 sj |
||
|
||
BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: mousethief Date: 20 Feb 10 - 01:38 PM can you really say "oppression, mind-fuck, wholesale massacre, fascist collusion, inquisition, torture & terror" and claim not to be at least a little bit biased? Hardly biased, Joe - my wife is a practising Roman Catholic from a Roman Catholic family; So you think your wife is being oppressed and mind-fucked? Or just that she's collusion with those who do? I'm trying to figure how you believe what you believe about the RCC and yet reconcile being married to one. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 20 Feb 10 - 01:50 PM When the pope speaks out on issues and religion it is just his faith and opinion. When the RCs speak on issues and religion it is their faith and opinion. When those who question the public stated faith, or opinions of the pope, the RC church, or the faithful (or less so) RC members...mostly respectful, then they are Christian bashers or biased. Give mea break. It may be best to break all the house mirrors, or a glimpse of thy self may come forward:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: pdq Date: 20 Feb 10 - 02:00 PM ...this bothers me in the same way the recent Supreme Court decision on the extension of the 2nd amendment to corporations did. ~ Bill D That is a classic Bill D pontification. Priceless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 20 Feb 10 - 02:13 PM What occured in Canada could happen in the UK: In -JUL-2005 A Canadain RC Member of Parliament Charles Angus, voted for a Canadian bill allowing same sex marrages. He was denied communion by Father John Lemire, pastor of St. Patrick's parish in Ontario. Angus told an Ottawa radio station: "I feel that we are starting to move into some very uncomfortable waters when the priest is telling me how to vote in the House of Commons....I felt no matter what else was at stake I can't allow the Eucharist to be a political pressure point." Angus can attend services but cannot receive communion unless he first repents of his decision to vote for C-38. Father Lemire said: "it is a consistent teaching of the Catholic Church as voiced by the current Pope and his predecessor." Wherre could this action come from? Possibly below: The Roman Curia's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith"document NOV-24, 2004, "Doctrinal Note on participation of Catholics in political life." The main thrust of the document is to inform individual Roman Catholics including legislators, that they are not free to vote for parties or laws which deviate from the Church's teachings. Some points raised in this note are: An atmosphere of cultural relativism exists in many democratic countries. But the concept of pluralism which accepts all systems of morality as equally valid must be rejected. Only the moral and ethical systems taught by the church are correct. That is because the Church's "...ethical precepts are rooted in human nature itself and belong to the natural moral law." ..citizens claim complete autonomy with regard to their moral choices, and lawmakers maintain that they are respecting this freedom of choice by enacting laws which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends, as if every possible outlook on life were of equal value." Roman Catholic citizens, including legislators, are only free to "choose among the various political opinions that are compatible" with the church's faith and natural moral law. They are not free to develop an opinion which is based on secular beliefs or on another religion's teachings, if the conflict with Catholic principles. "Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society." The church "has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a 'grave and clear obligation to oppose' any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them." Laws must protect "the basic right to life from conception to natural death." "...a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals" as taught by the Catholic church. " The principle of separation of church and state does not apply in matters of morality: "For Catholic moral doctrine, the rightful autonomy of the political or civil sphere from that of religion and the Church – but not from that of morality -- is a value that has been attained and recognized by the Catholic Church and belongs to inheritance of contemporary civilization." Lawmakers cannot create a wall of separation between their religious life and their political life. They cannot behave as Catholics part of the time, and as secularists for the rest of the time. "There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand, the so-called 'spiritual life', with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called 'secular' life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 10 - 02:17 PM "When the pope speaks out on issues and religion it is just his faith and opinion." Yes, technically, it is. I understand that..(I understand ex cathedra also...wrote a paper on the 2nd Vatican Council in college), but over & over on various issues, various church leader 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.) "When those who question ....then they are Christian bashers or biased." Yep...biased....I am biased in favor of clarity and reason and honest disclosure. Way too many about who I am biased do not understand their own subjective biases. Here, in these discussions, we get many who DO, and it is easier to at least compare notes with them, whether we agree or not. When I lived in the Bible Belt, I was around far too many who were nothing but sheep about beliefs & issues...but aggressive, dangerous sheep. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 10 - 02:22 PM "That is a classic Bill D pontification. Why thank you! It's good to have my ideas recognized as having regular and unambiguous themes.... Now, what did you think of my opinion and concern? ☺ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: pdq Date: 20 Feb 10 - 02:55 PM Methinks someone has confused the "right to bear arms" with the right to Bear Stearns. |
|
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= |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:16 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 - 04:24 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:34 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:56 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 |
