of the institution to gay couples. I am not aware of any government, where gay marriage is legal, who is dictating the conditions of to traditional christian church marriages. However,limits do exist in some countries on the terms of gay marriage. And, some christian churches, in some countries, have intervened in attempts to stop civil legislation to allow gay marriage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Jack Blandiver Date: 22 Feb 10 - 04:43 AM The only infallibility around here that worries me is that of Pope Joe for which I hope he accepts my petition to go blow it out of his holy self-righteous ass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Feb 10 - 02:29 AM The article Smokey linked to looks quite accurate. The Christian Church had opinions on marriage from the very beginnings, but there really wasn't such a thing as a "church wedding" until about the 11th century; and wedding regulations weren't standardized in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent's decree in the 1560s. I see comments down here about infallibility and about the Catholic Church misleading people into thinking statements were infallible. We talked quite a bit about infallibility toward the top of the thread, and several posts explained quite thoroughly how limited this doctrine is. I thought I gave a particularly profound explanation of the issue here - the main point is that there have only been two or three infallible statements since the doctrine of infallibility was promulgated in the 1870s - and I question the one about ordination of women, since it didn't really follow the regulations. Yes, there is much misunderstanding about the doctrine, and the assumption has arisen that "the Pope is infallible" which is grossly inaccurate. But the Catholic Church doesn't really hide behind these misconceptions - it's just that most people don't bother to study the issue. SO'B wondered if I were a Papal Apologist. Well....about all I can say about him is that he hasn't been as bad as I feared he would be. But that ain't sayin' much. Nonetheless, I do believe the man has a right to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church, not that I'll always agree with him. But rather than arguing about his right to speak, I think it is proper to argue for or against his positions. The Catholic Church is not as monolithic as it may seem from the outside, and there is room for a wide variety of opinion with the Church - not that the Popes always like that diversity. But Catholic teaching does not require uniformity on most issues, despite the simplistic teaching you'll hear from the conservatives (and unfortunately, the conservatives have a monopoly on Catholic broadcasting in the US). You'll find a more realistic view of the diversity of Catholic thinking on the campuses of most established Catholic universities (not the newer neoconservative ones, but established ones like Notre Dame and Fordham and Georgetown), and in the established Catholic religious orders. The debate within the Catholic Church is lively and diverse, whether the Pope likes it or not. This bit about the Pope being the be-all and end-all of everything in the Catholic Church, is a misconception. A "cult of the Pope" has arisen in the last 150 years, but you won't find most of the beliefs of the papal absolutists in official Catholic teaching. For most Catholics, the Pope is a guy in faraway Rome who is mostly irrelevant. For Romans, the Pope is completely irrelevant - and the Pope knows it. The management of the Catholic Church conducted itself shamefully in the child molestation scandal, and all Catholics know it - and even the Pope acknowledges it. Despite the widespread prejudice against homosexuality in the Catholic Church, many priests and nuns and Catholic lay people have a far more compassionate view of homosexuality, and many have devoted their lives to AIDS/HIV ministry. Most nuns I know have a very favorable view of homosexual marriage - so do I. So, it ain't all bad - and the Pope (surprisingly) seems to realize that there is a lot of room for discussion. This Pope likes discussion - the previous one didn't. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: mousethief Date: 21 Feb 10 - 11:30 PM I would like to see marriage divided into two categories: state and religious. The state category would have entirely to do with the legal aspects: inheritance, rights pertaining to next-of-kin, parenting rights, etc. etc. etc. The religious category would be for whatever any given religious group would like to have it mean. So if you belonged to a religious group that cared about such things you'd get married twice: once at the justice of the peace, and then again at your church or synagogue or Quonset Hut or whatever. That way the state can do whatever it likes to marriage laws (e.g. making it legal for gays to wed) and the churches won't (or shouldn't) feel threatened because it's not saying anything at all about marriage-in-God's-eyes (or however they phrase it), only about an explicitly non-religious legal partnership arrangement. That's my grand idea. It has a snowball's. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Smokey. Date: 21 Feb 10 - 08:56 PM This is a good read, and also indicates a pre-Christian acceptance of homosexuality: HISTORY OF MARRIAGE IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Bill D Date: 21 Feb 10 - 08:25 PM Ed T and mousethief have it right. It is perfectly possible for NON-gay couples to get legally married with absolutely no church involved! Buy a license and get a justice of the peace to read the details! You are showing an amazing amount of not only bias, but also a sheltered life, to not see that 'marriage' is only a general idea, and "Christian" marriage is one specific form. If people want their church involved...fine.. more power to 'em! It's what feels right to THEM. It's way past time that some folks got over the idea that their cultural group or religion owns the rights to the WORD. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: mousethief Date: 21 Feb 10 - 08:12 PM I suspect the history of marriage trancends christianity....though I have never researched it. It does in fact. Both the Greeks and the Romans had marriage, for instance. If I remember correctly, the early Christians just got married at the Roman equivalent of the justice of the peace, and there was no such thing as "Christian marriage" at all. That came along later when the church got sucked up into the state. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 21 Feb 10 - 08:06 PM akenaton I suspect the history of marriage trancends christianity....though I have never researched it. But, as to governments recognizing marriage as a civil institution, there are already christian churches who practice and condone Christian marriage in different countries in the world. Some countries have changed their civil laws to recognize these marriages....and also non Christian marriages Does it not seem logical for civil authorities to make this civil change within a reasonable democratic society. I suspect that in all these countries, no church is forced to conduct a gay marriage, regardless of the belief...RC, other catholic or other Christian. varieties. I recognize there are different views within Christian churches....but it seems odd to deny a right to have a loving and committed marriage recognized in society. We are not talking about the permiscious gay steriotype, oft put forward by those seeking to make an anti gay point (and I suggest against christian tolerence and respect requested by Christ and even the RC church) as the standard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Smokey. Date: 21 Feb 10 - 07:34 PM Although I think if it's the founder of the group it pulls more weight. There are groups, and there are groups.. But let's not mention the war :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: mousethief Date: 21 Feb 10 - 07:26 PM Fair enough. Although I think if it's the founder of the group it pulls more weight. (Unless it's after they were kicked out, if they were.) O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Smokey. Date: 21 Feb 10 - 07:09 PM No matter what group of people you are talking about, presuming it is neither tiny nor newly born, it is relatively easy to find a quote by some current or dead member that shows the group, or at least the member, in a bad light. When this is done to try to discredit the group, it is an example of Hasty Generalization. I completely agree with that, but it's worth noting that exactly the same principal applies when the same is done or implied in order to show the group in a good light too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: akenaton Date: 21 Feb 10 - 05:38 PM ED....they can get all the legal protection and "rights" through civil union. But to be "equal" it must be "the M word" Unfortunately for the activists, Christian marriage is the preserve of the church. Any change must be made by politicians redefining Christian marriage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 21 Feb 10 - 05:08 PM "it is relatively easy to find a quote by some current or dead member that shows the group, or at least the member, in a bad light" Before oneclaims the moral highground, it's often humbling to reflect its roots. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 21 Feb 10 - 05:05 PM "in the case of homosexual marriage, I would say it was the other way round and that the politicians were "inserting" their rules into Christian faith" So what about the rights in society of all those who do not share the anti-homosexual marriage view....Christian or otherwise? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: mousethief Date: 21 Feb 10 - 04:51 PM No matter what group of people you are talking about, presuming it is neither tiny nor newly born, it is relatively easy to find a quote by some current or dead member that shows the group, or at least the member, in a bad light. When this is done to try to discredit the group, it is an example of Hasty Generalization. Not saying anybody here would do that. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: akenaton Date: 21 Feb 10 - 04:47 PM Well Bill in the case of homosexual marriage, I would say it was the other way round and that the politicians were "inserting" their rules into Christian faith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 21 Feb 10 - 04:24 PM Oh well, a couple of other quotes: "I am more afraid of an army of 100 sheep led by a lion than an army of 100 lions led by a sheep" — Talleyrand It's hard to lead a cavalry charge if you think you look funny on a horse — Adlai Stevenson We may pretend we are basically moral people who make mistakes, but the whole of history proves otherwise. — Terry Hands, There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them. — Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Bill D Date: 21 Feb 10 - 04:16 PM *grin*...did Augustine say who should go fetch some from segregation when we need to increase the population? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 21 Feb 10 - 04:13 PM A quyote from one of the founders of Christianity in Britain ( 6th century) : "Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should, in fact, be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and involuntary erections in holy men." Saint Augustine |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Bill D Date: 21 Feb 10 - 04:06 PM "Some people are perfectly happy to have a set of rules to live their lives by and many would rather have those rules determined by a theologian than a politician." Fine...that is called "freedom of religion": the disagreement comes when they wish to have that theological set of rules inserted into political issues and affect the lives of those who don't see things that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: akenaton Date: 21 Feb 10 - 03:18 PM What you mean is, "people of faith" are acceptable as long as their views coincide with yours. I happen to think your views are "socially corrosive" and not at all progressive. Some people are perfectly happy to have a set of rules to live their lives by and many would rather have those rules determined by a theologian than a politician. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Royston Date: 21 Feb 10 - 12:40 PM Willie, I'm not sure I understood your post. Particularly the first paragraph. Was it in any way a reply to mine, about the bile that seems to heaped on individuals who have religious beliefs? I think, if you read mine again, you will see that we are in agreement. I explicity stated that organised religions - as bodies - and their leaders, to the extent that they pronounce on secular life in ways that might be regarded as harmful, are most certainly fair game for slapping down. My problem is with the sort of personal attacks that are launched on some people here, or the way those people are somehow held accountable for the actions of others claiming membership of the same faith. The people of faith that I see posting here seem to harbour some of the least socially corrosive and indeed some of the more progressive sets of views that emerge on these pages. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 21 Feb 10 - 09:35 AM Amazing how a few posts have crept in saying that those who "hate" religion are posting and should be ignored. A post saying that if you are religious you are fair game, and apparently that is wrong? Excuse me. I am not religious, I feel exceedingly frustrated that by pointing out that religious cults are self serving, as demonstrated throughout history, that for some reason, I appear to be in the wrong here. I for one accept that debate could be had as to how to live, how to set your moral compass and how should society progress. But to say, (as this thread is asking us to debate) that the head of a cult based in Italy has the right to interfere in UK politics is not helpful at all. Just remember, yes you may have your God, and you may have your weird rules, and yes, you can kid yourself that your rules should be followed by the likes of me. But jus don't forget; We vote for our leaders in Government. They are the highest authority there is, even when they pretend to be religious. They have to pretend from time to time in order to get your vote too. Doesn't mean there are fairies at the bottom of the garden though. If there were, they would be busy being buggered by priests. Sorry to start ranting here but some people think religions cannot be criticised. Yes they can. And for one overriding reason; They all seek to interfere in the lives of the rest of us, and that makes them fair game for pointing and laughing, or crying sometimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Smokey. Date: 20 Feb 10 - 07:35 PM Smokey....I'm sorry to say this, as I enjoy your sense of humour on mudcat and your laid back style; but it seems to me that although you profess neutrality and lack of bias, when we see you amongst the real anti-religion nutters you seem to revel in "stoking them up". (Akenaton) Ake, I don't know where you've drawn these conclusions from, and I've no idea where I've professed neutrality, lack of bias or indeed 'stoked up' anti-religious nutters. Although I have no religious beliefs, sometimes I find myself agreeing with some of what is said against religion but I find some of it unreasonable too, and I would say exactly the same about contributions from supporters of religion. It's not a 'black and white' issue. I feel just the same way about politics. I can assure you though, that there is very little in this world that I'm neutral or not biased about one way or another. By the way, some of the equality/antidiscrimination laws were brought in by Thatcher's government if my memory serves me correctly. The lesson being: Never take what any government does at face value. I apologise for interrupting the discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 20 Feb 10 - 06:51 PM " caring, thinking, speaking well, praying and generally aspiring to something better for themselves and for all others" I agree if the emphasis is on "all others". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Royston Date: 20 Feb 10 - 04:10 PM Look, I am really troubled by the way that some folks here keep on attacking others for having religious beliefs. There is just too much bile here against Muslims and Christians, and I hate it. The Pope (as a head of religious institution and a regular agitator in worldly affairs) = fair game for being slapped down. "The Church" (Whatever church, when it speaks or acts as a body to preach iniquity in secular life) = fair game. Osama bin Laden / Al Qaeda / Nutty Imams / Saudi Arabia = fair game. The greatness weakness and greatness strength of Islam is that there is no structure, no governance, no "official" to blame for the good or the bad that Muslims do. You have no choice but to learn to differentiate the good from the bad on an individual basis. Anyone (who takes a religion of peace, love and mercy - such as Judaism, Islam, Christianity and twists it to support iniquity and harm in secular life) = fair game. But for crying out loud, the shit and approbrium that gets heaped upon some folks here for having an external justification or reason for caring, thinking, speaking well, praying and generally aspiring to something better for themselves and for all others, is just appalling. Some of you need to take a cold shower, a few deep breaths and try to calm down. Suibhne: "I know a lot of very sincere and very devout Roman Catholics, just as I know a lot of very devout and sincere Moslems etc. But when it comes to the wholesale massacre of others as heretics & infidels, likewise the active oppression of individuals because of some warped theology derived from the ravings of a mad horse, then I would suggest there is something seriously awry with the old religion concept." Well said. My next comment is not directed at you, it is directed "out there" generally: Protest at the pronouncements and at the people who act and speak in disagreeable ways, be sure to respect and acknowledge those who act, speak and intend nothing but good; and learn to tell the difference between the two. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 10 - 04:02 PM ?? Color me confused. I have no idea if that was in response to me, and if so, what it has to do with the topic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: mousethief Date: 20 Feb 10 - 03:37 PM Nice one pdq! O..O =o= |
