| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
27 Apr 2005 06:33:25 PM |
| Object: |
What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/schall_liberalpope_apr05.asp
Suppose We Had a "Liberal" Pope
By James V. Schall, S. J.
From various sources, here and abroad, I have heard that not a few are
"disappointed" at the election of Pope Benedict XVI.
When we examine what they are "disappointed" about, we find that it is
about "moral" things. They hoped that the Church would finally be
"up-to-date." What this being "up-to-date" usually means is that the
Church will finally approve of birth control, abortion, cloning, the
ordination of women, divorce, gay life and marriage, and other pious
habits. Seldom do we hear any other reasons for "disappointment."
Thus, what the essence of such objections comes down to is that the
Church, in being what it is, is wrong on such fundamental points.
Being "wrong," evidently, means that a mere flick of the papal wrist
can set things right. All Pope Ratzinger has to do is sign a document
stating that abortion, divorce, ordination of women, birth control,
and gaydom are just what we need in the modern world to cure its ills.
Behind this kind of attitude, of course, is the theoretical position
that the criterion of truth is what is presumably accepted and
practiced in the modern world.
Evidently, if the opposite of these "views" is accepted in some past
or future time, that is just fine. So it is important to see that the
principle used to justify the position for establishing these things
as licit is usually that of time. That is, anyone who does not accept
this view is "out of date." Few arguments about why they are or are
not are actually given. But the arguments are what count. As
Chesterton said, a thing that is not true in one age cannot really be
true in any other age. Principle, not time, determines truth.
But for the sake of argument, let us suppose that the new Pope
actually thinks he can do what the modern world insists is necessary
to be "up to date." Suddenly, Rome, in a world-wide announcement,
agrees that abortion, birth control, euthanasia, divorce, cloning, gay
life, whatever, are just fine.
We have long noticed that many Protestant and even Catholic folks, not
to mention unbelievers and those of other persuasions, do promote and
practice these things as if they were the solution to modern problems.
They are annoyed and perplexed to be at odds with the traditional
teaching of the Church. But their dreams have been answered. The pope
is suddenly "liberal." He now "understands" the modern world and its
"needs." What was formerly officially wrong is now officially right.
No more opposition to such practices in the modern world.
What would follow if this were to happen?
The first consequence would be that anyone with a half a mind will
realize that the Church has contradicted its own solemnly sworn and
defined principles. In other words, on its own grounds, it is not
worth believing. It has rejected its one claim to credibility, that
is, its adherence to the stated deposit of faith and the teachings
that flowed from this. In fact, it now agrees that what was wrong in
one era is right in another.
Who would really rejoice at this reversal? Those who think that these
practices are the solution to modern problems would not change, nor
would they any longer have any reason to question their own
presuppositions about such matters. Those who thought the teachings of
the Church were solid and theologically grounded, however, will be
logical enough to realize that a Church that approves such modern
practices, after insisting for so long that they were wrong, is not
worth its salt. Such a Church would have absolutely no credibility.
If the Church, over its long history, insists that some thing is
wrong, then it suddenly decides that what is wrong is right, what
follows? What follows is simply that no one, believer or non-believer,
should ever again give such a Church second thought. It cannot, on
these premises, be true.
So what those who advocate abortion, birth control, gay life,
euthanasia, cloning, and what not really are seeking is the
undermining of the one authority in the world that says these
practices and those who choose them are wrong--wrong before God and
before themselves. The Church did not itself concoct these theories as
if it could fashion what it wanted, as those who want it to radically
change think it can.
Such people do not understand that the only claim the Church has to
our belief is its faithful consistency to the deposit of faith, which
it did not somehow "make up" by itself. Once this position is
internally and intrinsically undermined--as it would be if the Church
approved these things--it would have absolutely no claim to anyone's
belief, or even anyone's taking it seriously.
Under the rubric of the advent of a "liberal" pope, we have, in fact,
the desire that the authority of the papacy to credibility be itself
eliminated. This is what is at stake in the election of a pope. We
should not doubt it.
Fr. James V. Schall, S.J., is Professor of Political Philosophy at
Georgetown University and the author of numerous books on social
issues, spirituality, culture, and literature including Another Sort
of Learning, Idylls and Rambles, On the Unseriousness of Human
Affairs: Teaching, Writing, Playing, Believing, Lecturing,
Philosophizing, Singing, Dancing, and A Student's Guide to Liberal
Learning. Read more of his essays on his website.
http://www.morec.com/schall
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
27 Apr 2005 09:31:48 PM |
|
|
<laurie114@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15760ebd.0504271533.4c8fea3c@posting.google.com...
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/schall_liberalpope_apr05.asp
Suppose We Had a "Liberal" Pope
-snip-
This whole essay presumes that the church has not changed its official
doctrine before, when it most certainly has. So it fails on that point. More
importantly, it fails because the arguments in favor of women's rights, gay
rights, and reproductive rights are based solidly on moral high ground
(something which can sometimes actually be found in the scriptures, if you
look beyond all the smiting, endorsement of slavery, torture, and the like).
Frankly, one wonders if this priest in particular and the catholic church in
general are just playing a massive game of covering their asses in their
continued support of their immoral positions. It seems like the argument is,
"if we admit we're wrong now, no one will trust us again". That's pretty
similar to how they handle their sex abuse scandals, but no way to provide
moral guidance to millions of people. They're clearly more worried about
appearing good than being good. Sad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IKnowMoreThanYou" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 10:54:32 AM |
|
|
Mark Stahl wrote:
<laurie114@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15760ebd.0504271533.4c8fea3c@posting.google.com...
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/schall_liberalpope_apr05.asp
Suppose We Had a "Liberal" Pope
-snip-
This whole essay presumes that the church has not changed its
official
doctrine before, when it most certainly has.
It's your statement. Burden of proof is now on you. Name just one
doctrine that has changed ever. It has to be doctrine now - not
customs, non-sacred tradition, or ecclesiastical discipline (IOW,
non-infallible teachings do not count).
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 12:03:38 PM |
|
|
"IKnowMoreThanYou" <iknow_morethanyou@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114703672.881861.313140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mark Stahl wrote:
<laurie114@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15760ebd.0504271533.4c8fea3c@posting.google.com...
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/schall_liberalpope_apr05.asp
Suppose We Had a "Liberal" Pope
-snip-
This whole essay presumes that the church has not changed its
official
doctrine before, when it most certainly has.
It's your statement. Burden of proof is now on you. Name just one
doctrine that has changed ever. It has to be doctrine now - not
customs, non-sacred tradition, or ecclesiastical discipline (IOW,
non-infallible teachings do not count).
How about the doctrine on abortion?
4th Century AD - St. Augustine lays down Catholic dogma sanctioning abortion
up to 80 days for female fetus and up to 40 days for male fetus.
13th Century AD - St. Thomas Aquinas states Catholic dogma justifying sexual
intercourse only for procreation.
1588 - Pope Sixtus forbids all abortions
1591 - Pope Gregory XIV rescinds Pope Sixtus' edict against abortion
1869 - Pope Pius IX forbids all abortions in exchange for France's Napoleon
III acknowledging papal infallibility. France's population experienced a
sharp decrease over the previous 60 years.
I particularly love this last one.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "IKnowMoreThanYou" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 02:51:04 PM |
|
|
junegill wrote:
"IKnowMoreThanYou" <iknow_morethanyou@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114703672.881861.313140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mark Stahl wrote:
<laurie114@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15760ebd.0504271533.4c8fea3c@posting.google.com...
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/schall_liberalpope_apr05.asp
Suppose We Had a "Liberal" Pope
-snip-
This whole essay presumes that the church has not changed its
official
doctrine before, when it most certainly has.
It's your statement. Burden of proof is now on you. Name just one
doctrine that has changed ever. It has to be doctrine now - not
customs, non-sacred tradition, or ecclesiastical discipline (IOW,
non-infallible teachings do not count).
How about the doctrine on abortion?
Gee, only things concerning abortion, huh? (I've seen St. Thomas on sex
used in abortion debates before).
Nope, doesn't count because nothing here has changed in doctrine. All
of the above relates to particular canons in Church law or Church
involvement in civil law. In all instances, including the particulars
you listed, abortion is still considered a sin requiring penance (even
when believing no "ensoulment" took place).
4th Century AD - St. Augustine lays down Catholic dogma sanctioning
abortion
up to 80 days for female fetus and up to 40 days for male fetus.
Augustine didn't "lay down" any *dogma* of the kind. He could only
expand understanding of existing doctine withphilosophy. There was no
authority in him to "lay down" or create doctrine. His views in his
work "On Exodus" (from where your info originates) is on "ensoulment"
not a sanction. So we see a complete picture, remember in his work "On
Marriage and Lust", Augustine condemned both abortion and contraception
as immoral, since they permit sexual intercourse to occur without
procreation.
13th Century AD - St. Thomas Aquinas states Catholic dogma justifying
sexual
intercourse only for procreation.
St. Thomas Aquinas was a devout philosopher and theologian with an
original and incisive mind. He philosophized about and expanded
understanding and reasoning of *existing* doctrine. He never proclaimed
or decided what was or wasn't doctrine especially since he never had
any authority to do so.
His views were pretty much an expansion of Augustine's. He also said
abortion is a violation of natural law and is always wrong, no matter
when a soul may be infused into the developing child's body.
1588 - Pope Sixtus forbids all abortions
Sixtus V in his "Effraenatum" was remained consistant with both of the
abovementioned Augustine works stating abortion was wrong whether the
fetus was "animated or not animated, formed or unformed".
1591 - Pope Gregory XIV rescinds Pope Sixtus' edict against abortion
Gregory XIV in "Sedes Apostolica" recinded nothing, but instead
recommended "not to punish more strictly than the sacred canons or
civil legislation does" when an abortion was procured "where no
homicide or no animated fetus is involved".
1869 - Pope Pius IX forbids all abortions in exchange for France's
Napoleon
III acknowledging papal infallibility. France's population
experienced a
sharp decrease over the previous 60 years.
I particularly love this last one.
Yes, and his views were the first (I think) to actually be written into
the "Code of Canon Law". FYI, that's still not doctrine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 05:14:45 PM |
|
|
IKnowMoreThanYou wrote:
Nothing of importance unless he defines precisely what he means by
"doctrine" and uses it consistantly in his defence of it never changing.
Of more value would be a reference to what the RCC actually says on what the
word means.
Othewise he is probably going to have a difficult time explaining to both us
and the church such phrases as "The Church formulated her doctrine of faith
on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. "
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 12:10:29 PM |
|
|
"IKnowMoreThanYou" <iknow_morethanyou@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114703672.881861.313140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mark Stahl wrote:
<laurie114@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15760ebd.0504271533.4c8fea3c@posting.google.com...
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/schall_liberalpope_apr05.asp
Suppose We Had a "Liberal" Pope
-snip-
This whole essay presumes that the church has not changed its
official
doctrine before, when it most certainly has.
It's your statement. Burden of proof is now on you. Name just one
doctrine that has changed ever. It has to be doctrine now - not
customs, non-sacred tradition, or ecclesiastical discipline (IOW,
non-infallible teachings do not count).
First of all, no teachings are "infallible". Why do we only get to count
that which you wish to count? I don't accept your restriction- what the
church used to teach was wrong, is no longer so. That is change.
There are many doctrinal issues that the catholic church has changed over
time:
Slavery: The early Church approved slavery, as seen by St. Paul's command
for slaves to obey their masters (Col. 3:22-25; Eph. 6:5-8). Furthermore,
the Catholic Church didn't get around to repudiating slavery until the 1890s
and prior to that actually supported it in some circumstances (though
advocating a much fairer treatment than they often received). Clergy often
held slaves themselves. The Holy Roman Empire allowed slavery. This is
obviously a complex issue, but I think it's fair to say that the catholic
church has not been entirely consistent in its teachings and in what it
allows here.
Selling of indulgences and such: used to be allowed, now not.
Vatican II:
The vulgate: To have the communion service in the language of the people
was, at one time, a Protestant heresy. The mass had to be said in Latin.
Then came a period of reform started by Pope John the twenty third, when it
had to be in the languages of the people instead.
Fasting: Used to be that eating meat on Fridays was a sin, like using
artificial birth control is supposed to be now. Now it's not. My grandmother
used to complain about this very thing.
Reading Protestant Bibles: used to be a sin, now not
Attending Protestant church services: same deal
Taking communion: used to be a sin to allow the host to touch your hand, now
people take communion in the hand all the time.
Allowal of the "charismatic movement:"
These doctrinal changes are precisely along the lines of "what was once a
sin is now OK" and would be perfectly in line with allowing such as birth
control to be used, and these are just a few minor ones off the top of my
head, from my catholic school education. It's shocking that you didn't know
about them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 12:12:33 PM |
|
|
"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
news:bKKdnbUL6umYhOzfRVn-jw@giganews.com...
"IKnowMoreThanYou" <iknow_morethanyou@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114703672.881861.313140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mark Stahl wrote:
<laurie114@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15760ebd.0504271533.4c8fea3c@posting.google.com...
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/schall_liberalpope_apr05.asp
Suppose We Had a "Liberal" Pope
-snip-
This whole essay presumes that the church has not changed its
official
doctrine before, when it most certainly has.
It's your statement. Burden of proof is now on you. Name just one
doctrine that has changed ever. It has to be doctrine now - not
customs, non-sacred tradition, or ecclesiastical discipline (IOW,
non-infallible teachings do not count).
First of all, no teachings are "infallible". Why do we only get to count
that which you wish to count? I don't accept your restriction- what the
church used to teach was wrong, is no longer so. That is change.
There are many doctrinal issues that the catholic church has changed over
time:
Slavery: The early Church approved slavery, as seen by St. Paul's command
for slaves to obey their masters (Col. 3:22-25; Eph. 6:5-8). Furthermore,
the Catholic Church didn't get around to repudiating slavery until the
1890s and prior to that actually supported it in some circumstances
(though advocating a much fairer treatment than they often received).
Clergy often held slaves themselves. The Holy Roman Empire allowed
slavery. This is obviously a complex issue, but I think it's fair to say
that the catholic church has not been entirely consistent in its teachings
and in what it allows here.
Selling of indulgences and such: used to be allowed, now not.
Vatican II:
The vulgate: To have the communion service in the language of the people
was, at one time, a Protestant heresy. The mass had to be said in Latin.
Then came a period of reform started by Pope John the twenty third, when
it had to be in the languages of the people instead.
Fasting: Used to be that eating meat on Fridays was a sin, like using
artificial birth control is supposed to be now. Now it's not. My
grandmother used to complain about this very thing.
Reading Protestant Bibles: used to be a sin, now not
Attending Protestant church services: same deal
Taking communion: used to be a sin to allow the host to touch your hand,
now people take communion in the hand all the time.
Allowal of the "charismatic movement:"
These doctrinal changes are precisely along the lines of "what was once a
sin is now OK" and would be perfectly in line with allowing such as birth
control to be used, and these are just a few minor ones off the top of my
head, from my catholic school education. It's shocking that you didn't
know about them.
Oh, right-- don't forget that abortions used to be allowed, too.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IKnowMoreThanYou" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 02:44:36 PM |
|
|
Mark Stahl wrote:
"IKnowMoreThanYou" <iknow_morethanyou@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114703672.881861.313140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mark Stahl wrote:
<laurie114@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15760ebd.0504271533.4c8fea3c@posting.google.com...
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/schall_liberalpope_apr05.asp
Suppose We Had a "Liberal" Pope
-snip-
This whole essay presumes that the church has not changed its
official
doctrine before, when it most certainly has.
It's your statement. Burden of proof is now on you. Name just one
doctrine that has changed ever. It has to be doctrine now - not
customs, non-sacred tradition, or ecclesiastical discipline (IOW,
non-infallible teachings do not count).
First of all, no teachings are "infallible". Why do we only get to
count
that which you wish to count?
We're discussing the Catholic Church. It only makes sense to use
what the nature of doctrine is for Catholicism, does it not? Would you
believe it right argue a case in a U.S. court demanding the laws of
another country be used?
Doctrine being considered infallible and unchanging is part of what
the Catholic Church is. You do not have to accept that as a
non-Catholic. Other churches and religions may vary on the nature of
doctrine. I believe it was your words that put "the Church" and
"doctrine" together. Ergo, we go by what doctrine is for the Catholic
Church.
It's now what "I" wish to count. I was trying to prevent you from
making the mistake of confusing doctrine with non-infallible teaching
(which you went ahead and made anyway).
I don't accept your restriction- what the
church used to teach was wrong, is no longer so. That is change.
It's not my restriction. You specifically said "doctrine." If you
want to talk about the Churches teachings and traditions under other
catagories, then be specific and know what you mean.
There are many doctrinal issues that the catholic church has changed
over
time:
Slavery: The early Church approved slavery, as seen by St. Paul's
command
for slaves to obey their masters (Col. 3:22-25; Eph. 6:5-8).
Furthermore,
the Catholic Church didn't get around to repudiating slavery until
the 1890s
and prior to that actually supported it in some circumstances (though
advocating a much fairer treatment than they often received). Clergy
often
held slaves themselves. The Holy Roman Empire allowed slavery. This
is
obviously a complex issue, but I think it's fair to say that the
catholic
church has not been entirely consistent in its teachings and in what
it
allows here.
Selling of indulgences and such: used to be allowed, now not.
(FYI The purchasing of indulgences was NEVER a teaching of the Church.
It is a SIN to "sell" indulgences. Those bishops or priests who were
selling indulgences did so illegally and sinfully. In any event this is
not an issue of doctrine.)
Vatican II:
The vulgate: To have the communion service in the language of the
people
was, at one time, a Protestant heresy. The mass had to be said in
Latin.
Then came a period of reform started by Pope John the twenty third,
when it
had to be in the languages of the people instead.
Fasting: Used to be that eating meat on Fridays was a sin, like using
artificial birth control is supposed to be now. Now it's not. My
grandmother
used to complain about this very thing.
Reading Protestant Bibles: used to be a sin, now not
Attending Protestant church services: same deal
Taking communion: used to be a sin to allow the host to touch your
hand, now
people take communion in the hand all the time.
Allowal of the "charismatic movement:"
These doctrinal changes are precisely along the lines of "what was
once a
sin is now OK" and would be perfectly in line with allowing such as
birth
control to be used, and these are just a few minor ones off the top
of my
head, from my catholic school education. It's shocking that you
didn't know
about them.
The items that you mention are not doctrine and never were. You
make the common mistake of confusing doctrine and Church/canon law.
Doctrines, which are infallible, come from the original deposit of
faith of the Apostles. Since there was no new Revelation after the
Apostles, neither the Church nor any Pope can invent new doctrine.
Non-doctrinal teachings can always change.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 04:07:10 PM |
|
|
"IKnowMoreThanYou" <iknow_morethanyou@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114717476.259978.37980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Mark Stahl wrote:
"IKnowMoreThanYou" <iknow_morethanyou@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114703672.881861.313140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mark Stahl wrote:
<laurie114@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15760ebd.0504271533.4c8fea3c@posting.google.com...
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/schall_liberalpope_apr05.asp
Suppose We Had a "Liberal" Pope
-snip-
This whole essay presumes that the church has not changed its
official
doctrine before, when it most certainly has.
It's your statement. Burden of proof is now on you. Name just one
doctrine that has changed ever. It has to be doctrine now - not
customs, non-sacred tradition, or ecclesiastical discipline (IOW,
non-infallible teachings do not count).
First of all, no teachings are "infallible". Why do we only get to
count
that which you wish to count?
We're discussing the Catholic Church. It only makes sense to use
what the nature of doctrine is for Catholicism, does it not? Would you
believe it right argue a case in a U.S. court demanding the laws of
another country be used?
Obviously we are discussing the catholic law.
Doctrine being considered infallible and unchanging is part of what
the Catholic Church is. You do not have to accept that as a
non-Catholic. Other churches and religions may vary on the nature of
doctrine. I believe it was your words that put "the Church" and
"doctrine" together. Ergo, we go by what doctrine is for the Catholic
Church.
It's now what "I" wish to count. I was trying to prevent you from
making the mistake of confusing doctrine with non-infallible teaching
(which you went ahead and made anyway).
It appears to be a distinction without a difference-- ie, something is no
longer "doctrine" when somebody wants to change it. Whatever. Feel free to
hang your points on the technicality of whether something is "doctrine" or
"church law".
I don't accept your restriction- what the
church used to teach was wrong, is no longer so. That is change.
It's not my restriction. You specifically said "doctrine." If you
want to talk about the Churches teachings and traditions under other
catagories, then be specific and know what you mean.
The article we were discussing was addressing just these kinds of teachings
and traditions. You are using a peculiar definition of the word "doctrine"
with which I am unfamiliar. If you wish, I am happy to call these teachings
whatever you want; they're the things being addressed by the original
poster's article. I find it particularly weak that your objection to what I
wrote stems from this particular definition as opposed to the substance of
our (the author of the article and my) points.
There are many doctrinal issues that the catholic church has changed
over
time:
Slavery: The early Church approved slavery, as seen by St. Paul's
command
for slaves to obey their masters (Col. 3:22-25; Eph. 6:5-8).
Furthermore,
the Catholic Church didn't get around to repudiating slavery until
the 1890s
and prior to that actually supported it in some circumstances (though
advocating a much fairer treatment than they often received). Clergy
often
held slaves themselves. The Holy Roman Empire allowed slavery. This
is
obviously a complex issue, but I think it's fair to say that the
catholic
church has not been entirely consistent in its teachings and in what
it
allows here.
Selling of indulgences and such: used to be allowed, now not.
(FYI The purchasing of indulgences was NEVER a teaching of the Church.
It is a SIN to "sell" indulgences. Those bishops or priests who were
selling indulgences did so illegally and sinfully. In any event this is
not an issue of doctrine.)
Vatican II:
The vulgate: To have the communion service in the language of the
people
was, at one time, a Protestant heresy. The mass had to be said in
Latin.
Then came a period of reform started by Pope John the twenty third,
when it
had to be in the languages of the people instead.
Fasting: Used to be that eating meat on Fridays was a sin, like using
artificial birth control is supposed to be now. Now it's not. My
grandmother
used to complain about this very thing.
Reading Protestant Bibles: used to be a sin, now not
Attending Protestant church services: same deal
Taking communion: used to be a sin to allow the host to touch your
hand, now
people take communion in the hand all the time.
Allowal of the "charismatic movement:"
These doctrinal changes are precisely along the lines of "what was
once a
sin is now OK" and would be perfectly in line with allowing such as
birth
control to be used, and these are just a few minor ones off the top
of my
head, from my catholic school education. It's shocking that you
didn't know
about them.
The items that you mention are not doctrine and never were.
How does one tell the difference? I am seriously asking this question
because your entire objection seems based on a particular definition of this
word, which I cannot confirm.
You
make the common mistake of confusing doctrine and Church/canon law.
I never knew there was a difference. Actually, I assumed that "doctrine" was
a synonym for church law. Either way, I don't really care. It hardly
addresses my point.
Doctrines, which are infallible,
You really should use a phrase like, "considered unfallible by catholics".
They're not actually infallible, you know.
come from the original deposit of
faith of the Apostles. Since there was no new Revelation after the
Apostles, neither the Church nor any Pope can invent new doctrine.
Non-doctrinal teachings can always change.
Fine, if that is your position, you must admit that the "non-doctrinal
teachings" of "no artificial birth control" and "being gay is a sin" and
"abortion is a sin" can change. Yes?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
27 Apr 2005 11:12:31 PM |
|
|
<laurie114@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15760ebd.0504271533.4c8fea3c@posting.google.com...
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/schall_liberalpope_apr05.asp
Suppose We Had a "Liberal" Pope
This Pope, like our passing Pope, is a liberal. When we say the Our Father
we say "sed libera nos a malo". Liberate us from evil.
But the liberal you're speaking of wants to be freed from restraint, which
will eventually chain him to evil.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Sinclair" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
27 Apr 2005 10:49:51 PM |
|
|
In article <ziZbe.105413$f%4.28065@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
<laurie114@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15760ebd.0504271533.4c8fea3c@posting.google.com...
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/schall_liberalpope_apr05.asp
Suppose We Had a "Liberal" Pope
This Pope, like our passing Pope, is a liberal. When we say the Our Father
we say "sed libera nos a malo". Liberate us from evil.
Um ... no "we" don't. He is not the boss of most people in the world ... and
if he, like the last pope, urges no contraception or condoms, he may not
even be the boss of most catholics. :)
But the liberal you're speaking of wants to be freed from restraint, which
will eventually chain him to evil.
Boy ... that's a huge leap of faith. Rather you than me :)
Bruce
-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
- Ambrose Bierce
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 01:31:38 AM |
|
|
"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote
in message news:YXZbe.1956$Od6.297217@news.xtra.co.nz...
In article <ziZbe.105413$f%4.28065@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
<laurie114@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15760ebd.0504271533.4c8fea3c@posting.google.com...
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/schall_liberalpope_apr05.asp
Suppose We Had a "Liberal" Pope
This Pope, like our passing Pope, is a liberal. When we say the Our Father
we say "sed libera nos a malo". Liberate us from evil.
Um ... no "we" don't. He is not the boss of most people in the world ...
and
if he, like the last pope, urges no contraception or condoms, he may not
even be the boss of most catholics. :)
Keep dreaming junior.
But the liberal you're speaking of wants to be freed from restraint, which
will eventually chain him to evil.
Boy ... that's a huge leap of faith. Rather you than me :)
See above.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 10:09:36 AM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz>
wrote
in message news:YXZbe.1956$Od6.297217@news.xtra.co.nz...
In article <ziZbe.105413$f%4.28065@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
But the liberal you're speaking of wants to be freed from
restraint, which
will eventually chain him to evil.
Boy ... that's a huge leap of faith. Rather you than me :)
See above.
It's *your* Hell, Bam - *you* burn in it.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 11:33:26 AM |
|
|
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Suppose We Had a "Liberal" Pope
This Pope, like our passing Pope, is a liberal. When we say the Our Father
we say "sed libera nos a malo". Liberate us from evil.
But the liberal you're speaking of wants to be freed from restraint, which
will eventually chain him to evil.
It's the oldest scam on Earth: Claim that you speak for God and that
people who don't do as you say will suffer in the worst possible way.
Sucker.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 01:41:30 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d4r38l$cq1$1@bolt.sonic.net...
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Suppose We Had a "Liberal" Pope
This Pope, like our passing Pope, is a liberal. When we say the Our Father
we say "sed libera nos a malo". Liberate us from evil.
But the liberal you're speaking of wants to be freed from restraint, which
will eventually chain him to evil.
It's the oldest scam on Earth: Claim that you speak for God and that
people who don't do as you say will suffer in the worst possible way.
Sucker.
Right you are Ray guy. But a counterfeit dollar does not disprove the
existence of Fort Knox. If anything, it affirms it.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 02:46:40 PM |
|
|
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:s1ace.106784$f%4.73543@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d4r38l$cq1$1@bolt.sonic.net...
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Suppose We Had a "Liberal" Pope
This Pope, like our passing Pope, is a liberal. When we say the Our
Father
we say "sed libera nos a malo". Liberate us from evil.
But the liberal you're speaking of wants to be freed from restraint,
which
will eventually chain him to evil.
It's the oldest scam on Earth: Claim that you speak for God and that
people who don't do as you say will suffer in the worst possible way.
Sucker.
Right you are Ray guy. But a counterfeit dollar does not disprove the
existence of Fort Knox. If anything, it affirms it.
And a *real dollar does not 'prove' the existence of Fort Knox, either.
Hell, a real dollar doesn't even prove the existence of gold.
This doesn't even account for determining a fake dollar from a real dollar.
Your analogy just ran headlong into a wall.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 03:41:05 PM |
|
|
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@fuckyoumaverick.com> wrote
Right you are Ray guy. But a counterfeit dollar does not disprove the
existence of Fort Knox. If anything, it affirms it.
And a *real dollar does not 'prove' the existence of Fort Knox, either.
Yes it does.
Hell, a real dollar doesn't even prove the existence of gold.
Who said it did?
This doesn't even account for determining a fake dollar from a real
dollar.
Your analogy just ran headlong into a wall.
It sure did - right up against your thick skull.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 04:28:48 PM |
|
|
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:zNbce.106997$f%4.35711@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@fuckyoumaverick.com> wrote
Right you are Ray guy. But a counterfeit dollar does not disprove the
existence of Fort Knox. If anything, it affirms it.
And a *real dollar does not 'prove' the existence of Fort Knox, either.
Yes it does.
It only proves the existence of the dollar bill. Your conclusion (existence
of Fort Knox) has no link to your premises (the existence of a dollar bill).
Fort Knox is completely non-sequitur.
Hell, a real dollar doesn't even prove the existence of gold.
Who said it did?
You may want to learn the meaning of your analogies before you parrot them.
What the ***** do you think Fort Knox is....? Club Med for Tennessee?
This doesn't even account for determining a fake dollar from a real
dollar.
Your analogy just ran headlong into a wall.
It sure did - right up against your thick skull.
If this is the best you can do, then there is no fear of you reproducing
since you're obviously too stupid to *****.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
29 Apr 2005 08:55:00 AM |
|
|
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@fuckyoumaverick.com> wrote in message
news:kAcce.30308$AE6.692@tornado.texas.rr.com...
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:zNbce.106997$f%4.35711@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@fuckyoumaverick.com> wrote
Right you are Ray guy. But a counterfeit dollar does not disprove the
existence of Fort Knox. If anything, it affirms it.
And a *real dollar does not 'prove' the existence of Fort Knox, either.
Yes it does.
It only proves the existence of the dollar bill. Your conclusion
(existence
of Fort Knox) has no link to your premises (the existence of a dollar
bill).
Fort Knox is completely non-sequitur.
So what. You know what I meant. I meant that a counterfeit dollar does not
disprove the existence of real dollars. But you insist on the sophistry.....
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
01 May 2005 10:21:50 PM |
|
|
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:AZqce.136251$vK6.111231@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@fuckyoumaverick.com> wrote in message
news:kAcce.30308$AE6.692@tornado.texas.rr.com...
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:zNbce.106997$f%4.35711@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@fuckyoumaverick.com> wrote
Right you are Ray guy. But a counterfeit dollar does not disprove
the
existence of Fort Knox. If anything, it affirms it.
And a *real dollar does not 'prove' the existence of Fort Knox,
either.
Yes it does.
It only proves the existence of the dollar bill. Your conclusion
(existence
of Fort Knox) has no link to your premises (the existence of a dollar
bill).
Fort Knox is completely non-sequitur.
So what. You know what I meant.
I'm somehow supposed to divine what you actually meant? Here's an idea: why
don't you just make yourself clear, and think before posting.
I meant that a counterfeit dollar does not
disprove the existence of real dollars.
But you *SAID* that it proves the existence of Fort Knox, not once but
twice.
But you insist on the sophistry.....
Now you're just lying. I insist on accuracy and honesty, neither of which
you bothered to include in your posts.
What is most likely the case is that you watched your analogy fall apart,
and the way you cover your ***** is to backpedal and make invalid claims. In
this case, claiming that I should have somehow known what you 'really'
meant, rather than addressing what you actually wrote.
Speaking of sophistry.....Don't project your shortcomings onto me just
because you can't communicate worth a *****. Had you injected a modicum of
honesty, you would have started by withdrawing your statements and
correcting the error rather than trying to somehow make it *my fault.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
01 May 2005 10:45:20 PM |
|
|
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@fuckyoumaverick.com> wrote
I'm somehow supposed to divine what you actually meant? Here's an idea:
why
don't you just make yourself clear, and think before posting.
Shutup.
I meant that a counterfeit dollar does not
disprove the existence of real dollars.
But you *SAID* that it proves the existence of Fort Knox, not once but
twice.
I originally said nothing about real dollars. I made the mistake of arguing
with a fool, who lured me onto his turf and beat me with experience.
What is most likely the case is that you watched your analogy fall apart,
and the way you cover your ***** is to backpedal and make invalid claims. In
this case, claiming that I should have somehow known what you 'really'
meant, rather than addressing what you actually wrote.
Wasn't my anaology bub. Go back to the beginning. I said that a counterfeit
dollar does not disprove the existence of Fort Knox. (if anything, it would
affirm it - because there can't be a fake unless there's a real thing.)
Speaking of sophistry.....Don't project your shortcomings onto me just
because you can't communicate worth a *****. Had you injected a modicum of
honesty, you would have started by withdrawing your statements and
correcting the error rather than trying to somehow make it *my fault.
Yawn.........
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
01 May 2005 11:05:49 PM |
|
|
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:Phhde.147956$UW6.105891@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@fuckyoumaverick.com> wrote
I'm somehow supposed to divine what you actually meant? Here's an idea:
why
don't you just make yourself clear, and think before posting.
Shutup.
No.
Truth's a *****, ain't it?
The rest of post doesn't even dignify a response. You *did say something,
you *didn't say something, you said something but it wasn't what you really
meant....
.....but it's all my fault that you're a fucking idiot.
Yawn this, cumbubble: <plonk>
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
02 May 2005 12:00:21 AM |
|
|
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@fuckyoumaverick.com> wrote in message
news:xGhde.50760$hu5.17963@tornado.texas.rr.com...
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:Phhde.147956$UW6.105891@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@fuckyoumaverick.com> wrote
I'm somehow supposed to divine what you actually meant? Here's an idea:
why
don't you just make yourself clear, and think before posting.
Shutup.
No.
Truth's a *****, ain't it?
The rest of post doesn't even dignify a response. You *did say something,
you *didn't say something, you said something but it wasn't what you
really
meant....
....but it's all my fault that you're a fucking idiot.
Yawn this, cumbubble: <plonk>
Go back to your gay bathouse.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "• R. L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
02 May 2005 07:19:09 AM |
|
|
In article <7oide.148220$UW6.123082@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
<mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@fuckyoumaverick.com> wrote in message
news:xGhde.50760$hu5.17963@tornado.texas.rr.com...
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:Phhde.147956$UW6.105891@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@fuckyoumaverick.com> wrote
I'm somehow supposed to divine what you actually meant? Here's an idea:
why
don't you just make yourself clear, and think before posting.
Shutup.
No.
Truth's a *****, ain't it?
The rest of post doesn't even dignify a response. You *did say something,
you *didn't say something, you said something but it wasn't what you
really
meant....
....but it's all my fault that you're a fucking idiot.
Yawn this, cumbubble: <plonk>
Go back to your gay bathouse.
*** Batman is what?
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
29 Apr 2005 11:44:58 AM |
|
|
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
So what. You know what I meant. I meant that a counterfeit dollar does not
disprove the existence of real dollars.
The existance of real dollars does not disprove the existance of
counterfeits.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 04:07:52 PM |
|
|
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:zNbce.106997$f%4.35711@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@fuckyoumaverick.com> wrote
Right you are Ray guy. But a counterfeit dollar does not disprove the
existence of Fort Knox. If anything, it affirms it.
And a *real dollar does not 'prove' the existence of Fort Knox, either.
Yes it does.
WOW.
Just Wow.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 04:29:36 PM |
|
|
"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
news:77ydnajvjvo6zezfRVn-jA@giganews.com...
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:zNbce.106997$f%4.35711@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@fuckyoumaverick.com> wrote
Right you are Ray guy. But a counterfeit dollar does not disprove the
existence of Fort Knox. If anything, it affirms it.
And a *real dollar does not 'prove' the existence of Fort Knox, either.
Yes it does.
WOW.
Just Wow.
Pitiful, isn't it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 10:40:59 PM |
|
|
Mark Stahl wrote:
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:zNbce.106997$f%4.35711@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@fuckyoumaverick.com> wrote
Right you are Ray guy. But a counterfeit dollar does not disprove the
existence of Fort Knox. If anything, it affirms it.
And a *real dollar does not 'prove' the existence of Fort Knox, either.
Yes it does.
WOW.
Just Wow.
Indeed. "Bam" just destroyed his or her (already feeble) credibility in
just three little words. Spectacular.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 10:38:05 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@fuckyoumaverick.com> wrote
Right you are Ray guy. But a counterfeit dollar does not disprove the
existence of Fort Knox. If anything, it affirms it.
And a *real dollar does not 'prove' the existence of Fort Knox, either.
Yes it does.
It doen't; it can't. It's absurd to even suggest it does.
Hell, a real dollar doesn't even prove the existence of gold.
Who said it did?
This doesn't even account for determining a fake dollar from a real
dollar.
Your analogy just ran headlong into a wall.
It sure did - right up against your thick skull.
BAM
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
28 Apr 2005 10:16:23 PM |
|
|
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Suppose We Had a "Liberal" Pope
This Pope, like our passing Pope, is a liberal. When we say the Our Father
we say "sed libera nos a malo". Liberate us from evil.
But the liberal you're speaking of wants to be freed from restraint, which
will eventually chain him to evil.
It's the oldest scam on Earth: Claim that you speak for God and that
people who don't do as you say will suffer in the worst possible way.
Sucker.
Right you are Ray guy. But a counterfeit dollar does not disprove the
existence of Fort Knox.
It proves that the dollar is fake.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "birdboy2000" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the Pope was a liberal ? |
27 Apr 2005 08:38:44 PM |
|
|
(Though this does make for a fascinating, if ASBish, what-if)
Speaking as a secular person who doesn't care about internal church
doctrine...
If the church wants to say abortion, contraception, homosexuality, et
al are immoral... I have no problem with that.
If, on the other hand, they want to lead the fight against same-sex
CIVIL marriage, spread misinformation about the effectiveness of
condoms, lobby to ban contraception, and other such things, I have a
huge problem with that.
I have no problem with them telling their followers what's moral and
what's not. But could they please let me sin in peace? :P
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
