 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Feb 16 - 04:36 PM Jim Carroll, if I understand correctly about the situation in Ireland, preference is given to baptized children in the admission process for church-operated schools in Ireland. If there's a waiting list for admission, that makes a big difference. If there's no waiting list, then it doesn't matter. The same thing goes in Catholic schools in the U.S. - families who are active in a parish are given admission preference and often a discount. Non-Catholics are at the bottom of the list for admission. The difference is that in the US, parents pay tuition for their children to attend Catholic schools. With few exceptions, tax money doesn't pay for Catholic education. And Jim, please note that while you are correct that favored status for the Catholic Church was written into the Irish constitution, that provision was removed by a constitutional amendment in 1972 (click). That was 44 years ago. Time to get over it, Jim. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Feb 16 - 04:26 PM Steve Shaw says: Ignoring the unworthy and sexist jibe therein, no you haven't told the truth. The actual truth is that, according to your club's explicit rules, with very rare exceptions any woman who has an abortion is no longer a Catholic. Well, Steve, maybe I haven't said it in this thread, but I've said before that abortion generates an automatic excommunication. There are procedures for having that excommunication lifted, but I think both the excommunication and the procedure for removal of the excommunication to be demeaning. And at least in the U.S., a great number of people who protest at abortion clinics are women in dresses who wear too much makeup. You won't see many in jeans and tie-dies. As some of you may know, I am an associate member of the Sisters of Mercy, a Catholic religious order that operates a number of hospitals, including St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix, Arizona. According to this NPR story, a pregnant woman received an abortion at the hospital in November, 2010. Because the pregnancy posed a serious thread to the woman's life, the hospital administrator, a Mercy Sister, approved the abortion. When he learned about it, Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted excommunicated the nun, and removed St. Joseph's certification as a Catholic Hospital. After a demeaning process, the nun's excommunication was lifted, but the hospital is no longer considered to be a Catholic institution (although the nuns still own the place). The chapel in the hospital was unconsecrated, or whatever they do to decommission a Catholic chapel. A few years later, I attended Mass at the world headquarters of the Sisters in Mercy in Dublin. I was surprised to learn that the tabernacle in the Dublin chapel, was from St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix. After they were forced to decommission the Phoenix chapel, the Sisters moved the tabernacle to Dublin, as a sign of solidarity with all those who were affected by the bishop's actions in Phoenix. I can list many injustices that Catholic bishops have done in the name of protecting their stand against abortion. I have participated in protests against a number of them. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Feb 16 - 03:09 PM not my experience, and in my village in ireland there is a protestant and catholic school, and neither insists on baptism" Go read a newspaper - it's been a cause calebré throughout the country for months Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: The Sandman Date: 17 Feb 16 - 02:50 PM child baptised in order to get into most schools. " not my experience, and in my village in ireland there is a protestant and catholic school, and neither insists on baptism., in order to get into schools. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST Date: 17 Feb 16 - 02:30 PM @Stim I'll repost this as you must have missed it. Could a different devil be somewhere in the details? http://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/16-17063 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Greg F. Date: 17 Feb 16 - 02:26 PM Oh, and Stim- you DID read the disclaimer on the "Free Thought Project" website, eh? (emphasis mine) The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by TheFreeThoughtProject.com and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Feb 16 - 02:23 PM "I'm not sure you're right about teachers always being moved on with good references, " If what has happened in the church had happened in British schools we would have known about it. Teachers liaisons with underage girls, though still illegal, are totally different anyway. There was no question that the many children who suffered abuse in any way consented to that abuse - priests actually used their influence on children, sometimes younger than teenagers, to interfere, not just with one child but several - Brendan Smythe is said to have raped 143 underage children - a little different from your classroom affairs. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Greg F. Date: 17 Feb 16 - 02:23 PM In spite of all the media hype surrounding the mosquito-borne Zika virus and microcephaly, there has yet to be a scientific link proven between the two. And ya know what, Stim? In spite of all the media hype surrounding Pyriproxyfen and microcephaly, there has yet to be a scientific link proven between the two. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Penny S. Date: 17 Feb 16 - 02:12 PM Keith, I'm not sure you're right about teachers always being moved on with good references, since there was a a list, List 99, which had the names of teachers who were not to be appointed, and it wasn't short. On the other hand, when I was at an all girls school, one of the few men on the staff was found with one of the Upper Sixth girls, off the premises, in dubious activities, and removed, but was later found at another school in the county, from which, for other reasons, he was sacked. So probably both things went on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Stim Date: 17 Feb 16 - 10:30 AM Fresh out of the Ebola Panic, I wondered what evidence there actually was linking this virus which I'd never heard of with microcephaly(which I have heard of), particularly when I had heard that, while Zika has appeared in other places, the increase in incidence of microcephaly has not. I found that there wasn't a lot of evidence out there--I did find this, though: Doctors groups deny microcephaly zika connection, blame pesticide "In a recent report by the Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns (PCST), the group revealed that the area in which most of the afflicted persons live had been sprayed with a larvicide known to cause birth defects. The chemical, pyriproxyfen, was added to the state of Pernambuco's drinking-water reservoirs in 2014, by the Brazilian Ministry of Health, in an effort to stop the proliferation of the Zika-carrying Aedes aegypti mosquito. The report by PCST revealed that the pesticide, sold under the commercial name SumiLarv, is manufactured by Sumitomo Chemical, a Japanese subsidiary of Monsanto." Our President (Mr. Obama) has asked Congress for $1.8 Billion to respond to this recent possible crisis, and given that the immediate response, even in places that don't have the problem, seems to be to spray for mosquitos, I have a sinking feeling... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 17 Feb 16 - 05:24 AM Joe's latest ploy is to try to show that I see things only in black and white and that I over-dramatise. Ha! So let's go back to this for a minute: "Yes, Steve, I know all those things about the Catholic Church's penalties for abortion - pain of mortal sin, excommunication, being subjected to the scorn of angry hordes of women who wear too much makeup. And I have always told the truth about those penalties. The bishops take abortion seriously - too seriously, to my mind. And yet, Catholic women get abortions at almost exactly the same rate as other women (usually more). That means that for the people it makes a difference for, the official Catholic prohibition is seen for the foolishness that it is. You can get all dramatic about it and say how terrible it is; but in the end, the Catholic prohibition of abortion is only words, only an opinion." Ignoring the unworthy and sexist jibe therein, no you haven't told the truth. The actual truth is that, according to your club's explicit rules, with very rare exceptions any woman who has an abortion is no longer a Catholic. No-one needs to put her before judge 'n' jury, she's automatically done it to herself. What sort of a club is is that lets these non-Catholics carry on as if they're still members! A desperate one, I should think... The Catholic Church has always has a very unhealthy obsession with sex. The great thing about sex is that everyone wants to do it, so this is highly-fertile ground for dissecting it and introducing a plethora of controlling rules which cover every single aspect of it, from what goes on in the privacy of your thoughts, to what you do all by yourself, to everything you can do with a partner. The restrictions are so severe (have a google - try "Catholic attitudes to homosexuality/anal sex/masturbation/contraception/oral sex/withdrawal method/sex before marriage/anything else you like) that they amount to a manifesto for ignorance instead of education - you can't explain to young people what they really need to know because there are moralising interpolations at every turn. Crucially, the means of avoiding unwanted pregnancy (knowing exactly what you're doing and the use of contraception) are denied. Joe Offer crows about the fact that Catholic women have just as many abortions as anyone else. Well I think that's a bloody disgrace. I think he should hang his head in shame that his church's propagation of ignorance and anti-contraception teaching are the precise reasons why Catholic women need abortions in the first place. By the way, I wonder how many of those Catholic women who have abortions are really Catholics, you know, of the bums on Sunday pews variety...stats, Joe? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Feb 16 - 04:43 AM "When religion becomes "official," it gets itself in trouble." In Catho;ic countries religion is "official" - in Ireland it was written into the constitution and has used that fact to abuse children, among other things. The authority that that officialdom bestowed on them even played a part in severely damaging traditional music here. There can be no argument that some Christians do good work - I am a great admirer of the late Archbishop Romero and found the writings of Hewlett Johnson, the Dean of Canterbury fascinating. I'm proud to say I got very sore feet on several occasions when I marched with Canon Collins and his supporters from Aldermaston to London on the peace marches. I knew and worked with clergymen who were involved in the anti-Apatheid movement and other humanitarian protests. Church rebels of the past include John Ball, who preached to the peasants Revolt in 1381 and was executed for his activities. Rebel priest, Jacques Roux, expounded the politics of equality during the French Revolution. All beside the point - the church, as a body has had a malevolent influence on the lives of believers and non believers alike and the damage was done by their being availing themselves of the authority bestowed on them by various States. But these "mifits" are not the church - in fact they were embarrassments to and often opponents of the establishment - it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Romero was murdered with the co-operation of the Church. Removing the church, as a body, from politics has become an essential to progress - in the field of human rights, of womens' rights, contraception, pregnancy termination, homosexuality, single sex marriage.... The Church as a body has to be prevented from using its influence to decide political matters - all are free to express their opinions as laymen - that's how it should be - but not from behind the collar. Keith There are no examples of schools or the Education Department hiding sexual abuse of children in British schools There are no cases of teachers being found doing so and allowed to go on teaching in British schools There is no example of the Ministry for Education hiding evidence of abuse or refusing to release documents. You have become mad in your ongoing defence of the indefencible Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Musket Date: 17 Feb 16 - 03:32 AM It has to be said.. Even I recall teachers we laughed about due to their over active interest in pupils, including one we called Sexy Saxby who insisted on showering with the boys after sport up to the fourth year but not afterwards, funnily enough. Girls had a sports teacher they called "tuppence licker" for that matter and warned younger girls of the perils of the changing room. Could be cruel slanderous shit by kids or who knows? Certainly the showering and showing us how to ensure our wedding tackle was clean seems suspect... Joe is rightly saying that with millions of Catholics around, you can bring every wicked deed down to a small percentage of them. Correct. Although I would point out that in every case, they can back up their deeds with unfortunate interpretations of their duty as Catholics. The Protestant movement started through disgust at papal corruption spreading throughout the church. (Interesting documentary about Henry VIII last night, showing how mainland Europe was already split when he decided to take on the Pope.) Regarding Jim's bits about Ireland, a good article in today's Guardian. I especially like the bit (or am saddened by it for that matter) where you need to have your child baptised in order to get into most schools. I recall some on here saying it's wrong to claim to be a God botherer in order to get your school of choice. As it's nonsense anyway, there's no harm. Except of course the deluded buggers think the statistics make them relevant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 17 Feb 16 - 01:14 AM Jim, I certainly don't believe there are any examples of schools covering up cases of teachers having sex with pupils - do you? Yes. Not recently in state schools but it used to happen. The teacher would get a good reference and get a job elsewhere. There is a court case in the papers most weeks these days, many involving female teachers. Thirty years ago you never heard of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 10:47 PM I appreciate your passion, Steve; but life just isn't as black/white, good/bad as you describe. I prefer looking into individual issues and finding solutions to them. Works much better than making broad, dramatic, negative generalizations. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Feb 16 - 09:15 PM Not my finest grammatical construction ever, but hey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Feb 16 - 08:45 PM And you're so bland. About things that being bland about hurt people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 08:19 PM Ah, Steve Shaw, you are so dramatic... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 08:16 PM Jim Carroll says: Religion and politics are a toxic mix - open any newspaper in the next few days if you don't believe that. I'd agree with that, Jim. When religion becomes "official," it gets itself in trouble. Still, there are exceptions. Rev. Robert Drinan, a Jesuit priest, served admirably in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1973-1981. He and a Wisconsin priest, both Democrats, did not run for re-election to the House after Pope John Paul II unequivocally demanded that all priests withdraw from electoral politics in 1980. At about the same time, priests in Nicaragua and Haiti were ordered to withdraw from politics. Was that a good thing? I don't know. On the other hand, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has been conducting its silly annual Fortnight for Freedome campaign, to protest having to pay for birth control in employee health insurance plans. At the same time, there is the very effective and popular Nuns on the Bus campaign for social justice. So, I dunno. I think Jim's sweeping condemnations are as irrelevant as the rest of 'em. The fact of the matter is that there's some good and some bad in everything and every group. It's best not to condemn the good with the bad. -Joe- -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Feb 16 - 08:03 PM You forgot to mention the automatic immunity that the Church gets by dint of its exalted Godly position, Jim. All I'd say to you, Joe, is that people should read your recent posts minimising the role of your Church in the evils we've pointed out. Very valiant, but you and your club are bang to rights. Your lot encourage sexual ignorance, your lot condemn the means of avoiding unwanted pregnancy and your lot vilify women who, quite possibly because of the ignorance your lot propagate, need abortions. Your lot almost brush off the massive child sex abuse committed by trusted people as if it's all a minor blip, and you fail to address properly the cover-up. You say in your posts that you oppose this, that and the other, yet you and your kind have failed abysmally to change anything in any significant way. You seem to claim to be fighting from within, but I don't see much sign of any fight. What I do see is denial and defence of the indefensible. Why don't you just leave what's rotten to the core? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Feb 16 - 07:45 PM "They have Jim, on an equivalent scale." WHAT????? I have no doubt that there may have been a few who (technically) raped pupils. I know of no case of teachers covering for a teacher who did such a thing - do you? I certainly don't believe there are any examples of schools covering up cases of teachers having sex with pupils - do you? I have never heard of a case of a teacher being found to have habitually had sex with underage pupils being passed on to another school to continue his "little weakness" - have you? I have never heard of any case that the education Department, or even a Minister for Education covering up habitual rape of children -have you? Should the Education Department lock away and refuse access to the authorities of any information that this has gone on in schools, the whole education system would be brought crashing to the ground - are you really suggesting that this has happened? All of these examples have taken place withing the church - probably assist the victims can get some sort of closure. I don't know what sort of school you taugt in but thank Christ is wasn't one my relatives attended. This out-bizarres any claim you have ever made. I have at not time said I would like to see an and to the Catholic - or any church - too many friends, neighbours and relatives would be devastated wheer such thing to happen. My argument is that all Churches and clerics should be confined to the spiritual matter and only when that is accepted on a voluntary basis Why claim such a thing if not from sheer dishonest spite? The church has proved itself untrustworthy, particularly where children are concerned - it should never again occupy the elevated position is had and to a diminishing extent, still has. I have no doubt you will walk away from this one as you have from every other dishonest statement you have made - that seems to be the kind of person you are. "Donald Trump" The same church has, in the past, supported mass murderers and dictators in the past and used its influence to further their ends - Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet - and a whole string of Fascist despots.... Because the present flavour of the month happens to be a progressive one doesn't wipe out any of those things. Religion and politics are a toxic mix - open any newspaper in the next few days if you don't believe that. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 07:44 PM Your fallacy, Steve, is in blaming the entire church for the sins of a few of its members, committed over two millennia. That's life. People do bad stuff. Be careful not to blame the innocent when placing blame on those who deserve it. Institutions do no evil. Individual people within those institutions, are the ones responsible. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Feb 16 - 07:37 PM Ha. In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 07:13 PM Yes, Steve, I know all those things about the Catholic Church's penalties for abortion - pain of mortal sin, excommunication, being subjected to the scorn of angry hordes of women who wear too much makeup. And I have always told the truth about those penalties. The bishops take abortion seriously - too seriously, to my mind. And yet, Catholic women get abortions at almost exactly the same rate as other women (usually more). That means that for the people it makes a difference for, the official Catholic prohibition is seen for the foolishness that it is. You can get all dramatic about it and say how terrible it is; but in the end, the Catholic prohibition of abortion is only words, only an opinion. As I have said countless times, I disagree with the Catholic Church opinion on abortion, birth control, and homosexuality. I agree wholeheartedly with the Catholic Church on most things, especially on social justice issues; but not on sexual matters. As for your laundry list of other offenses, I don't deny any of them. However, I think the bad things happened on a scale much smaller than you seem to imagine, and the good things on a much larger scale. The offenses you list, horrible though they may have been, are the exception to the rule. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Feb 16 - 06:24 PM caused by |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Feb 16 - 06:23 PM "We have a new homeless shelter in my community, promoted chiefly by my Catholic pastor and the pastor of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church - along with their congregations. Many people in our community are outraged, and insist that the priest and the minister should stick to spiritual matters and not go catering to those despicable homeless people who don't belong here in the community where they were born. Is that what you propose, Jim? Yes, I suppose the local atheists could have done the job - but they didn't, partly because they didn't have an organization to sustain their effort. To get things done, people need to organize." All wonderful. Really it is. But if you really want to argue the virtues of your Church via its sporadic good deeds, do be prepared for ripostes to the tune of reminding you of death and disease caused buy illegal abortions, of the Magdalen Laundries, of systematic and institutionalised child abuse, covered up big time of course, of doing deals with Mussolini, of institutionalised antisemitism, of explicit support for Franco, of Jews being herded to death camps from under the nose of the Vatican, of ratlines for Nazi war criminals. I would never do such a thing, of course, but it's worth reminding you that you do have this potential problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Feb 16 - 05:43 PM From wiki. Catholics who procure a completed abortion are subject to a latae sententiae excommunication.[2] That means that the excommunication does not need to be imposed (as with a ferendae sententiae penalty); rather, being expressly established by law, it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed (a latae sententiae penalty).... ...According to a 2004 memorandum by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Catholic politicians who consistently campaign and vote for permissive abortion laws should be informed by their priest of the Church's teaching and warned to refrain from receiving communion or risk being denied the Eucharist until they end that activity.[53] This position is based on Canon 915 and has also been supported, in a personal capacity, by Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest judicial authority in the Catholic Church after the Pope himself.[54] Just tell us the truth, Joe, and be truthful to yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 05:10 PM When I eat watermelon, Greg, I spit out the seeds. I repeat: At Mass on Sunday Morning (or at any other time), do Catholics stand and profess opposition to abortion, contraception, and homosexuality? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Greg F. Date: 16 Feb 16 - 04:57 PM They are official teachings, but not "fundamental tenets." Uh hunh. OK- I stand corrected on the semantics. However, it doesn't make any PRACTICAL real-world difference which you call 'em, does it Joe? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 04:34 PM I don't (and can't, in good conscience) defend Catholic teachings on abortion, contraception, and homosexuality. I've worked a lifetime to see that these policies are changed, and we finally have a Pope who is at least de-emphasizing these subjects and putting them into proper proportion. He's moving carefully, but he continues to push in the right direction. I have been a catechist/religious education teacher continuously since 1966, and I have never taught anyone that contraception and homosexuality are bad. I have an "in the middle" attitude about abortion that I'm sure is not acceptable to extremists on either side of the spectrum, but it's what I believe - that abortion takes away a life, but sometimes that choice is the best of bad choices; and it is a choice that must be made by the woman who is pregnant. Have none of you ever belonged to an organization that had policies you didn't agree with? Have none of you ever found yourselves on the losing side of an election? When you found the organization did not precisely coincide with your philosophies, did you feel compelled to leave the organization? Or maybe did you continue to work to promote your point of view. I suppose those things don't occur to you absolutists, since you cannot accept anything that doesn't exactly fit your dream of perfection. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 03:56 PM Yes, Greg, you can quote right-wing Websites like catholic.com and their team of armchair "apologists" and get all sorts of right-wing perspectives on things. You'll find a muuch more balanced perspective on the Websites of the Vatican, or the Jesuits, or Dominicans, or other long-established religious orders. The teachings on abortion, contraception, and homosexuality were never defined ex cathedra as infallible doctrines. When Catholics stand and recite the Nicene Creed at Mass on Sunday, they do not profess opposition to abortion, contraception, and homosexuality. In fact, those matters are rarely mentioned from the pulpit. So, no, those sex matters are not fundamental tenets of the Catholic Church. They are official teachings, but not "fundamental tenets." The Catholic Church does put a lot of emphasis on abortion, far more than I would like - but it is still not a fundamental tenet. The fundamental tenets go back 1700 years or more. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Greg F. Date: 16 Feb 16 - 03:45 PM contraception and abortion and opposition to gay marriage and men-only ordination and hierarchy are NOT "fundamental tenets" of the Catholic Church. Hmmmmmm..... considering the Pope's and the sevaral Bishops' pronouncments about contraception & abortion, I wonder.....viz: Vatican II's Explanation Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter's successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25). Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter." The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . "). http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 03:44 PM Jim Carroll says: Surely you are not suggesting that if the Church was confined only to spiritual matters all the qualities you mention would cease? Well, Jim, Donald Trump is getting all upset about the Pope's visit to the Mexican side of that country's border with the U.S., calling him "a very political person" and saying that "Mexico got him to do it because they're making a fortune and we're losing." I think his politics are very effective and very worthwhile. Could any other person visit the U.S.-Mexico border and have such an impact? As for people who molested children, I agree that they should never be allowed to have contact with children again. But as for members (and church leaders) who did NOT molest, why should they be restricted? Your oft-proposed restriction has no logic behind it. If the Catholic Church should be, as you suggest, "confined only to spiritual matters," shouldn't that restriction be imposed on every organization? We have a new homeless shelter in my community, promoted chiefly by my Catholic pastor and the pastor of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church - along with their congregations. Many people in our community are outraged, and insist that the priest and the minister should stick to spiritual matters and not go catering to those despicable homeless people who don't belong here in the community where they were born. Is that what you propose, Jim? Yes, I suppose the local atheists could have done the job - but they didn't, partly because they didn't have an organization to sustain their effort. To get things done, people need to organize. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Feb 16 - 03:38 PM "Gee, I guess you ideological types just don't get what I'm saying. Maybe that's why you get so nasty in the Forum, because you can't accept that it's not the end of the world when people have opinions that differ from your own, narrow ideology. Even if they're wrong, that does not mean that they are evil people. They simply see things differently." I just thought that was worth repeating. Just so that I can demolish it. There is no-one more narrow-minded and ideological than someone who believes in God, accepts the authority of a bunch of supposedly celibate men in frocks (hmm - "supposedly" takes on a bit more significance now that we've heard about the lusty doings of "Saint" John-Paul :-)) and who inflicts this nonsense on his children. Why, I do believe that our accuser, Joe Offer, has followed precisely this path. Joe Offer, Keith and Guesticles, we are not the narrow-minded ones. We are the people who have shaken off the shackles, decided to think for ourselves and who want to know what's really true, not settling for your bogus "deeper truths" that are predicated on impossible superstition. You'll have an answer for that, of course you will, but call US narrow-minded at your peril. And, Joe Offer, we are not talking about what your Church "advises", are we. We are talking about edicts issued that put demurrers under pain of mortal sin and hellfire. Defend the indefensible all you like, but expect mockery and derision if you do so. You really should know better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 16 Feb 16 - 03:26 PM Like it keith, good analogy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Feb 16 - 02:30 PM I am sure you are not damned Rag, and I will explain the logic as simply as I can for you. Jim clearly would like to see the end of the Catholic Church, and the reason he most frequently gives is the recent revelations of child abuse. My post was in response to his statement "If any other organisation had behaved as the church has they would be forbidden to have any contact with children - ever - just work out what would have happened if teachers had behaved as they had done." In fact, huge numbers of teachers have done. If you are still baffled, I will pm you a "Janet and John" version. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 16 Feb 16 - 02:18 PM I'm certain that Keith believes there is some sort of logic in that last post of his, but I'm damned if I can see it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Feb 16 - 01:39 PM if teachers had behaved as they (priests) had done. They have Jim, on an equivalent scale. Despicable, but not a reason to abolish education. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Feb 16 - 01:26 PM I'm not for one moment denigrating the good work done by individuals in the church - but that is no reason to leave our young people under their control If any other organisation had behaved as the church has they would be forbidden to have any contact with children - ever - just work out what would have happened if teachers had behaved as they had done. There is a conceit that appears to believe that you have to be a Christian to do good things. Surely you are not suggesting that if the Church was confined only to spiritual matters all the qualities you mention would cease? I sincerely hope not Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 01:00 PM Greg F sez: In that event, Joe, having ignored & violated the fundamental tenets of their church, why do they consider themselves "Catholics" instead of, say, Unitarians? Well, I do sometimes say that I'm part of the "Unitarian branch of the Catholic Church"... But no, contraception and abortion and opposition to gay marriage and men-only ordination and hierarchy are NOT "fundamental tenets" of the Catholic Church. The fundamental tenets are the Nicene Creed and the teaching on the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the law of Love of God and Neighbor, the Beatitudes, the Ten Commandments, and the Corporal Works of Mercy as defined in Matthew 25 (When I was hungry, you gave me to eat). These are what Catholics believe. The other things are practices, or are interpretations of moral principles. Talking about elderly, celibate leaders in the Catholic Church, Jim Carroll says: their power has to be neutralised and they have to be confined to spiritual matters only - and that on a totally voluntary basis only I don't think so, Jim. The old celibates may not know much about sex, but they have plenty to say that is of great value regarding immigrants, poverty and economic justice, the environment, mass incarceration and capital punishment, and other issues. If what they say makes sense, then they have a right to be heard. If not, then they're best ignored - but not silenced. My grandfather was a man of great wisdom - but I didn't ask him for sex advice, either. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: The Sandman Date: 16 Feb 16 - 12:51 PM Instead of arguing about abortion, why do you not question the official propoganda about the cause of the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: DMcG Date: 16 Feb 16 - 11:35 AM I should add that my parents also chose for me to be born in Britian: it was something that I had little choice over but THEY had, to adopt Raggy's formulation. As one was from Eire, they had the choice to settle there instead of England, for example. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: DMcG Date: 16 Feb 16 - 11:21 AM We will have to differ on whether it is fatuous, It is of course an analogy, rather than precisely the same, but I see very strong parallels. At the most superficial . I was born into both, I was "indoctrinated" into both as a child, both try to cultivate ways of behaving, declaring things that are 'done' or 'just not done' and I am able to leave both if I choose. I find it an appropriate analogy. If you don't, just ignore it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 16 Feb 16 - 10:49 AM DMcG, There is a huge and very fundamental difference. You were (presumably) born in Britain and that cannot change that unless you actively seek another nationality. Your faith, I suspect, was placed on you by others at a time when you had little choice but THEY did. Unless you came to your faith in adult life it was foisted upon you without your consent. On the other side of the discussion I have no argument with your choice to follow your faith. I do object that your faith impacts on others who do not follow it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Greg F. Date: 16 Feb 16 - 10:23 AM the reason is very much the same as why I am British Fatuous, in the extreme. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: DMcG Date: 16 Feb 16 - 09:47 AM In that event, Joe, having ignored & violated the fundamental tenets of their church, why do they consider themselves "Catholics" instead of, say, Unitarians? Joe can give his take, but here's mine. Firstly, it is not a fundamental tenet in the way you suggest. But even if it were, the reason is very much the same as why I am British. There are things about Britain I really like, things I can leave alone and things I actively try to change. If Problems got bad enough in my view, I might decide to become, by way of example, Canadian. But if I did, not only would there still be things I really liked, could leave and actively try to change in my new country, I would not have a deep understanding of how culture, for example, worked there. So while it is not impossible I'd change, either to Canadian or Utilitarian, it would not be a decision taken lightly. For all ithe recognised flaws, being British/Catholic works for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Stu Date: 16 Feb 16 - 09:06 AM "Those in authority have painted themselves into a corner on abortion and contraception, and aren't likely to change even if they'd like to." Blimey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Feb 16 - 08:22 AM Then how about giving your opinions on the discussion rather than defending your political stance That his been repeated on every discussion you pair have been involved in and it's still worth repeating This isn't about either Keith or Brucie Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST Date: 16 Feb 16 - 08:00 AM Gee, I guess you ideological types just don't get what I'm saying. Maybe that's why you get so nasty in the Forum, because you can't accept that it's not the end of the world when people have opinions that differ from your own, narrow ideology. Even if they're wrong, that does not mean that they are evil people. They simply see things differently. I just thought that was worth repeating. Me too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Greg F. Date: 16 Feb 16 - 07:58 AM Even if they're wrong, that does not mean that they are evil people. Absolutely, Joe! But they're still wrong. But I think most Catholics see contraception as a non-issue because they have ignored church prohibitions for long. In that event, Joe, having ignored & violated the fundamental tenets of their church, why do they consider themselves "Catholics" instead of, say, Unitarians? |