Ask A Catholic

[terryobrien80]

Hello there. I am a Conservative and a Catholic. I am real about my conservatism and I am real about my Catholicism. If you have a question about Catholicism that you feel you have never gotten a straight answer to, ask me and you'll get it. I have taught classes in "Apologetics" (Defending The Faith) so I can either give you a correct answer, or at least I can link you to the correct information. Believe me, there are plenty of websites that have crappy information and some websites that have good information, and I know the difference.

If anyone is REALLY intersted in this, here is a bit of a primer; the best condensed explanation of Catholicism online (about a 5 to 10 minute read): http://www.catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

(Please be respectful. Thank you)

[Bricker]

Are you a Knight of Columbus? If not, why not? :)
And if so, welcome to the SDMB, Brother!

Bricker, PGK, FDD, PFN

[tomndebb]

(Please be respectful. Thank you)Good luck.

[terryobrien80]

Are you a Knight of Columbus? If not, why not? :)
And if so, welcome to the SDMB, Brother!

Bricker, PGK, FDD, PFN

No, I am not a K of C. I kinda came to the faith late in life. My mentors did the same: Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, etc. My favorite Catholic authors are protestant converts to Catholicism.

Thanks for the welcome. I would have said hello, but I did not see a "meet and greet" or "introductions" section.

[terryobrien80]

(Please be respectful. Thank you)
Good luck.

Oh, is it like that here? LOL. Okay.

A note to everyone: I had no idea this forum moved so fast. If I don't get to your question, be patient. I will do my best.

[tomndebb]

Actually, as this is an "Ask the. . . " thread, it is not really a debate, as such. (I am more than sure that any answers will prompt a lot of debates, but they can all return to this forum individually.)

I am moving this to the MPSIMS forum, (where I think the earlier similar threads were posted).

[ /Modding ]

[Giles]

Bricker, PGK, FDD, PFN
I went to Wikipedia to find out what these abbreviations might mean:

PGK = Pasukan Gerakan Khas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasukan_Gerakan_Khas)
FDD = Foundation for Defense of Democracies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Defense_of_Democracies)
PFN = Parti des forces nouvelles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_New_Forces)

Or is Bricker claiming something other than belonging to a Malaysian special police unit, a Washington thinktank, and a far-right French political party?

[Gyrate]

Bricker, PGK, FDD, PFNMy first question is: what do those letters stand for?

Second: would you care to make a pre-emptive statement about your view of the whole Church-covering-up-for-child-molesters thing? It'll get mentioned soon enough anyway.

Thirdly, do you feel that there is a fundamental culture clash between Catholicism as it is practiced in America versus how it is practiced in predominantly Catholic countries?

And a tip: Der Tris, or someone like him, will be along shortly to say something about how all religion is bunk and all believers are stupid. I suggest moving swiftly past, or you'll never get your thread back. Don't take it personally.

[Nava]

What are Knights of Columbus? (Yes, I could search for it. But I'm lazy, I'm curious about why they came up so fast, and you guys give more interesting answers than most other sources)


IAN the OP but I noticed differences between Catholics in the US and those in Spain (for those in the US it's more of a conscious option and of an identity), but the variation depending on which "branch" of Catholicism you're talking about is still bigger: the Franciscans are as kumbayah and the Jesuits as brainiac over there as over here.

[spazattak]

How do you reconcile your conservative mistrust of government with your acceptance of an authoritarian church governance structure?

[Count Blucher]

I went to Wikipedia to find out what these abbreviations might mean:

PGK = Pasukan Gerakan Khas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasukan_Gerakan_Khas)
FDD = Foundation for Defense of Democracies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Defense_of_Democracies)
PFN = Parti des forces nouvelles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_New_Forces)

Or is Bricker claiming something other than belonging to a Malaysian special police unit, a Washington thinktank, and a far-right French political party?

I think Bricker is claiming to be a member of a Washington thinktank who is ordering lunch delivered & doesn't know if he is in the mood for Malaysian or French. If pressed, I think he'd provide a FAX number for various restaurants to send over today's Specials. :D

[Procrustus]

Would you live your life differently if you were not a Catholic? If so, how? (and I suppose, Why?)

[MeanOldLady]

Is Catholicism so rare where you live that you think this would be something people would need to ask you about?

[Bricker]

Not meaning to hijack Teryy's thread here...

The Knights of Columbus are a lay Catholic fraternal order, established in 1882. Each of those letters refers to a past office held in the order: Past Grand Knight, Former District Deputy, Past Faithful Navigator.

The Knights operate in local units called councils. The Grand Knight is the title given to the elected leader of a local council; he serves a one-year term. Five or six local councils are under the supervision and guidance of a District Deputy, appointed by the state's elected leader, the State Deputy.

The Knights also have what amounts to an attendant organization, the Fourth Degree. Fourth Degree Knights meet and organize in additional groups called assemblies; the elected leader of a Fourth Degree assembly is a Faithful Navigator.

[Nava]

How do you reconcile your conservative mistrust of government with your acceptance of an authoritarian church governance structure?

OP, are you the kind of conservative who considers mistrust of government as an essential part of conservatism? And since I'm asking to define your branch of politics, which branch of catholicism (putting it in terms of religious orders)?

[jsgoddess]

Is Catholicism so rare where you live that you think this would be something people would need to ask you about?

I feel like I missed a good gig. If only I hadn't abandoned Catholicism, I too could be this rarest of creatures.

[Gyrate]

Oh, another one:

Do you feel that the amount of influence Opus Dei has in the Church is too much, not enough or just right?

[Bricker]

Is Catholicism so rare where you live that you think this would be something people would need to ask you about?

Again not to speak for the OP, but in my experience, many Catholics don't have a solid understanding of their purported faith. They did once -- they were, in their youth, probably taught the faith in great detail. But just as most adults probably can't factor a binomial equation or discuss what the Treaty of Ghent did, they have forgotten what they once knew.

And if many Catholics don't know their faiith, then, a fortiori, many non-Catholics will likely also not know the Catholic faith.

[Beniamino]

Hello there. I am a Conservative and a Catholic. I am real about my conservatism and I am real about my Catholicism.

Hello there.

I hope you're not meaning to imply that the Catholic faith is somehow tied to political conservatism, are you? I am as pro-life as one can get; I do not believe gay marriage should be legalized; and I am concerned about the lack of morality in modern political discourse.

I also believe in universal health care, the rights of the working class and labor unions, care for the poor and disabled, avoiding unjust wars, concern for the environment, and public transportation.

So, sometimes my Catholic conscience causes me to vote for a Democrat, and sometimes for a Republican (albeit less so in Western Pennsylvania, where "Democrat" is a much more inclusive group than elsewhere).

tl;dr version -- My question: Do I "sin" when I vote for a Democrat?

(To Dopers -- this is not a silly question, there have been exhaustive threads on precisely this issue on the website cited by the OP, and I'd like to see where he's coming from on that angle).

[Munch]

Terry - do you feel that priests have an obligation to withhold the sacrament from public political leaders who they feel have violated catholic doctrine, without any knowledge whatsoever of that political leader's current standing with the church (i.e. tendency and frequency of receiving reconciliation, etc.)?

[Sunspace]

Welcome!

You may find this board a tough gig for people who confuse faith and science.

On to my questions...

Why are works defending the faith called "apologetics"? This doesn't sound like the usual meaning of 'apology' to me--"I'm sorry, I did something wrong"--has the English word drifted in meaning?

[Beniamino]

Welcome!

You may find this board a tough gig for people who confuse faith and science.

On to my questions...

Why are works defending the faith called "apologetics"? This doesn't sound like the usual meaning of 'apology' to me--"I'm sorry, I did something wrong"--has the English word drifted in meaning?

Crap, he's offline. I'll take this one.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apology

apology

1530s, "defense, justification," from L.L. apologia , from Gk. apologia "a speech in defense," from apologeisthai "to speak in one's defense," from apologos "an account, story," from apo- "from, off" (see apo-) + logos "speech." The original English sense of "self-justification" yielded a meaning "frank expression of regret for wrong done," first recorded 1590s, but it was not the main sense until 18c. The old sense tends to emerge in Latin form apologia (first attested 1784), especially since J.H. Newman's "Apologia pro Vita Sua" (1864).

[RitterSport]

How many core Catholic tenets can one violate and still be considered Catholic by the church? Can one skip church? Use birth control? Have pre-marital sex? Support the death penalty? Get a divorce? Have an abortion?

What's your view on the recent excommunication of the nun (and, basically, the whole hospital) where an abortion was performed in order to save the life of that mother? Was the bishop who did the excommunication right or wrong?

What is the official Catholic view on people who die without being baptized? Does it matter whether they had the opportunity to be baptized?

I don't know what kind of conservative you are, but it seems that some forms of fiscal conservative that would deny welfare and health care to the poorest among us seem to go against Catholic teaching. What is your view on that?

What is your view on the Iraq war? I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that the Catholic church was against it, and many conservatives were for it.

What is your view on condom programs in Africa?

I know the Catholic church is opposed to abortion and mostly opposed to the death penalty. Why does the Catholic church seem to give a pass to pro-death penalty politicians but not pro-choice politicians (even if they are personally opposed to abortion)?

[Kyla]

Is Catholicism so rare where you live that you think this would be something people would need to ask you about?

In all fairness, while I know some Catholics (my mom's family is Irish Catholic, although most of them, including my mom, are lapsed), it's hard to ask them the sort of question you can ask in a "ask the" thread, like "how can you possibly remain loyal to an institution that has repeatedly been shown to care more about child molesters than the children they have victimized?". You know, without sounding like an asshole. But that's already been asked, so it's just a hypothetical.

[MeanOldLady]

Again not to speak for the OP, but in my experience, many Catholics don't have a solid understanding of their purported faith. They did once -- they were, in their youth, probably taught the faith in great detail. But just as most adults probably can't factor a binomial equation or discuss what the Treaty of Ghent did, they have forgotten what they once knew.

And if many Catholics don't know their faiith, then, a fortiori, many non-Catholics will likely also not know the Catholic faith.True, but people not knowing about their own religion isn't uncommon, I wouldn't think enough of a reason to prompt a Q&A. I wouldn't go to Alabama and start an "Ask the Baptist" discussion. If you're not a Baptist, you've probably run into one, and know as much about it as you're willing to. I would in AL start a "Ask the Baha'i" chat.

In all fairness, while I know some Catholics (my mom's family is Irish Catholic, although most of them, including my mom, are lapsed), it's hard to ask them the sort of question you can ask in a "ask the" thread, like "how can you possibly remain loyal to an institution that has repeatedly been shown to care more about child molesters than the children they have victimized?". You know, without sounding like an asshole. But that's already been asked, so it's just a hypothetical.Fair enough.

[YogSosoth]

Do you agree with everything the Church says or is there aspects of the faith that you hold true that the Church does not?

[Sunspace]

Crap, he's offline. I'll take this one.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apology

apology

1530s, "defense, justification," from L.L. apologia , from Gk. apologia "a speech in defense," from apologeisthai "to speak in one's defense," from apologos "an account, story," from apo- "from, off" (see apo-) + logos "speech." The original English sense of "self-justification" yielded a meaning "frank expression of regret for wrong done," first recorded 1590s, but it was not the main sense until 18c. The old sense tends to emerge in Latin form apologia (first attested 1784), especially since J.H. Newman's "Apologia pro Vita Sua" (1864).So are these rational or emotional arguments? I ask because, in my very limited experience, religious faith is not a rational thing, so it's hard for me to understand how someone could be rationally convinced into changing their faith. Are they to shore up the beliefs of people who already have the faith, and may be doubting?

[Zeriel]

I know the Catholic church is opposed to abortion and mostly opposed to the death penalty. Why does the Catholic church seem to give a pass to pro-death penalty politicians but not pro-choice politicians (even if they are personally opposed to abortion)?

Paraphrased from my (very) Catholic dad: "There are many orders of magnitude more abortions than there are executions. Once we deal with abortion, the death penalty is next. Heck, there were less than 50 executions in the US last year, we're already doing pretty well there."

[RitterSport]

On the other hand, it would be much easier to stop 50 death penalties than however many abortions, so the church could knock that problem off the list pretty easily. And, it's still a state-by-state issue, so they could attack the problem piecemeal, similar to how gay marriage is becoming legalized piecemeal.

Anyway, I know it's not your position, but it still seems like an inconsistent position to take, especially when some bishop goes so far as to deny communion to a pro-choice politician, but not the pro-death penalty politician.

[terryobrien80]

.......Second: would you care to make a pre-emptive statement about your view of the whole Church-covering-up-for-child-molesters thing? It'll get mentioned soon enough anyway........

One question at a time. (I'll get to the rest.)

Let me give you some facts. Its hard to put briefly, but I will try:

FIRST: The Church is not a single corporate entitily as most people think. Even though were are "one" regarding doctrines and beliefs, when it comes to management and administrative affairs, each diocese and its bishop are COMPLETELY autonomous. You could compare the set-up to the governors of states: Governors are all Americans under the same American flag and US Constitution, but no governor has any say at all in what another governor of another state does. So while a few misguided bishops handled things badly, you cannot say that "the whole Church-covering-up-for-child-molesters". That is simply a non-sequitor. The vast majority of bishops handle their business just fine. But, just as there was a Judas among the 12 apostles (constituting about an 8% screw-up ratio) there are always some bad eggs in the Church.

SECOND: The VAST mojority of these cases involved boys around the age of 14 or so. That means the issue is homosexuality, not pedophelia. This is a CRUCIAL point that the media TOTALLY ignored. Why? Because the media PROMOTES the homosexual lifestyle, and they can hardly say that it caused the problem. But framing it as "pedophelia" was sure to arouse anger because people hate those who harm children (and the media hates the church I might add) and that was the spin the media gave it.

Now mind you, I AM NOT EXCUSING THE PRIESTS AT ALL. But, you cannot fix a problem if you don't know the root of the problem, and it was not pedophelia (although there were a few instances of that as well.)

[terryobrien80]

Holy Cow!! All these posts already? Give me some time folks.

[terryobrien80]

What are Knights of Columbus? (Yes, I could search for it. But I'm lazy, I'm curious about why they came up so fast, and you guys give more interesting answers than most other sources)


IAN the OP but I noticed differences between Catholics in the US and those in Spain (for those in the US it's more of a conscious option and of an identity), but the variation depending on which "branch" of Catholicism you're talking about is still bigger: the Franciscans are as kumbayah and the Jesuits as brainiac over there as over here.

You are talking about "orders", not branches.

All priests - or nuns for that matter - belong to the One Church, and believe in One set of doctrines. The different "orders" are based on the spiritual disciplines of their founders and emphasize one aspect of the faith more than others: Jesuits, Fransiscans, Dominicans, the Sisters of Mercy, etc. etc. Some emphasize education, some emphasize care for the poor, some emphasize the monastic disciplines, etc.

[terryobrien80]

How do you reconcile your conservative mistrust of government with your acceptance of an authoritarian church governance structure?

That's an easy one, from a Catholic perspective that is.

Governments were created by men and are flawed.
The Church was founded by Jesus and is guided by the Holy Spirit. God guides those he chooses to teach: He guided the prophets, he guided the men who wrote the Bible, and I believe he guides the Pope and Bishops, who we consider to be the "successors" of the Apostles.

I question man's inventions, but not that which was established by Christ.

[terryobrien80]

Would you live your life differently if you were not a Catholic? If so, how? (and I suppose, Why?)

Well that's not really a Catholic-specific question. Who can say how each of us would have led our lives if we had taken a diffent path in the past. I really do not know the answer to that.

[Sunspace]

SECOND: The VAST mojority of these cases involved boys around the age of 14 or so. That means the issue is homosexuality, not pedophelia. This is a CRUCIAL point that the media TOTALLY ignored. Why? Because the media PROMOTES the homosexual lifestyle, and they can hardly say that it caused the problem. But framing it as "pedophelia" was sure to arouse anger because people hate those who harm children (and the media hates the church I might add) and that was the spin the media gave it.The media are not a single corporate entity either with a unified viewpoint and agenda either. I'm surprised you make that mistake after catching it in the description of the church.

But it sounds to me more like the issue was unwanted sexual advances. Whether they were homosexual or heterosexual was not as important as whether they were wanted. Another problem was whether the advancer was in a position of power over the target. There's a reason we don't allow teachers or bosses to have sexual relationships with those they have power over: two people can't have a relationship of equals and a relationship of unequals at the same time.

[terryobrien80]

Is Catholicism so rare where you live that you think this would be something people would need to ask you about?


Bishop Fulton J. Sheen once said:

"There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing."

That is so very true. The majority of people - including many Catholics sadly - don't understand what the Church truly is and what it actually does teache. they THINK they do, but they don't Whenever I can I like to provide information.

[Beniamino]

So are these rational or emotional arguments? I ask because, in my very limited experience, religious faith is not a rational thing, so it's hard for me to understand how someone could be rationally convinced into changing their faith. Are they to shore up the beliefs of people who already have the faith, and may be doubting?

Good question. I'd tend to dismiss "emotional" argumentation right off the bat, because I think most religious people would agree that faith is not dependent on "emotion". Moreover, argumentation from emotion is a logical fallacy. I'm never going to believe something because you tell me you [I]feel that it's true, and, while I may be "wowed" by an impassioned discourse, once the "feeling" subsides, any such discourse would have to stand on its own merits.

But, is apologetics "rational"? Here's what the 1907 Catholic Encylcopedia has to say, at a time when the world was at the height of empiricist / positivist sway:

[Apologetics] addresses itself not to the hostile opponent for the purpose of refutation, but rather to the inquiring mind by way of information. Its aim is to give a scientific presentation of the claims which Christ's revealed religion has on the assent of every rational mind; it seeks to lead the inquirer after truth to recognize, first, the reasonableness and trustworthiness of the Christian revelation as realized in the Catholic Church, and secondly, the corresponding obligation of accepting it. While not compelling faith — for the certitude it offers is not absolute, but moral — it shows that the credentials of the Christian religion amply suffice to vindicate the act of faith as a rational act, and to discredit the estrangement of the sceptic and unbeliever as unwarranted and culpable.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01618a.htm

So, the argument itself has to be rational, and internally logically consistent, but "revelation" itself is not something that can be "proven" a priori, or according to Newton's scientific method. It's revealed. Logical argumentation might make one more or less receptive to revealed truth, but it can never convince, in and of itself, absent an act of faith assisted by the Holy Spirit.

That's all I can say off the top of my head without referring to a Catechism or other authority.

But, in short, I don't think that in 21st Century society, faith and reason are in conflict. Physicists can't say there is no God, and theologians can't speculate as to what might have happened, cosmologically speaking, a moment or two before the Big Bang.

[jsgoddess]

One question at a time. (I'll get to the rest.)

Let me give you some facts. Its hard to put briefly, but I will try:

FIRST: The Church is not a single corporate entitily as most people think. Even though were are "one" regarding doctrines and beliefs, when it comes to management and administrative affairs, each diocese and its bishop are COMPLETELY autonomous. You could compare the set-up to the governors of states: Governors are all Americans under the same American flag and US Constitution, but no governor has any say at all in what another governor of another state does.

Individual dioceses are definitely not completely autonomous and the Vatican (remember them?) has been heavily implicated in quite a few of the cases that have come to light.

[terryobrien80]

SECOND: The VAST mojority of these cases involved boys around the age of 14 or so. That means the issue is homosexuality, not pedophelia. This is a CRUCIAL point that the media TOTALLY ignored. Why? Because the media PROMOTES the homosexual lifestyle, and they can hardly say that it caused the problem. But framing it as "pedophelia" was sure to arouse anger because people hate those who harm children (and the media hates the church I might add) and that was the spin the media gave it.

Now mind you, I AM NOT EXCUSING THE PRIESTS AT ALL. But, you cannot fix a problem if you don't know the root of the problem, and it was not pedophelia (although there were a few instances of that as well.)
The media are not a single corporate entity either with a unified viewpoint and agenda either. I'm surprised you make that mistake after catching it in the description of the church.

But it sounds to me more like the issue was unwanted sexual advances. Whether they were homosexual or heterosexual was not as important as whether they were wanted. Another problem was whether the advancer was in a position of power over the target. There's a reason we don't allow teachers or bosses to have sexual relationships with those they have power over: two people can't have a relationship of equals at the same time as a relationship of unequals.


I know the media is not monolthic in its political and social views, but there IS a general ignorance in matters of the Church.

As I said, I in no way am trying to excuse those priests. And you're right: Unwanted sexual advances are wrong in ANY situation. But just as a doctor cannot cure a disease without a proper diagnosis, so too this problem cannot be fixed unless its roots are properly understood.

[shiftless]

SECOND: The VAST mojority of these cases involved boys around the age of 14 or so. That means the issue is homosexuality, not pedophelia. This is a CRUCIAL point that the media TOTALLY ignored. Why? Because the media PROMOTES the homosexual lifestyle, and they can hardly say that it caused the problem. But framing it as "pedophelia" was sure to arouse anger because people hate those who harm children (and the media hates the church I might add) and that was the spin the media gave it.


Is this your opinion or is this a view expressed by the Catholic church?

[terryobrien80]

Individual dioceses are definitely not completely autonomous and the Vatican (remember them?) has been heavily implicated in quite a few of the cases that have come to light.

I am sorry, but you are incorrect. As I said, a bishop and his diocese can be likened to the governors of states: Governors are all Americans under the same American flag and US Constitution, but no governor has any say at all in what another governor of another state does, and neither does the president.

Under Canon Law the Pope cannot just come into the Arch-Diocese of Los Angeles, for example, and start calling the shots. Its just not done. In keeping with my analogy, the president can't come to Sacramento and start ordering around the governor's staff either.

You are simply mistaken in this regard.

[Crafter_Man]

I am a Lapsed Catholic. The main reason is due so many Catholics embracing a "social justice" theme as part of their faith. :(

What are your thoughts on the "social justice" movement within the Catholic Church?

[terryobrien80]

Originally Posted by terryobrien80 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13451846#post13451846)
SECOND: The VAST mojority of these cases involved boys around the age of 14 or so. That means the issue is homosexuality, not pedophelia. This is a CRUCIAL point that the media TOTALLY ignored. Why? Because the media PROMOTES the homosexual lifestyle, and they can hardly say that it caused the problem. But framing it as "pedophelia" was sure to arouse anger because people hate those who harm children (and the media hates the church I might add) and that was the spin the media gave it.
Is this your opinion or is this a view expressed by the Catholic church?

Neither. Its the stats. I'll dig them up if you want.

[johnpost]

how many medals, scapulars or cords do you wear?

are you a member of a lay order?

[Beniamino]

Individual dioceses are definitely not completely autonomous and the Vatican (remember them?) has been heavily implicated in quite a few of the cases that have come to light.

I really don't think it has. I do remember reading a lot of wild headlines and accusations, but when the investigations turned up nothing, the stories sort of died away. I don't recall (and I could be wrong) a single instance of the Vatican knowingly covering up a credible sexual abuse allegation.

Thankfully, the alleged incidences of sexual abuse seem to have peaked in the early 1980's, so whatever the Church has been doing in terms of "screening" priests appears to be working. It's a horrible thing to happen to even one child, but just as God forgives us, we can forgive those misguided Bishops who handeld these accusations poorly, and even the priests themselves (though we would not want them to return to active ministry).

And we have to give credit where credit is due vis a vis remedial action. People will always seek out the priesthood for the wrong reasons, and no human agency will ever be able to weed them all out, just as no school, day care, or family can be 100% prepared for an abuser within their respective spheres.

[terryobrien80]

I am a Lapsed Catholic. The main reason is due so many Catholics embracing a "social justice" theme as part of their faith. :(

What are your thoughts on the "social justice" movement within the Catholic Church?


It is no secret the Lberals are infiltrating the Church and screwing things up on the local levels.

But I would ask you: Was your faith that tenuous that you let e few jugheads screw it up for you? If you TRULY believed in the Faith, you would not let them do that. To coin a phrase, "We cannot leave Peter because of Judas".

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6qZd_xP1w

In fact, I invite all of you to watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6qZd_xP1w

[terryobrien80]

how many medals, scapulars or cords do you wear?

are you a member of a lay order?

Ah, the important stuff, eh? LOL.

1. The only thing I wear is a nice, small cross that was blessed by Pope Jogn Paul II
2. I am not a member of an order.



Originally Posted by jsgoddess http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13451917#post13451917)
Individual dioceses are definitely not completely autonomous and the Vatican (remember them?) has been heavily implicated in quite a few of the cases that have come to light.


Good people are always "implicated" by those who wish to destroy them. I seem to remember a certain fellow nailed to a cross....................

[shiftless]

Neither. Its the stats. I'll dig them up if you want.

I doubt you will be able to show statistics that prove some of the things you claim but it might be interesting. For example "Because the media PROMOTES the homosexual lifestyle" sounds like an opinion to me. An opinion you are welcome to hold if you like. My question is whether you have formulated this for yourself or is it the actual stated position of the church.

[Sunspace]

Good question. I'd tend to dismiss "emotional" argumentation right off the bat, because I think most religious people would agree that faith is not dependent on "emotion". Moreover, argumentation from emotion is a logical fallacy. I'm never going to believe something because you tell me you feel that it's true, and, while I may be "wowed" by an impassioned discourse, once the "feeling" subsides, any such discourse would have to stand on its own merits.That's very interesting. From watching my friend who has found (or maybe returned) to her faith, it seems to me to have an emotional substratum: she is much much happier now that she has her faith. And because of that, I am happy for her. I wonder whether part of that happiness is the feeling of being cared for, as one is during childhood.

Yet there is a core to faith which is utterly incomprehensible to me. I just don't get it. If it's not logical or rational, and it's not emotional, what is it? I said to her once that it would literally take a miracle for me to understand it, something on the order of the Divine Finger reaching down and rearranging my brain.But, is apologetics "rational"? Here's what the 1907 Catholic Encylcopedia has to say, at a time when the world was at the height of empiricist / positivist sway...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01618a.htm

So, the argument itself has to be rational, and internally logically consistent, but "revelation" itself is not something that can be "proven" a priori, or according to Newton's scientific method. It's revealed. Logical argumentation might make one more or less receptive to revealed truth, but it can never convince, in and of itself, absent an act of faith assisted by the Holy Spirit. So revelation is one of the axioms of the system. Makes sense to me. If you have it, you have it, and if you don't, you don't, and there's not much else that can be said about it.But, in short, I don't think that in 21st Century society, faith and reason are in conflict. Physicists can't say there is no God, and theologians can't speculate as to what might have happened, cosmologically speaking, a moment or two before the Big Bang.I wish more people got this. When people put up as articles of faith things that have actually been proven wrong, it weakens the whole intellectual authority of religion.

It's as if I said, "The sky is purple". Not "I believe that the sky is purple", but an actual statement of fact that the sky is purple. And you looked outside and saw that it was blue. Then you'd be less likely to believe any of the other things I say.

[Gyrate]

You are all kindly invited to take the child abuse debate to Great Debates (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=596641) to avoid derailing the genuinely MPSIMS content of this thread.

Prob'ly too late though.

[terryobrien80]

Neither. Its the stats. I'll dig them up if you want.

I doubt you will be able to show statistics that prove some of the things you claim but it might be interesting. For example "Because the media PROMOTES the homosexual lifestyle" sounds like an opinion to me. An opinion you are welcome to hold if you like. My question is whether you have formulated this for yourself or is it the actual stated position of the church.


editing..........

[spazattak]

That's an easy one, from a Catholic perspective that is.

Governments were created by men and are flawed.
The Church was founded by Jesus and is guided by the Holy Spirit. God guides those he chooses to teach: He guided the prophets, he guided the men who wrote the Bible, and I believe he guides the Pope and Bishops, who we consider to be the "successors" of the Apostles.

I question man's inventions, but not that which was established by Christ.
You just opened several cans of worms.

You consider the catholic church - a human organization created by human (Jesus was human even by Catholic standards), and staffed by humans and has undergone human changes for 2000 years, to be God's invention?

Was selling indulgences God's invention? How about the crusades? The people responsible for them were being guided by God after all.

I'll let the biblical experts deal with the writing of the bible part...

An actual analysis of the historical behavior of the Catholic Church would seem to demonstrate just how human it is...

[jsgoddess]

I am sorry, but you are incorrect. As I said, a bishop and his diocese can be likened to the governors of states: Governors are all Americans under the same American flag and US Constitution, but no governor has any say at all in what another governor of another state does, and neither does the president.

Under Canon Law the Pope cannot just come into the Arch-Diocese of Los Angeles, for example, and start calling the shots. Its just not done. In keeping with my analogy, the president can't come to Sacramento and start ordering around the governor's staff either.

You are simply mistaken in this regard.

The pope can remove a bishop. The pope appoints bishops. The pope directs and admonishes and supports bishops. When bishops do things the Vatican actually wants to take action on, the Vatican takes action. Let a bishop, for example, start marrying gays and see how long it takes for the Vatican to step in.

It's absolute bullshit to in any way compare this to state governors and the president. A much closer analogy is ambassadors and the president.

And yeah, I know that the Vatican tries to argue, now, that they just had no idea and no ability to control those wascally bishops now that it's a matter of record what the bishops were doing (sometimes at the behest of the Vatican) and now that the Vatican is in danger of lawsuit for their craven and despicable efforts to guarantee that RCC priests had a constant supply of ignorant victims.

[Skammer]

I hope you're not meaning to imply that the Catholic faith is somehow tied to political conservatism, are you? I am as pro-life as one can get; I do not believe gay marriage should be legalized; and I am concerned about the lack of morality in modern political discourse.

I also believe in universal health care, the rights of the working class and labor unions, care for the poor and disabled, avoiding unjust wars, concern for the environment, and public transportation.

So, sometimes my Catholic conscience causes me to vote for a Democrat, and sometimes for a Republican (albeit less so in Western Pennsylvania, where "Democrat" is a much more inclusive group than elsewhere).

tl;dr version -- My question: Do I "sin" when I vote for a Democrat?

(To Dopers -- this is not a silly question, there have been exhaustive threads on precisely this issue on the website cited by the OP, and I'd like to see where he's coming from on that angle).

I'd like to repeat this question. I'm not Catholic, but a close cousin (Anglican) and my political views are very similar to Beniamino's -- which makes it hard to choose who to vote for, although I typically end up voting Democrat. I know conservative Anglicans who consider voting for any pro-choice candidate practically an unforgivable sin, yet do not worry about the rights of the poor or powerless. Jesus addressed one of these two issues quite often, and it wasn't abortion... Do you find yourself identifying more closely with one political party or the other?

[Beniamino]

It is no secret the Liberals are infiltrating the Church and screwing things up on the local levels.[...]

See, that's what I was getting at with my post #19. I don't know if you're drawing a distinction between the word "liberal" in the sense of "politically liberal", e.g., concerned with social issues, or "theologically liberal", e.g., ad-libbing the mass or other liturgical abuses.

Would you mind addressing my question in post #19?

ETA: or this one:


Skammer
I'd like to repeat this question. I'm not Catholic, but a close cousin (Anglican) and my political views are very similar to Beniamino's -- which makes it hard to choose who to vote for, although I typically end up voting Democrat. I know conservative Anglicans who consider voting for any pro-choice candidate practically an unforgivable sin, yet do not worry about the rights of the poor or powerless. Jesus addressed one of these two issues quite often, and it wasn't abortion... Do you find yourself identifying more closely with one political party or the other?

[terryobrien80]

editing..........



Neither. Its the stats. I'll dig them up if you want.

I doubt you will be able to show statistics that prove some of the things you claim but it might be interesting. For example "Because the media PROMOTES the homosexual lifestyle" sounds like an opinion to me. An opinion you are welcome to hold if you like. My question is whether you have formulated this for yourself or is it the actual stated position of the church.


Unfortunately, the study conducted by the USCCB is downloadable only in multiple PDF's.

I snap-shotted some of them and posted it in another form (to which I no longer belong). I can't post images here, otherwise I would.

If you want to see it, look at Post #2 here: http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/sexual-morality/4383-homosexuality-apparently-problem.html#post78316

[terryobrien80]

Originally Posted by terryobrien80 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13451883#post13451883)
That's an easy one, from a Catholic perspective that is.

Governments were created by men and are flawed.
The Church was founded by Jesus and is guided by the Holy Spirit. God guides those he chooses to teach: He guided the prophets, he guided the men who wrote the Bible, and I believe he guides the Pope and Bishops, who we consider to be the "successors" of the Apostles.

I question man's inventions, but not that which was established by Christ.
You just opened several cans of worms.

You consider the catholic church - a human organization created by human (Jesus was human even by Catholic standards), and staffed by humans and has undergone human changes for 2000 years, to be God's invention?

Was selling indulgences God's invention? How about the crusades? The people responsible for them were being guided by God after all.

I'll let the biblical experts deal with the writing of the bible part...

An actual analysis of the historical behavior of the Catholic Church would seem to demonstrate just how human it is...

The Catholic Church is a Divine Instution with human members. Huimans sin: I never denied that. But the "teachings" are what are not in error, and that is duw to the Holy Spirit.

I have given you my perspective. I never said I was going to convince you that I am right

BTW: Indulgences are not an error. "Selling" them was a sin, not condoned by Rome

[twickster]

The pope can remove a bishop. The pope appoints bishops. The pope directs and admonishes and supports bishops. When bishops do things the Vatican actually wants to take action on, the Vatican takes action. Let a bishop, for example, start marrying gays and see how long it takes for the Vatican to step in.

It's absolute bullshit to in any way compare this to state governors and the president. A much closer analogy is ambassadors and the president.

And yeah, I know that the Vatican tries to argue, now, that they just had no idea and no ability to control those wascally bishops now that it's a matter of record what the bishops were doing (sometimes at the behest of the Vatican) and now that the Vatican is in danger of lawsuit for their craven and despicable efforts to guarantee that RCC priests had a constant supply of ignorant victims.

We're in MPSIMS, not the Pit or GD -- pls. dial back the invective a tad.

Thanks,

twickster, MPSIMS moderator

[terryobrien80]

Originally Posted by terryobrien80 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13451944#post13451944)
I am sorry, but you are incorrect. As I said, a bishop and his diocese can be likened to the governors of states: Governors are all Americans under the same American flag and US Constitution, but no governor has any say at all in what another governor of another state does, and neither does the president.

Under Canon Law the Pope cannot just come into the Arch-Diocese of Los Angeles, for example, and start calling the shots. Its just not done. In keeping with my analogy, the president can't come to Sacramento and start ordering around the governor's staff either.

You are simply mistaken in this regard.
The pope can remove a bishop. The pope appoints bishops. The pope directs and admonishes and supports bishops. When bishops do things the Vatican actually wants to take action on, the Vatican takes action. Let a bishop, for example, start marrying gays and see how long it takes for the Vatican to step in.

It's absolute bullshit to in any way compare this to state governors and the president. A much closer analogy is ambassadors and the president.

And yeah, I know that the Vatican tries to argue, now, that they just had no idea and no ability to control those wascally bishops now that it's a matter of record what the bishops were doing (sometimes at the behest of the Vatican) and now that the Vatican is in danger of lawsuit for their craven and despicable efforts to guarantee that RCC priests had a constant supply of ignorant victims.


I always love to see a non-Catholic tell an orthodox Catholic what his church does and does not do.

[terryobrien80]

You are all kindly invited to take the child abuse debate to Great Debates (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=596641) to avoid derailing the genuinely MPSIMS content of this thread.

Prob'ly too late though.

Thank you. I would like to answer questions about true "Catholicism", not about the sins of individual people... ...an area in which NONE of us are "saints" I think its fair to say.

[Skammer]

I am a Lapsed Catholic. The main reason is due so many Catholics embracing a "social justice" theme as part of their faith. :(

What are your thoughts on the "social justice" movement within the Catholic Church? I don't understand this objection -- what's wrong with a social justice agenda within the framework of the church? Wasn't that an important aspect of Jesus' ministry?

It's not all the church should be proclaiming, obviously, but recall Jesus' first public teaching in Luke 4.

[Lamar Mundane]

SECOND: The VAST mojority of these cases involved boys around the age of 14 or so. That means the issue is homosexuality, not pedophelia. This is a CRUCIAL point that the media TOTALLY ignored. Why? Because the media PROMOTES the homosexual lifestyle, and they can hardly say that it caused the problem. But framing it as "pedophelia" was sure to arouse anger because people hate those who harm children (and the media hates the church I might add) and that was the spin the media gave it.

Now mind you, I AM NOT EXCUSING THE PRIESTS AT ALL. But, you cannot fix a problem if you don't know the root of the problem, and it was not pedophelia (although there were a few instances of that as well.)

No. Per Wikipedia, 51% of the documented cases of sexual assault were comitted against children between 11 and 14 years old. 22% were 10 years old or younger. Only 27% were betwen 14 and 17. By definition, it's pedophilia.

Your self-definition as a conservative (first) and your blaming of homosexuals and the media rather than the responsible party, the Catholic Church, makes me believe that you are a run-of-the-mill Christian Conservative who is more conservative than Christian. I know hundreds of guys just like you, and they all think they know much more than they really do. I'll bet you are much more aligned with the words of Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich than you are with Jesus Christ.

[Munch]

I always love to see a non-Catholic tell an orthodox Catholic what his church does and does not do. This is called "hand-waving". There are plenty of non-catholics who know a whole lot more about the church than catholics do - if you're not going to address the post with a factual rebuttal, why would we accept your hand-waving it away?

[MsWhatsit]

I always love to see a non-Catholic tell an orthodox Catholic what his church does and does not do.

So is she wrong, or what? Because I can't identify any factual errors in what she posted, and I have an excellent Catholic education and was raised by hard-core Catholics who took my religious instruction very seriously indeed.

[Gyrate]

Thank you. I would like to answer questions about true "Catholicism", not about the sins of individual people... ...an area in which NONE of us are "saints" I think its fair to say.What is Catholicism separate from the Church?

[terryobrien80]

See, that's what I was getting at with my post #19. I don't know if you're drawing a distinction between the word "liberal" in the sense of "politically liberal", e.g., concerned with social issues, or "theologically liberal", e.g., ad-libbing the mass or other liturgical abuses.

Would you mind addressing my question in post #19?

ETA: or this one:


I'm sorry bro', I am having a hard time keeping up.

True: Church "Liberalism" and political "Liberalism" are not the exact same animal, but in reality, they tend to go hand in hand for the most part.

As for it being a sin to vote Democrat: Obviously voting Democrat is not intrisically evil in and of itself. However, for an example, if there are two viable candidates on the ticket - on pro-life and one not - and you choose the pro-choice candidate, that would be a sin. The only way it would NOT be a sin is if the pro-life candidate presented a graver danger, for example if he promised to start a nuclear war if elected. (That's an extreme example obviously, but it makes my point).

[Beniamino]

No. Per Wikipedia, 51% of the documented cases of sexual assault were comitted against children between 11 and 14 years old. 22% were 10 years old or younger. Only 27% were betwen 14 and 17. By definition, it's pedophilia.

I don't know if your statistics are accurate or not, but it does raise the point that some of the offenders were genuine pedophiles, and some were just homosexuals. The distinction is important, because it dictates the approach you take. Although in the 70's and 80's it was thought that pedophiles could be "fixed" or "cured", recent psychological consensus is that it cannot, and that recidivism among pedophiles is quite high. Those priests must be removed from their faculties -- full stop.

On the other hand, a priest who commits a homosexual sin is no more "dangerous" than one who commits a heterosexual sin, except that in cases of children from 14-17, it is also an abuse of power. Regardless, the psychopathology is different, and while you would not want these priests leading your youth group, maybe an administrative assignment or cloistered life might be more appropriate than wholesale removal of faculties.

[terryobrien80]

I don't understand this objection -- what's wrong with a social justice agenda within the framework of the church? Wasn't that an important aspect of Jesus' ministry?

It's not all the church should be proclaiming, obviously, but recall Jesus' first public teaching in Luke 4.


Sometimes "social justice" are code words for more nefarious activities. Same goes in politics.

The Church actually does have complex social justice doctrines, but they are often hijacked and twisted by certain elements within the Church

[terryobrien80]

What is Catholicism separate from the Church?

You might want to read the link in the first post. Its a great overview: http://www.catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

[MsWhatsit]

Sometimes "social justice" are code words for more nefarious activities. Same goes in politics.

The Church actually does have complex social justice doctrines, but they are often hijacked and twisted by certain elements within the Church

Can you give specifics for what you are talking about here?

[Skammer]

s for it being a sin to vote Democrat: Obviously voting Democrat is not intrisically evil in and of itself. However, for an example, if there are two viable candidates on the ticket - on pro-life and one not - and you choose the pro-choice candidate, that would be a sin. The only way it would NOT be a sin is if the pro-life candidate presented a graver danger, for example if he promised to start a nuclear war if elected. (That's an extreme example obviously, but it makes my point).
What if the pro-life candidate wants to eliminate Social Security? Or repeal laws that provide healthcare for poor citizens? Or supports wider implementation of the death penalty?

I'm as pro-life as the next person, but basing your vote on a single issue and proclaiming it a sin to vote otherwise is a cop-out and abdication of your responsibility as a voter and person of faith.

[Bricker]

The pope can remove a bishop.

In a manner of speaking, but not in quite the way you seem to be thinking.

The Code of Canon Law, Can. 190 ß2 and Can. 193 ß1, provides that a bishop may not simply be removed at the whim of the Pope. A bishop has a canonical right to his office, and removal can only take place against the bishop's will after an ecclesiastical trial, an appeal to the Roman Rota, and then to the Pope. And just like a criminal trial, there must be proof of wrongdoing.

What made you opine that the Pope can remove a bishop against his will?


The pope appoints bishops.

Yes. But the President appoints federal judges, and he can't remove them.

The pope directs and admonishes and supports bishops.

Yes.

When bishops do things the Vatican actually wants to take action on, the Vatican takes action. Let a bishop, for example, start marrying gays and see how long it takes for the Vatican to step in.


Even then, the Vatican would be constrained by canon law. But the difference in the case you mention is that here's no problem of proof. The bishop that's marrying gays is open about his action, meaning that the ecclesiastical trial is not necessary, since the facts in question are admitted.

[terryobrien80]

So is she wrong, or what? Because I can't identify any factual errors in what she posted, and I have an excellent Catholic education and was raised by hard-core Catholics who took my religious instruction very seriously indeed.

After I saw the foul language, I am afraid I didn't read much further. Sorry. <<shrug>>

[Bricker]

This is called "hand-waving". There are plenty of non-catholics who know a whole lot more about the church than catholics do - if you're not going to address the post with a factual rebuttal, why would we accept your hand-waving it away?

I addressed the specific errors in jsgoddess' post, with specific cites to canon law.

I hope you'll agree that my post is not "hand-waving."

So is she wrong, or what? Because I can't identify any factual errors in what she posted, and I have an excellent Catholic education and was raised by hard-core Catholics who took my religious instruction very seriously indeed.

Yes, she's wrong, or at least the immediate inferences from what she said are not accurate. As my post detailed.

I don't know about your "excellent Catholic education," though, if you're unaware of the implications of a bishop taking canonical possession of his diocese.

But perhaps I am mistaken. So can you give us a brief rundown on your understanding of what rights vest in a bishop the moment he takes canonical possession of a diocese?

[Skammer]

An addendum to my post above: it's quite possible to be religiously conservative and politically liberal on very many issues. In fact IMO they go hand-in-hand.

[spazattak]

The Catholic Church is a Divine Instution with human members. Huimans sin: I never denied that. But the "teachings" are what are not in error, and that is duw to the Holy Spirit.

I have given you my perspective. I never said I was going to convince you that I am right

How can an organization created by and staffed by humans, be divine?

BTW: Indulgences are not an error. "Selling" them was a sin, not condoned by Rome

I know - that's why I wrote "selling indulgences". I'm quite familiar with Catholicism and I understand your perspective. What I don't understand is why you (and others) continue maintain it.

[Gyrate]

As for it being a sin to vote Democrat: Obviously voting Democrat is not intrisically evil in and of itself. However, for an example, if there are two viable candidates on the ticket - on pro-life and one not - and you choose the pro-choice candidate, that would be a sin. The only way it would NOT be a sin is if the pro-life candidate presented a graver danger, for example if he promised to start a nuclear war if elected. (That's an extreme example obviously, but it makes my point).Why a nuclear war and not another kind of war? Surely war (especially instigating war) is bad regardless of how it is waged? Was supporting the Iraq War a sin?

[Munch]

I addressed the specific errors in jsgoddess' post, with specific cites to canon law.

I hope you'll agree that my post is not "hand-waving."

Absolutely not. But I hope you'll that the OP was "hand-waving", and that doesn't set the best precedent for a new poster here. Especially since he's now copped to not actually reading the post he hand-waved away.

[RitterSport]

Well, you haven't gotten to my first set of questions, but I have a few more:

1. Do you believe in the actual transformation from bread and wine to body and blood? Do you think that an actual miracle occurs every time a priest says those words?

2. What is your view on the case a few years ago where a girl couldn't take regular communion because of a severe allergy to wheat and was denied communion using other types of wafers? Is God only able to transform wheat into his son's flesh, or can that miracle occur with any food and a well-meaning priest?

[terryobrien80]

What if the pro-life candidate wants to eliminate Social Security? Or repeal laws that provide healthcare for poor citizens? Or supports wider implementation of the death penalty?........


Unfortunately, as touchy as those subjects are, they do not constitute "grave matter" theologically speaking

Social Security is a government benefit and you can be on either side of the issue without "sinning". Same for healthcare. It is not a "sin" to oppose government programs.

However, the taking of an innocent life IS grave matter: "Thou Shalt Not Kill". One cannot equate murdering an innocent child with opposing a government entitlement program..... .....Please!!

And besides: I doubt you'll vever have a presidential candidate that wants to eliminate Social Security orepeal laws that provide healthcare for poor citizens

[MsWhatsit]

Yes, she's wrong, or at least the immediate inferences from what she said are not accurate. As my post detailed.

Thanks. I was unable to take your post into account when I made mine, as yours had not yet been posted and although being raised Catholic was certainly interesting, it did not give me future-seeing superpowers.

[Bricker]

Thanks. I was unable to take your post into account when I made mine, as yours had not yet been posted and although being raised Catholic was certainly interesting, it did not give me future-seeing superpowers.

Thanks in return, and I apologize for the snarky tone in my post. It was inappropriate.

[RitterSport]

Why a nuclear war and not another kind of war? Surely war (especially instigating war) is bad regardless of how it is waged? Was supporting the Iraq War a sin?

Hey, no fair! I already asked that question.

[Beniamino]

This is called "hand-waving". There are plenty of non-catholics who know a whole lot more about the church than catholics do - if you're not going to address the post with a factual rebuttal, why would we accept your hand-waving it away?

No, it's not "hand-waving", it's a quite justifiable reaction to a hate-filled rant that amounts to "I hate the Vatican because I read somewhere that they did bad bad thing, and you're dumb, and nyah-nyah".

f there are two viable candidates on the ticket - one pro-life and one not - and you choose the pro-choice candidate, that would be a sin. The only way it would NOT be a sin is if the pro-life candidate presented a graver danger, for example if he promised to start a nuclear war if elected. (That's an extreme example obviously, but it makes my point).

Okay, that was what I was trying to tease out of you. Thank you for obliging. Now, here's the thing, [I]that's not Catholic doctrine.

The Church is clear: if a pro-life and pro-choice candidate are running for office, you cannot vote for the pro-choice candidate because he is pro-choice, but you may vote for him if you are voting in spite of his pro-choice position, if and only if there are "proportionate reasons" for doing so. See USCCB document that I can't be bothered to look up at the moment.

You say "nuclear war" or something of a similar magnitude is the only "proportionate" reason, and I say no, it's not that simple. You have to consider (1) the office in question; (2) the candidate's stated positions; and (3) the candidate's track record and past history.

Be careful in advancing your position as the "Catholic" position. There are lay people, priests, and bishops who all disagree as to what counts as a "proportionate" reason, an the spectrum of disagreement is wide.

[terryobrien80]

Well, you haven't gotten to my first set of questions, but I have a few more:

1. Do you believe in the actual transformation from bread and wine to body and blood? Do you think that an actual miracle occurs every time a priest says those words?

Yes. That is Dei Fide. Read these:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

2. What is your view on the case a few years ago where a girl couldn't take regular communion because of a severe allergy to wheat and was denied communion using other types of wafers? Is God only able to transform wheat into his son's flesh, or can that miracle occur with any food and a well-meaning priest?

Jesus used unleavened bread and wine free of chemicals at the Last Supper. And that is what we do. The Church has no authority to change what Jesus did. If the girl could not receive due to an allergy then God knows that and he won't hold it against her for not receiving. For her parents to make a stink like that is just another example of people who are more interested in grandstanding than they are in understanding then teachings of their own Church. The Eucharist is not some smorgasborg where you get what you like, and it isn't Burger King where you have it your way.

[Bricker]

2. What is your view on the case a few years ago where a girl couldn't take regular communion because of a severe allergy to wheat and was denied communion using other types of wafers? Is God only able to transform wheat into his son's flesh, or can that miracle occur with any food and a well-meaning priest?

I of course will leave the OP to give his own view of transubstantiation, but I will point out that the fullness of the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist is present in both the bread and the wine -- that is, the Body and the Blood. So someone who cannot take any wheat at all loses nothing, theologically speaking, by taking Holy Communion under just one species, the wine.

But it can't be any food, no. It must be bread and it must be wine, and the wine must be of grapes and the bread of wheat.

[jsgoddess]

In a manner of speaking, but not in quite the way you seem to be thinking.

The Code of Canon Law, Can. 190 ß2 and Can. 193 ß1, provides that a bishop may not simply be removed at the whim of the Pope. A bishop has a canonical right to his office, and removal can only take place against the bishop's will after an ecclesiastical trial, an appeal to the Roman Rota, and then to the Pope. And just like a criminal trial, there must be proof of wrongdoing.

What made you opine that the Pope can remove a bishop against his will?

The fact that he can? No, I didn't go into all the details about how that happens, but as you point out, there's an actual path to doing so. So, it can happen. Someone saying a diocese is "COMPLETELY autonomous" is making things up.

[terryobrien80]

Originally Posted by terryobrien80 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13452132#post13452132)
f there are two viable candidates on the ticket - one pro-life and one not - and you choose the pro-choice candidate, that would be a sin. The only way it would NOT be a sin is if the pro-life candidate presented a graver danger, for example if he promised to start a nuclear war if elected. (That's an extreme example obviously, but it makes my point).


Okay, that was what I was trying to tease out of you. Thank you for obliging. Now, here's the thing, that's not Catholic doctrine.

source: www.catholic.com (http://www.catholic.com/)

YOUR ROLE AS A CATHOLIC VOTER

Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good through the exercise of their voting privileges (cf. CCC 2240). It is not just civil authorities who have responsibility for a country. "Service of the common good require[s] citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community" (CCC 2239). This means citizens should participate in the political process at the ballot box.

But voting cannot be arbitrary. "A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals" (CPL 4).

Some things always are wrong, and no one may vote in favor of them, directly or indirectly. Citizens vote in favor of these evils if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them. Thus, Catholics should not vote for anyone who intends to push programs or laws that are intrinsically evil.

THE FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES

These five issues are called non-negotiable because they concern actions that are always morally wrong and must never be promoted by the law. It is a serious sin to endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any of the five non-negotiables.

1. Abortion

The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.

The child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins.

2. Euthanasia

Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia also is a form of homicide. No one has a right to take his own life (suicide), and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person.

In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73).

3. Fetal Stem Cell Research

Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b).

Recent scientific advances show that any medical cure that might arise from experimentation on fetal stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there no longer is a medical argument in favor of using fetal stem cells.

4. Human Cloning

"Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through 'twin fission,' cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union" (RHL I:6).

Human cloning also ends up being a form of homicide because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.

5. Homosexual "Marriage"

True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other form of "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).

WHICH POLITICAL OFFICES SHOULD I WORRY ABOUT?

Laws are passed by the legislature, enforced by the executive branch, and interpreted by the judiciary. This means you should scrutinize any candidate for the legislature, anyone running for an executive office, and anyone nominated for the bench. This is true not only at the national level but also at the state and local levels.

True, the lesser the office, the less likely the office holder will take up certain issues. Your city council, for example, perhaps never will take up the issue of human cloning. But it is important that you evaluate every candidate, no matter what office is being sought.

Few people achieve high office without first holding low office. Some people become congressional representatives, senators, or presidents without having been elected to a lesser office. But most representatives, senators, and presidents started their political careers at the local level. The same is true for state lawmakers. Most of them began on city councils and school boards and worked their way up the political ladder.

Tomorrow's candidates for higher offices will come mainly from today's candidates for lower offices. It is therefore prudent to apply the same standards to local candidates as to state and national ones.

If candidates who are wrong on non-negotiable issues fail to be elected to lower offices, they might not become candidates for higher offices. This would make it easier to elect good candidates for the more influential offices at the state and national levels.

HOW TO DETERMINE A CANDIDATE'S POSITION

1. The higher the office, the easier this will be. Congressional representatives and senators, for example, repeatedly have seen these issues come before them and so have taken positions on them. Often the same can be said at the state level. In either case, learning a candidate's position can be as easy as reading newspaper or magazine articles, looking up his views on the Internet, or studying one of the many printed candidate surveys that are distributed at election time.

2. It often is more difficult to learn the views of candidates for local offices because few of them have an opportunity to consider legislation on such things as abortion, cloning, and the sanctity of marriage. But these candidates, being local, often can be contacted directly or have local campaign offices that will explain their positions.

3. If you cannot determine a candidate's views by other means, do not hesitate to write directly to him and ask how he stands on each of the non-negotiables.

HOW NOT TO VOTE

1. Do not base your vote on your political party affiliation, your earlier voting habits, or your family's voting tradition. Years ago, these may have been trustworthy ways to determine whom to vote for, but today they are not reliable. You need to look at each candidate as an individual. This means that you may end up casting votes for candidates from more than one party.

2. Do not cast your vote based on candidates' appearance, personality, or "media savvy." Some attractive, engaging, and "sound-bite-capable" candidates endorse intrinsic evils and so should be opposed, while other candidates, who may be plain-looking, uninspiring, and ill at ease in front of cameras, endorse legislation in accord with basic Christian principles.

3. Do not vote for candidates simply because they declare themselves to be Catholic. Unfortunately, many self-described Catholic candidates reject basic Catholic moral teaching. They are "Catholic" only when seeking votes from Catholics.

4. Do not choose among candidates based on "What's in it for me?" Make your decision based on which candidates seem most likely to promote the common good, even if you will not benefit directly or immediately from the legislation they propose.

5. Do not reward with your vote candidates who are right on lesser issues but who are wrong on key moral issues. One candidate may have a record of voting exactly as you wish, aside from voting also in favor of, say, euthanasia. Such a candidate should not get your vote. Candidates need to learn that being wrong on even one of the non-negotiable issues is enough to exclude them from consideration.

HOW TO VOTE

1. For each office, first determine how each candidate stands on each of the five non-negotiable issues.

2. Eliminate from consideration candidates who are wrong on any of the non-negotiable issues. No matter how right they may be on other issues, they should be considered disqualified if they are wrong on even one of the non-negotiables.

3. Choose from among the remaining candidates, based on your assessment of each candidate's views on other, lesser issues.

WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE

In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more of the five non-negotiables. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.

[Guinastasia]

Lapsed Catholic here.

Are you "conservative", in that you wish the Church would go back to the pre-Vatican II ways? Mass in Latin, for example? Are there areas where you find the church itself too liberal?

After I saw the foul language, I am afraid I didn't read much further. Sorry. <<shrug>>

No offense, but you're probably not going last all that long here then.

[Munch]

Unfortunately, as touchy as those subjects are, they do not constitute "grave matter" theologically speaking

Social Security is a government benefit and you can be on either side of the issue without "sinning". Same for healthcare. It is not a "sin" to oppose government programs.

However, the taking of an innocent life IS grave matter: "Thou Shalt Not Kill". One cannot equate murdering an innocent child with opposing a government entitlement program..... .....Please!!

And besides: I doubt you'll vever have a presidential candidate that wants to eliminate Social Security orepeal laws that provide healthcare for poor citizens
Is it still a sin if there is no reasonable expectation to believe that their view on abortion has any import in that politician's term? For instance - it's a special election to fill a vacant House seat due to the death of the previous holder. The House is heavily weighted on either side of the spectrum. The candidate's position on abortion simply won't be a factor - but their vote on Issue X will.

[terryobrien80]

The fact that he can? No, I didn't go into all the details about how that happens, but as you point out, there's an actual path to doing so. So, it can happen. Someone saying a diocese is "COMPLETELY autonomous" is making things up.


He CAN but he won't just because Liberals in the press are in a feeding frenzy.

The Church has stood for 2000 years only because it has resisted attempts by political forces to destroy it. The Caesars, the Huns, the Barbarians, the Muslims, the Fascists, the Comminists, Napolean, Hitler, Stalin.... .need I go on?

You think the Pope is going to drop-kick a Successor of the Apostles just because you think he should?

[Beniamino]

source: www.catholic.com (http://www.catholic.com/)

YOUR ROLE AS A CATHOLIC VOTER


Yes, I understand that's the "Catholic Answers" position, however (1) that position has been criticized by many in the Church, and (2) "Catholic Answers" does not speak for the Church; your quoted text has not been given imprematur, and is not a text, such as the USCCB statement on voting, which talks about the "proportionate reasons" doctrine.

[RitterSport]

I of course will leave the OP to give his own view of transubstantiation, but I will point out that the fullness of the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist is present in both the bread and the wine -- that is, the Body and the Blood. So someone who cannot take any wheat at all loses nothing, theologically speaking, by taking Holy Communion under just one species, the wine.

But it can't be any food, no. It must be bread and it must be wine, and the wine must be of grapes and the bread of wheat.

Thank you. I find your answer to be much more informative than this one: "The Eucharist is not some smorgasborg where you get what you like, and it isn't Burger King where you have it your way. " I was unaware that Church doctrine states that each item becomes both body and blood.

Ignorance fought!

Now, OP, how about my other questions from way back on page 1?

[Skammer]

Unfortunately, as touchy as those subjects are, they do not constitute "grave matter" theologically speaking Why not? Jesus spoke about taking care of the poor dozens of times in the gospels. He never mentioned abortion. Now I agree that abortion is a serious matter and should be opposed, but voting based on this single issue seems to disregard Jesus' sense of priorities.

And besides: I doubt you'll vever have a presidential candidate that wants to eliminate Social Security orepeal laws that provide healthcare for poor citizensI'll guarantee you we'll have a presidential candidate who wants to repeal the new Health Care law, before the winter snow has melted.

[terryobrien80]

Is it still a sin if there is no reasonable expectation to believe that their view on abortion has any import in that politician's term? For instance - it's a special election to fill a vacant House seat due to the death of the previous holder. The House is heavily weighted on either side of the spectrum. The candidate's position on abortion simply won't be a factor - but their vote on Issue X will.

You are getting into detailed hypotheticals. When it gets nuanced like that, I could not answer unless I was there. In those cases, one must be guided by a properly formed conmscience, and I emphasize "properly formed", formed according to the faith, not according to Oparah or Katie Couric.

[RitterSport]

He CAN but he won't just because Liberals in the press are in a feeding frenzy.

I think this statement is out of place in a thread like this and in MPSIMS in general. To be honest, this seems more like an Ask the Conservative thread than Ask a Catholic.

[Bricker]

The fact that he can? No, I didn't go into all the details about how that happens, but as you point out, there's an actual path to doing so. So, it can happen. Someone saying a diocese is "COMPLETELY autonomous" is making things up.

True.

Of course, the OP didn't exactly say that a diocese is "completely autonomous."

He said, "...when it comes to management and administrative affairs, each diocese and its bishop are COMPLETELY autonomous."

That is a true statement. Your counter examples had to do with violation of doctrine, with illicit conferral of a sacrament, and NOT "...management and administrative affairs..." A bishop can (with long process) be removed; he cannot be ordered to transfer a priest from Parish A to rehab.

ETA: Well, he COULD be "ordered." But there is no way to enforce that order.

[Beniamino]

You are getting into detailed hypotheticals. When it gets nuanced like that, I could not answer unless I was there. In those cases, one must be guided by a properly formed conmscience, and I emphasize "properly formed", formed according to the faith, not according to Oparah or Katie Couric.

Agreed. You're all right in my book. Pax tecum.

[terryobrien80]

Originally Posted by terryobrien80 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13452188#post13452188)
Unfortunately, as touchy as those subjects are, they do not constitute "grave matter" theologically speaking

Why not? Jesus spoke about taking care of the poor dozens of times in the gospels.........

Because people have different ideas on how to take care of the poor. Jesus did not specify that they had to be taken care of by Caeser stealing the money from your pocket and redistributing it.

........He never mentioned abortion........

Killing an innocent child is a gross sin. Jesus did not need to state the obvious.

[jsgoddess]

He CAN but he won't just because Liberals in the press are in a feeding frenzy.

The Church has stood for 2000 years only because it has resisted attempts by political forces to destroy it. The Caesars, the Huns, the Barbarians, the Muslims, the Fascists, the Comminists, Napolean, Hitler, Stalin.... .need I go on?

You think the Pope is going to drop-kick a Successor of the Apostles just because you think he should?

Thanks for agreeing that the Vatican could have done something.

[terryobrien80]

Agreed. You're all right in my book. Pax tecum.

Thanks bro'. :)

[Beniamino]

Thanks for agreeing that the Vatican could have done something.

Yes. He has agreed that the Vatican could have done something about something that has something to do with something you think the Vatican should have done.

[YogSosoth]

What harm comes from homosexual unions?

[Munch]

You are getting into detailed hypotheticals. When it gets nuanced like that, I could not answer unless I was there.
Not really. The political environment from 2000-2006 is the perfect example. The GOP had 6 years of an unfettered majority, yet did nothing to curtail abortion rights. Voting strictly for a pro-life candidate had zero effect. So why did the catholic church insist upon voting a pro-life only ticket in 2002 when there was absolutely no danger of abortion being acted upon?

[terryobrien80]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13452241#post13452241)
The fact that he can? No, I didn't go into all the details about how that happens, but as you point out, there's an actual path to doing so. So, it can happen. Someone saying a diocese is "COMPLETELY autonomous" is making things up.

He CAN but he won't just because Liberals in the press are in a feeding frenzy.

The Church has stood for 2000 years only because it has resisted attempts by political forces to destroy it. The Caesars, the Huns, the Barbarians, the Muslims, the Fascists, the Comminists, Napolean, Hitler, Stalin.... .need I go on?

You think the Pope is going to drop-kick a Successor of the Apostles just because you think he should?

And let me add: I originally said that the Pope does not interfere in the administrative affairs of another Diocese. And I was correct. He can remove a bishop in extreme situations, but that is not the same as directing their internal administrtative activities.

I am curious: Planned Parenthood - aside from murdering millions of children by abortion - has been exposed for helping those who traffic in kiddie sex to get those kids abortions and contraception. Are you just as angry at that them as you are at the Pope? Or do you reserve your anger for the Church... .....for reasons I can only speculate about.

[Gyrate]

Because people have different ideas on how to take care of the poor. Jesus did not specify that they had to be taken care of by Caeser stealing the money from your pocket and redistributing it. Caesar doesn't "steal" your money. You are required to render it unto him. I believe this was addressed a long, long time ago.

[terryobrien80]

What harm comes from homosexual unions?

I said I would answer questiuons about Catholicism. I am not going to debate what is or is not a sin Biblically. I think we all know where the Church stands on this subject so there really is no question to answer. However, you can read the "offical" Catechism section on this subject:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

[Gyrate]

II am curious: Planned Parenthood - aside from murdering millions of children by abortion - has been exposed for helping those who traffic in kiddie sex to get those kids abortions and contraception. If you're referring to the same case I'm thinking of, no it hasn't. Not even a little bit.

[RitterSport]

And let me add: I originally said that the Pope does not interfere in the administrative affairs of another Diocese. And I was correct. He can remove a bishop in extreme situations, but that is not the same as directing their internal administrtative activities.

I am curious: Planned Parenthood - aside from murdering millions of children by abortion - has been exposed for helping those who traffic in kiddie sex to get those kids abortions and contraception. Are you just as angry at that them as you are at the Pope? Or do you reserve your anger for the Church... .....for reasons I can only speculate about.

I thought this was an Ask the Catholic thread, not Ask the Liberals, or Ask the non-Catholics, or Let's Debate Abortion thread.

I'm still curious on your stance on the Iraq War and other questions from my original questions on page 1.

Here's another question:

I understand that in order for someone to become a saint, there has to be several documented, honest-to-God (heh) miracles. Do you believe these miracles actually occur? Are they the work of God acting through the proposed saint, or the work of the saint? If the work of God, do you believe this is an actual hand-of-God miracle where he reaches down from heaven and, say, cures someone?

[terryobrien80]

Originally Posted by terryobrien80 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13452309#post13452309)
Because people have different ideas on how to take care of the poor. Jesus did not specify that they had to be taken care of by Caeser stealing the money from your pocket and redistributing it.

Caesar doesn't "steal" your money. You are required to render it unto him. I believe this was addressed a long, long time ago.

Right. But unlike ancient Rome, in America the people tell the politicans what to do. And if people have other ideas on how to take care of the poor that do not involve a massive erxpansion of governement, then that is not a "sin".

And BTW: I am sure that most Christians - not just Catholics - would agree with this. Your question is not a Catholic-specific question

[Skammer]

Because people have different ideas on how to take care of the poor. Jesus did not specify that they had to be taken care of by Caeser stealing the money from your pocket and redistributing it. Well he did encourage people to pay their taxes :cool:

Killing an innocent child is a gross sin. Eh, so is killing innocent Iraqis.

I appreciate your Catholicism -- I've thought about swimming the Tiber myself many times. But I think you are conflating Catholoic orthodoxy with Republican party platform.

[terryobrien80]

Well he did encourage people to pay their taxes :cool:

Agreed.

Killing an innocent child is a gross sin.
Eh, so is killing innocent Iraqis.

Please tell me that you are not comparing grown men who meet on the field of battle, to sucking a helpless child through a vacuum tube and throwing the pieces in a dumpster. - - PLEASE tell me you are not making that comparison!!!

[RitterSport]

Right. But unlike ancient Rome, in America the people tell the politicans what to do. And if people have other ideas on how to take care of the poor that do not involve a massive erxpansion of governement, then that is not a "sin".

And BTW: I am sure that most Christians - not just Catholics - would agree with this. Your question is not a Catholic-specific question

This I don't understand at all. If the people tell the government what to do in America, then it's even less like theft than what Jesus told his followers to do.

And, are you speaking for Christians and Catholics now? I think [no cites at hand] that one of the most religious and Christian ethnic groups in this country are African Americans, and I'm pretty sure they support Obama's policies, or at least something like 90-95% of them voted for Obama.

[Gyrate]

Please tell me that you are not comparing grown men who meet on the field of battle, to sucking a helpless child through a vacuum tube and throwing the pieces in a dumpster. - - PLEASE tell me you are not making that comparison!!!The "field of battle" involved bombing a lot of cities and the death of thousands (tens or hundreds of thousands, even) of non-combatants. War is not a game of Stratego. Innocents die no matter how hard we try. Just because the bomb isn't atomic doesn't mean it doesn't kill children.

So - back to the question. Is it a sin to vote for a candidate that supports war?

[Procrustus]

Yes. That is Dei Fide. Read these:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp



Jesus used unleavened bread and wine free of chemicals at the Last Supper. And that is what we do. The Church has no authority to change what Jesus did. If the girl could not receive due to an allergy then God knows that and he won't hold it against her for not receiving. For her parents to make a stink like that is just another example of people who are more interested in grandstanding than they are in understanding then teachings of their own Church. The Eucharist is not some smorgasborg where you get what you like, and it isn't Burger King where you have it your way.

Wait a minute, if the bread literally becomes the body of Christ, it shouldn't bother her wheat allergy one bit. Maybe she is allergic to Christ?

[terryobrien80]

This I don't understand at all. If the people tell the government what to do in America, then it's even less like theft than what Jesus told his followers to do............

Thats a fair point. But I am sure that Democrat and Republican alike would stipulate that presidents & congresses often exceed their mandates.

.....And, are you speaking for Christians and Catholics now? I think [no cites at hand] that one of the most religious and Christian ethnic groups in this country are African Americans, and I'm pretty sure they support Obama's policies, or at least something like 90-95% of them voted for Obama.

I have always been dumbfounded by that, I must admit.

Blacks seem to vote Democrat instinctually, and I know not why (although I have heard various theories). However, in the information age, this is changing. More non-white Republicans were elected in this last election than in previous elections.

[Skammer]

Agreed.



Please tell me that you are not comparing grown men who meet on the field of battle, to sucking a helpless child through a vacuum tube and throwing the pieces in a dumpster. - - PLEASE tell me you are not making that comparison!!! Does Jesus love them less? And for the record, a lot of people who died in Iraq (and Afghanistan) were neither grown men nor soldiers.

Look, if you're Catholic, I'm gonna assume you subscribe to the doctrin of Original Sin. In which case those babies were no more innocent than enemy soldiers (or friendly soldiers) or death row inmates. Or for that matter, the people all over the world who die due to lack of food or medicine. I vote for the politicians who do what they can to improve and protect as many lives as they can, including but not limited to the unborn.

[terryobrien80]

Wait a minute, if the bread literally becomes the body of Christ, it shouldn't bother her wheat allergy one bit. Maybe she is allergic to Christ?

Well, your question could not have come at a better time. I just found a Q & A from the "Catholic Answers LIVE" radio show, and a brief section of it was uploaded into Youtube, and it answers this very question. Give it a try: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI8ZFDY0YLw

[purplehorseshoe]

A friendly reminder to terryobrien that some of us can't access YouTube during the times we are most active on the Dope. A little bit of text transcript - even a few key sentences - goes a long way.

[terryobrien80]

Please tell me that you are not comparing grown men who meet on the field of battle, to sucking a helpless child through a vacuum tube and throwing the pieces in a dumpster. - - PLEASE tell me you are not making that comparison!!!
Does Jesus love them less? And for the record, a lot of people who died in Iraq (and Afghanistan) were neither grown men nor soldiers.

Look, if you're Catholic, I'm gonna assume you subscribe to the doctrin of Original Sin. In which case those babies were no more innocent than enemy soldiers (or friendly soldiers) or death row inmates. Or for that matter, the people all over the world who die due to lack of food or medicine. I vote for the politicians who do what they can to improve and protect as many lives as they can, including but not limited to the unborn.


War is an ugly business. No one can deny that. But you cannot vote for a politician who you KNOW will support the evil of abortion just because you THINK MAYBE the other guy may or may not start a war.

And you cannot justify murdering babies because of the doctrine of "original sin". Come on man, you're way out there on that one.

[Procrustus]

Well, your question could not have come at a better time. I just found a Q & A from the "Catholic Answers LIVE" radio show, and a brief section of it was uploaded into Youtube, and it answers this very question. Give it a try: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI8ZFDY0YLw

What is amazing is that they got through this with a straight face.

[terryobrien80]

Well, your question could not have come at a better time. I just found a Q & A from the "Catholic Answers LIVE" radio show, and a brief section of it was uploaded into Youtube, and it answers this very question. Give it a try: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI8ZFDY0YLw

A friendly reminder to terryobrien that some of us can't access YouTube during the times we are most active on the Dope. A little bit of text transcript - even a few key sentences - goes a long way.

The "Dope" ???? :confused:

[RitterSport]

Blacks seem to vote Democrat instinctually, and I know not why (although I have heard various theories). However, in the information age, this is changing. More non-white Republicans were elected in this last election than in previous elections.

I guess I'd like to see a cite on that. Also, the Republican view on immigration seems to be turning off Hispanic voters (also largely Catholic!), but all that is really for another thread. I'm more interested in your answers to these questions from my earlier post:

How many core Catholic tenets can one violate and still be considered Catholic by the church? Can one skip church? Use birth control? Have pre-marital sex? Support the death penalty? Get a divorce? Have an abortion?

What's your view on the recent excommunication of the nun (and, basically, the whole hospital) where an abortion was performed in order to save the life of that mother? Was the bishop who did the excommunication right or wrong?

What is the official Catholic view on people who die without being baptized? Does it matter whether they had the opportunity to be baptized?

I don't know what kind of conservative you are, but it seems that some forms of fiscal conservative that would deny welfare and health care to the poorest among us seem to go against Catholic teaching. What is your view on that?

What is your view on the Iraq war? I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that the Catholic church was against it, and many conservatives were for it.

What is your view on condom programs in Africa?

(I know there has already been some discussion about the Iraq war, but only as it is somehow analogous to abortion :confused:, so I'm interested in what your view on it was, given the Vatican's apparent opposition)

[RitterSport]

The "Dope" ???? :confused:

The Straight Dope, as in "Straight Dope Message Board", this very board.

[G0sp3l]

Thats a fair point. But I am sure that Democrat and Republican alike would stipulate that presidents & congresses often exceed their mandates.



I have always been dumbfounded by that, I must admit.

Blacks seem to vote Democrat instinctually, and I know not why (although I have heard various theories). However, in the information age, this is changing. More non-white Republicans were elected in this last election than in previous elections.

Yeah, dem ignorant blacks always be voting for the black guy. Instead following whatever dog-whistle calls the 'conservatives'. Or basing their decision on whatever 'they' think is most important.

[Skammer]

War is an ugly business. No one can deny that. But you cannot vote for a politician who you KNOW will support the evil of abortion just because you THINK MAYBE the other guy may or may not start a war.

And you cannot justify murdering babies because of the doctrine of "original sin". Come on man, you're way out there on that one.
Where did I justify murdering babies? I've admitted that abortion is abhorrent. All things being equal, I'll vote for the pro-life candidate every time. But, all things are not equal, so a candidate's position on abortion is only one factor I consider.

Equally important is, what policies does the candidate favor that make abortion less necessary in the view of pregnant women? President Obama may be pro-choice, but I bet his policies will result in a lot fewer abortions in the long run than President Bush's because they give women better options.

[terryobrien80]

Well, your question could not have come at a better time. I just found a Q & A from the "Catholic Answers LIVE" radio show, and a brief section of it was uploaded into Youtube, and it answers this very question. Give it a try: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI8ZFDY0YLw
What is amazing is that they got through this with a straight face.


I answered you question. If you want to ridicule the beliefs of one sixth of the world's poulation, that is not why I made this thread. I am not saying you have to agree with them, I just don't like my core beliefs ridiculed. :mad:

The Eucharist is called the Sum and Summit of Catholic worship. And let me add: At the last supper, Jesus said "Take, eat, this is my Body". He kept his face straight too.


.

[BlueOhio]

Christ needs a spell checker

[terryobrien80]

The Straight Dope, as in "Straight Dope Message Board", this very board.

LOL. Sorry. Duhhh! :o

Christ needs a spell checker

I don't know about HIM, but I sure do. I am bad with typos




.

[Beniamino]

How many core Catholic tenets can one violate and still be considered Catholic by the church? Can one skip church? Use birth control? Have pre-marital sex? Support the death penalty? Get a divorce? Have an abortion?

OP will hopefully forgive me for jumping in, but yinz are swarming him a bit.

Anyway, you can violate them all and still be considered Catholic. Even if you're excommunicated, you're still "Catholic", though you cannot receive the sacraments until you've repented of what it was that got you excommunicated. The point is, if you wilfully violate a binding tenet of the religion, you're in the state of sin, and remain so until you've sincerely confessed of your sin. People that wilfully skip church, continue to use birth control for contraceptive purposes, etc, cannot receive the Sacrament until they've repented sincerely.

What's your view on the recent excommunication of the nun (and, basically, the whole hospital) where an abortion was performed in order to save the life of that mother? Was the bishop who did the excommunication right or wrong?

Do you have a reputable cite? OP may not be familiar. Seems to me that if the child has to die in order to preserve the life of the mother, the law of "double effect" (ask your local theologian) would permit sacrificing the child.

What is the official Catholic view on people who die without being baptized? Does it matter whether they had the opportunity to be baptized?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

I don't know what kind of conservative you are, but it seems that some forms of fiscal conservative that would deny welfare and health care to the poorest among us seem to go against Catholic teaching. What is your view on that?

OP would probably say that there is no explicit teaching on that. I would probably respond that the Pope's recent encyclicals, especially Caritas in Veritate (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html) say a fair bit about the duty of world governments to provide welfare and health care to the poorest amont us. Reasonable Catholics may differ.

Okay, end of hijack, sorry OP, just trying to grab a shovel here.

[terryobrien80]

Originally Posted by terryobrien80 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13452526#post13452526)
War is an ugly business. No one can deny that. But you cannot vote for a politician who you KNOW will support the evil of abortion just because you THINK MAYBE the other guy may or may not start a war.

And you cannot justify murdering babies because of the doctrine of "original sin". Come on man, you're way out there on that one.

Where did I justify murdering babies? I've admitted that abortion is abhorrent. All things being equal, I'll vote for the pro-life candidate every time. But, all things are not equal, so a candidate's position on abortion is only one factor I consider.

Sorry that it came out that way. And I respect your voting record.

But you did seem to diminish the act by saying babies are not innocent. No baby has commited a personal sin.

And "Original Sin" is misunderstood by most people. "Original Sin" is actually the lack of sanctifying gace according to Catholic theology.

Adam and Eve were created in a state of grace. By their sin, they fell from grace. Therefore when we are born, we are born without the sanctifying grace neccessary for the Beatific Vision. That's really what Original Sin is all about.

[Procrustus]

I answered you question. If you want to ridicule the beliefs of one sixth of the world's poulation, that is not why I made this thread. I am not saying you have to agree with them, I just don't like my core beliefs ridiculed. :mad:

The Eucharist is called the Sum and Summit of Catholic worship. And let me add: At the last supper, Jesus said "Take, eat, this is my Body". He kept his face straight too.


.

Didn't mean to insult, but their argument was basically "I know it looks,and behaves, exactly like bread and wine, but you just have to believe it's been changed because someone said that Jesus said so." So, a girl with a wheat allergy still can't eat it. The alcohol in the wine is still there. But, it is literally the body and blood of Christ. I'm not sure that's what "literally" means. Maybe it depends on the what the definition of "is" is?

[terryobrien80]

Beniamino gave some great answers there. Thanks

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

I just don't like my core beliefs ridiculed. :mad:
If you start a thread called "Ask the Catholic", especially on this board, you must accept that some people will ridicule your beliefs. You don't have to like it, but it may happen. I will agree that if we want to know more about your beliefs or those of people like you, and how they influence your behaviour, we should refrain from ridiculing them. But this said, there is no reason we should consider Catholic beliefs, or religious beliefs in general, as more untouchable than any other belief.

[RitterSport]

OP will hopefully forgive me for jumping in, but yinz are swarming him a bit.



Yinz? Are you from Pittsburgh?


...
Do you have a reputable cite? OP may not be familiar. Seems to me that if the child has to die in order to preserve the life of the mother, the law of "double effect" (ask your local theologian) would permit sacrificing the child.


Here is one: http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/st-joseph%E2%80%99s-hospital-phoenix-desert


OP would probably say that there is no explicit teaching on that. I would probably respond that the Pope's recent encyclicals, especially Caritas in Veritate (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html) say a fair bit about the duty of world governments to provide welfare and health care to the poorest among us. Reasonable Catholics may differ.

Okay, end of hijack, sorry OP, just trying to grab a shovel here.


I don't think it's a hijack, but I'm still interested in the OP's view.

Beniamino gave some great answers there. Thanks

Yes, thank you Beniamino. terry -- can I have your view of the Pope's encyclical regarding governments caring for the poorest among us? And, of the Vatican's disapproval of the Iraq war?

[RitterSport]

The Eucharist is called the Sum and Summit of Catholic worship. And let me add: At the last supper, Jesus said "Take, eat, this is my Body". He kept his face straight too.

That may be so, but other Christian sects do not necessarily believe in the literal transubstantiation into the actual blood and body. (Do any others? The various Orthodox churches do, I guess, but I don't think Lutherans do, maybe Anglicans?)

[Bricker]

Didn't mean to insult, but their argument was basically "I know it looks,and behaves, exactly like bread and wine, but you just have to believe it's been changed because someone said that Jesus said so." So, a girl with a wheat allergy still can't eat it. The alcohol in the wine is still there. But, it is literally the body and blood of Christ. I'm not sure that's what "literally" means. Maybe it depends on the what the definition of "is" is?

The idea here depends on the concepts of substance and accidents.

It was Aristotle who first formalized the distinction between the essential properties of an item and its accidental properties. Consider a sphere. A sphere must be round. Its outer surface must be, at every point, equidistant from its center. That's the key element of being a sphere.

A sphere may be red, green, small, large... all those are accidental properties of the sphere. A particular sphere may be tiny and green; another may be large and orange. Even if we systematically sought out and destroyed every single green sphere, so that none on earth remained, we still couldn't say that "not being green" was an essential element of a sphere, since it would still be possible to have a green sphere.

So, now the bread. The essence of bread, the "breadiness," if you will, is similarly not tied to its physically observable and testable properties. Aristotle identified (http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/433/catlec.htm) nine separate accidental elements:


Quality
Quantity
Relation
Where
When
Position
Having
Action
Passion


The tenth is "Substance," and refers to fundamental ontological dependence. The bread's substance is changed when consecrated by the priest into the Body of Christ. This does not change the bread's quality, quantity, relation, location, period of time present, or position.

So it's not quite "what the meaning of 'is' is." It's more like, "What are we talking about when we say the bread IS _______?"

The bread is white. Well, after consecration, it's still white.
The bread is hard. Well, after consecration, it's still hard.
The bread is present on the altar. Well, after consecration, it's still on the altar.

But... the bread's substance is bread. Well, after consecration, it's the Body of Christ. Even though all its accidental properties remain the same.

[Gyrate]

Didn't mean to insult, but their argument was basically "I know it looks,and behaves, exactly like bread and wine, but you just have to believe it's been changed because someone said that Jesus said so." So, a girl with a wheat allergy still can't eat it. The alcohol in the wine is still there. But, it is literally the body and blood of Christ. I'm not sure that's what "literally" means. Maybe it depends on the what the definition of "is" is?You want an explanation? Here you go (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3). But you might be better off with "It's a mystery" (in either sense of the word).

[terryobrien80]

.......terry -- can I have your view of the Pope's encyclical regarding governments caring for the poorest among us? And, of the Vatican's disapproval of the Iraq war?

I have not read the encyclical so I can't really say.

But regarding encyclicals in general, let me say this: They are given their due reverence because of their source. One must keep in mind two things though: The different "levels" of Catholic teaching, and the Church's prime mission to spread the Gospel & the fact that politics is not its prime mission.

Catholics can come down on either side of the Iraq war and still be faithfull Catholics. It has to do with the Just War doctrine, and whether the Iraq war was justifiable. The argument can be made either way. So that's pretty much that in a nutshell.

As for the different "levels" of Catholic teaching: Not all teachings are Dogmatic, or even doctrinal. "Dogma" MUST be believed by all Catholics: Failure to do so invokes in the "H=Word" (Heresy). Encylicals are not Dogmatic. That is not to say they should not be given due deference, but they are what they are.

One should note the warm relationship that was displayed between George W. Bush & Pope Benedict, and the rather less warm relations between Pope Benedict and Obama. The smallest of actions on the part of a Pope speak volumes.



.

[Procrustus]

One should note the warm relationship displayed between George W. Bush & Pope Benedict, and the rather less warm relations between Pope Benedict and Obama. The smallest of actions on the part of a Pope speak volumes.

So true. It tells us quite a bit about this Pope.

[terryobrien80]

Hey. I just noticed I am under "Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share (MPSIMS)"
That's not very nice.

[Procrustus]

Hey. I just noticed I am under "Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share (MPSIMS)"
That's not very nice.

Don't take offense, there's a tradition of "ask the __________" at this location.

[terryobrien80]

Originally Posted by terryobrien80 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13452875#post13452875)

One should note the warm relationship displayed between George W. Bush & Pope Benedict, and the rather less warm relations between Pope Benedict and Obama. The smallest of actions on the part of a Pope speak volumes.

So true. It tells us quite a bit about this Pope.

Yes, it tells us that he like pro-life, pro-traditional-family politicians. So do I.

[terryobrien80]

Hey. I just noticed I am under "Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share (MPSIMS)"
That's not very nice.

Don't take offense, there's a tradition of "ask the __________" at this location.

I know. I was just goofing around a little. :)

[Beniamino]

Yinz? Are you from Pittsburgh?

Yessir. Swisshelm Park.

Here is one: http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/st-joseph%E2%80%99s-hospital-phoenix-desert

From this article, it looks as though the Bishop made a mistake, but that's a left-wing Catholic periodical. I wonder if a right-wing Catholic periodical might have a different story. I dunno, but there's always two sides to every story, and I wonder what the Bishop's stated justification was. The theology is clear: if both are dying, you have to step in and save the mother.

[Skammer]

That may be so, but other Christian sects do not necessarily believe in the literal transubstantiation into the actual blood and body. (Do any others? The various Orthodox churches do, I guess, but I don't think Lutherans do, maybe Anglicans?)
Anglicans enjoy enormous breadth of doctrine - it's the Anglicans' unique gift and its Achilles' heel. There is hardly any church teaching outside the historic creeds that Anglicans do not disagree about among themselves.

However, generally speaking, Anglicans believe that the elements of the Eucharist - the bread and wine - contain the True Presence of Christ. There are Anglo-Catholics who believe in transubstantiation (but not that many); there are Anglo-Protestants who believe that Christ is present in the sense that he is present everwhere and that the sacrament of Eucharist is a memorial meal, not a sacrificial feast. And a whole range of opinions in between. And of course 90% of Anglican laity probably give it very little thought one way or the other.

[Gyrate]

I have not read the encyclical so I can't really say.

But regarding encyclicals in general, let me say this: They are given their due reverence because of their source. One must keep in mind two things though: The different "levels" of Catholic teaching, and the Church's prime mission to spread the Gospel & the fact that politics is not its prime mission.

Catholics can come down on either side of the Iraq war and still be faithfull Catholics. It has to do with the Just War doctrine, and whether the Iraq war was justifiable. The argument can be made either way. So that's pretty much that in a nutshell.

As for the different "levels" of Catholic teaching: Not all teachings are Dogmatic, or even doctrinal. "Dogma" MUST be believed by all Catholics: Failure to do so invokes in the "H=Word" (Heresy). Encylicals are not Dogmatic. That is not to say they should not be given due deference, but they are what they are.

One should note the warm relationship that was displayed between George W. Bush & Pope Benedict, and the rather less warm relations between Pope Benedict and Obama. The smallest of actions on the part of a Pope speak volumes.

So when the Pope writes a lengthy encyclical in which he sets out the case for nations to take care of their poor, it's not an endorsement of a political policy position, but when the Pope acts slightly more cordially to one President than another, it is?

[RitterSport]

I have not read the encyclical so I can't really say.

But regarding encyclicals in general, let me say this: They are given their due reverence because of their source. One must keep in mind two things though: The different "levels" of Catholic teaching, and the Church's prime mission to spread the Gospel & the fact that politics is not its prime mission.

Catholics can come down on either side of the Iraq war and still be faithfull Catholics. It has to do with the Just War doctrine, and whether the Iraq war was justifiable. The argument can be made either way. So that's pretty much that in a nutshell.

As for the different "levels" of Catholic teaching: Not all teachings are Dogmatic, or even doctrinal. "Dogma" MUST be believed by all Catholics: Failure to do so invokes in the "H=Word" (Heresy). Encylicals are not Dogmatic. That is not to say they should not be given due deference, but they are what they are.

One should note the warm relationship that was displayed between George W. Bush & Pope Benedict, and the rather less warm relations between Pope Benedict and Obama. The smallest of actions on the part of a Pope speak volumes.



.

Thank you for the response.

[Skammer]

I'm not necessarily doubting this, because I have no idea one way or the other. Can someone provide a cite for this allegedly "cozy" relationship between the Pope and GWB, and for the allegedly "cold" relationship between the Pontiff and BHO?

[Lamar Mundane]

Do you believe that President Obama is a Christian?

[Beniamino]

So when the Pope writes a lengthy encyclical in which he sets out the case for nations to take care of their poor, it's not an endorsement of a political policy position, but when the Pope acts slightly more cordially to one President than another, it is?

To be fair, Caritas in Veritate (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html) is 100 pages long, with 160 footnotes. Let him read the thing first!

Here's one bit I particularly like:

63. No consideration of the problems associated with development could fail to highlight the direct link between poverty and unemployment. In many cases, poverty results from a violation of the dignity of human work, either because work opportunities are limited (through unemployment or underemployment), or “because a low value is put on work and the rights that flow from it, especially the right to a just wage and to the personal security of the worker and his or her family”[143]. For this reason, on 1 May 2000 on the occasion of the Jubilee of Workers, my venerable predecessor Pope John Paul II issued an appeal for “a global coalition in favour of ‘decent work”'[144], supporting the strategy of the International Labour Organization. In this way, he gave a strong moral impetus to this objective, seeing it as an aspiration of families in every country of the world. What is meant by the word “decent” in regard to work? It means work that expresses the essential dignity of every man and woman in the context of their particular society: work that is freely chosen, effectively associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being forced into labour; work that permits the workers to organize themselves freely, and to make their voices heard; work that leaves enough room for rediscovering one's roots at a personal, familial and spiritual level; work that guarantees those who have retired a decent standard of living.

[Bricker]

One should note the warm relationship that was displayed between George W. Bush & Pope Benedict, and the rather less warm relations between Pope Benedict and Obama. The smallest of actions on the part of a Pope speak volumes.


I don't agree with this.

The Pope, more so than perhaps any world leader other than the American President, has a pulpit. We need not guess, or infer from his "smallest of actions" any great truths when he is perfectly capable of voluminous and exacting detail to explain his positions.

As a side note, I also don't particularly agree with the assessment that one's relationship ran all that colder than the other's did.

[terryobrien80]

So when the Pope writes a lengthy encyclical in which he sets out the case for nations to take care of their poor, it's not an endorsement of a political policy position, but when the Pope acts slightly more cordially to one President than another, it is?

I did not say that. I said I had not read that specific encyclical so I cannot comment on it. I was making a comment on encyclicals in general.

And yes very small moves by a pope - or even a president or king or whatever - speak volumes. After all, even though spiritually we believe the Pope is the shepherd of Christ's Church, he is also a sovereign head of state. Therefore small gestures mean a lot in diplo-speak.



.

[terryobrien80]

Originally Posted by terryobrien80 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13452875#post13452875)
One should note the warm relationship that was displayed between George W. Bush & Pope Benedict, and the rather less warm relations between Pope Benedict and Obama. The smallest of actions on the part of a Pope speak volumes.

I don't agree with this.

The Pope, more so than perhaps any world leader other than the American President, has a pulpit. We need not guess, or infer from his "smallest of actions" any great truths when he is perfectly capable of voluminous and exacting detail to explain his positions.

As a side note, I also don't particularly agree with the assessment that one's relationship ran all that colder than the other's did.

Article:
President Bush addresses relationship with Pope Benedict, U.S. Catholics
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/president_bush_addresses_relationship_with_pope_benedict_u.s._catholics/

"....Raymond Arroyo closed the interview by referring to President Bush’s words about looking into the eyes of Russian President Vladimir Putin and “seeing his soul.”
Arroyo asked President Bush what he saw when he looked into the eyes of Pope Benedict XVI.
“God,” the president answered"

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/president_bush_addresses_relationship_with_pope_benedict_u.s._catholics/

Somehow, I can't see Obama saying the same thing.

.

[Munch]

That only speaks towards Bush's thoughts on Ratzinger, not on Ratzinger's thoughts on Bush (or Obama).

[terryobrien80]

Do you believe that President Obama is a Christian?

Who, me? I honestly don't know.

I do know this: His dad was a Muslim, no child ever sheds things that intilled upon them by their father. He may not be a Muslim, but he must have some sympathies for the religion of his father.

I do know this: The Liberation Theology spewed out at the church Obama attended is not authentic Christianity. Even protestants would agree with that. It has all to do with politics and racial power (the race depending on which race is preaching it) and very little to do with the Gospel.

One time when John Paul II visted Nicaragua he publically chastised a priest that was espousing their Nicaraguan form of Liberation Theology.

[terryobrien80]

That only speaks towards Bush's thoughts on Ratzinger, not on Ratzinger's thoughts on Bush (or Obama).

Fair point.

But the pope very much dislikes the positions of pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage politicians.

[MsWhatsit]

I do know this: His dad was a Muslim, no child ever sheds things that intilled upon them by their father. He may not be a Muslim, but he must have some sympathies for the religion of his father.

Oh, dear.

Oh dear, oh dear.

That's... that's precious. And really not accurate at all.

[Bricker]

Who, me? I honestly don't know.

I do know this: His dad was a Muslim, no child ever sheds things that intilled upon them by their father. He may not be a Muslim, but he must have some sympathies for the religion of his father.

This seems like a very definitive statement. Can a person born to Buddhist parents genuinely convert to Christianity, or must they always "...have some sympathies for the religion of [their parents?]"


I do know this: The Liberation Theology spewed out at the church Obama attended is not authentic Christianity. Even protestants would agree with that. It has all to do with politics and racial power (the race depending on which race is preaching it) and very little to do with the Gospel.

One time when John Paul II visted Nicaragua he publically chastised a priest that was espousing their Nicaraguan form of Liberation Theology.

Yes, but let's observe the log in our own eye before we comment upon the motes found elsewhere. Like it or not, liberation theology arose from our Church. Gustavo Gutierrez was a Catholic priest, as was Juan Luis Segundo and Jon Sobrino. And the Vatican didn't come out against it until the 1980s.

[terryobrien80]

Who, me? I honestly don't know.

I do know this: His dad was a Muslim, no child ever sheds things that intilled upon them by their father. He may not be a Muslim, but he must have some sympathies for the religion of his father.

I do know this: The Liberation Theology spewed out at the church Obama attended is not authentic Christianity. Even protestants would agree with that. It has all to do with politics and racial power (the race depending on which race is preaching it) and very little to do with the Gospel.

One time when John Paul II visted Nicaragua he publically chastised a priest that was espousing their Nicaraguan form of Liberation Theology.

Oh, dear.

Oh dear, oh dear.

That's... that's precious. And really not accurate at all.


Really? Then I take it that you have some inside information about the feelings he has towards his father & the faith of his father that we have no access to?

My point was speculation, but it was informed speculation. I, as a man myself, still remember my youth with my dad, and how it has shaped me. Are you saying this is not possible for Obama? On what do tyou base your statement that what I said is "really not accurate at all"?

BTW: I really don't want to go too far in this direction since it has nothing to do with the thread topic. But I am interested to know how you know the inner mind of Obama. :confused:

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

The bread is white. Well, after consecration, it's still white.
The bread is hard. Well, after consecration, it's still hard.
The bread is present on the altar. Well, after consecration, it's still on the altar.

But... the bread's substance is bread. Well, after consecration, it's the Body of Christ. Even though all its accidental properties remain the same.
Bricker, can you explain to me why only wheat bread and wine from grapes can have, by consecration as part of the sacrament of the Eucharist, their substance transformed into the flesh and blood of Christ? Is there a theological answer why these two products are special in this regard?

[terryobrien80]

.....Yes, but let's observe the log in our own eye before we comment upon the motes found elsewhere......

My opinion was asked for and I gave it. I was not trying to say I am better than anyone else.

[terryobrien80]

Bricker, can you explain to me why only wheat bread and wine from grapes can have, by consecration as part of the sacrament of the Eucharist, their substance transformed into the flesh and blood of Christ? Is there a theological answer why these two products are special in this regard?

It is called "matter" in theology.

For a Sacrament to be valid, it must use proper form and proper matter.

There is no way this can be explained fully in a forum like this. Thousands of books have been written on Sacramental Theology spanning centuries. I can give you links and book titles if you like

[MsWhatsit]

Really? Then I take it that you have some inside information about the feelings he has towards his father & the faith of his father that we have no access to?

Sure don't. Do you?

My experience with the religion of my parents is that I have absolutely no warm sympathetic feelings towards either of them. None. Zero. I find your belief that a grown person is unavoidably sympathetic to the religion of their parents to be laughable, and easily disproved by asking...oh, let's say any of the extremely large number of atheists that were raised by religious families.

(Edit: That is, no sympathetic feelings towards either of their religions. I have a few warm feelings about my actual parents. :p)

[Sunspace]

There is no way this can be explained fully in a forum like this. Why not?

[Gyrate]

Really? Then I take it that you have some inside information about the feelings he has towards his father & the faith of his father that we have no access to?Well, I've got this:My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.[Obama, Barack (16 October 2006). "My spiritual journey". Time]Voila - no mind reading involved at all.

[twickster]

I'm not sure what tomndebb thought was going to happen in MPSIMS, but moving it to MPSIMS didn't prevent a debate from breaking out. I'm moving the thread back to GD -- if he really doesn't want it there, he can move it to the Pit.

twickster, MPSIMS moderator

[terryobrien80]

(deleted by terry)

[terryobrien80]

I'm not sure what tomndebb thought was going to happen in MPSIMS, but moving it to MPSIMS didn't prevent a debate from breaking out. I'm moving the thread back to GD -- if he really doesn't want it there, he can move it to the Pit.

twickster, MPSIMS moderator


Actually, I really would like to go back to the original intent of the thread. I guess I will ignore other posts that go off=track. Is that what you mean? That's okay by me, seriously.

REPEAT OF FIRST POST:

Ask A Catholic
Hello there. I am a Conservative and a Catholic. I am real about my conservatism and I am real about my Catholicism. If you have a question about Catholicism that you feel you have never gotten a straight answer to, ask me and you'll get it. I have taught classes in "Apologetics" (Defending The Faith) so I can either give you a correct answer, or at least I can link you to the correct information. Believe me, there are plenty of websites that have crappy information and some websites that have good information, and I know the difference.

If anyone is REALLY intersted in this, here is a bit of a primer; the best condensed explanation of Catholicism online (about a 5 to 10 minute read): http://www.catholic.com/library/pillar.asp (http://www.catholic.com/library/pillar.asp)

(Please be respectful. Thank you)

[Shodan]

Can a person born to Buddhist parents genuinely convert to Christianity, or must they always "...have some sympathies for the religion of [their parents?]"False dichotomy, assuming that anyone with some sympathy for the religion of his father is not a genuine convert.

Regards,
Shodan

[YogSosoth]

War is an ugly business. No one can deny that. But you cannot vote for a politician who you KNOW will support the evil of abortion just because you THINK MAYBE the other guy may or may not start a war.

And you cannot justify murdering babies because of the doctrine of "original sin". Come on man, you're way out there on that one.

You are using different criteria for abortion and war

You say that simply knowing a polician will support abortion is argument enough to not vote for him. You ignore whether or not his beliefs will manifest into any tangible difference in the levels of abortion

Yet for war, you qualify your answer with whether or not they will eventually start a war. Nothing you said mentions whether simply knowing if they support a war, which is evident enough in their public platforms, is argument enough to not vote for them

So in effect, knowing a politican supports abortion, regardless of whether their election leads to more abortions, is reason not to vote for him. But knowing if a politician supports war is fine. Only if it actually leads to a war, then your vote will have been in error. But then, that vote is already cast, isn't it?

Would you vote for a politician who is pro-choice, yet will implement policies resulting in less abortions overall, or would you support the pro-life candidate, knowing that it's likely their policies will lead to more abortions?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Theological questions:

-Who do you think are saved? Only Catholics or all Christians or good human beings or all human beings in general?
-Do you believe the earth to be young or old? Do you believe God used evolution to create Man?
-Do you believe in papal infallibility?
-What are your opinion of the Protestant Reformers?

[tomndebb]

SECOND: The VAST mojority of these cases involved boys around the age of 14 or so. That means the issue is homosexuality, not pedophelia. This is a CRUCIAL point that the media TOTALLY ignored. Why? Because the media PROMOTES the homosexual lifestyle, and they can hardly say that it caused the problem. But framing it as "pedophelia" was sure to arouse anger because people hate those who harm children (and the media hates the church I might add) and that was the spin the media gave it.Piffle.

The claim that it is homosexuality that is causing the problem, (with the subtext that recent changes in seminaries either allowing or promoting homosexuality), has been a serious claim by a number of far right bishops and a few similar lay groups--and it is hogwash.

There have been substantial numbers of girls who have been abused, just as there have been abuses of boys. (If anything, the press has played up the attacks on boys more than on girls.) Beyond that, the stories that have been coming to light have involved kids going back well into the 1950s. (There would probably be more cases from the 1940s and earlier, but the people who would be in those age groups are now well into their 60s or older and probably do not want to bring forth such claims at this point in their lives.) The most serious accusations have been made against people like John Geoghan who was actually ordained before the Second Vatican Council was convened.

Now, I do not claim that you support the deliberate attempts to misdirect people regarding the issues nor that you are one of the people who falsely claim that changes in seminary practices have created the problem, but your claims do echo the more generalized comments made by people such as Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone--comments that are without basis in fact.

Your remarks concerning the distributed nature of church authority are correct, although people who wish to see the church as monolithic will never be persuaded of that fact, but your efforts to shift the discussion into one of homosexuality is simply wrong.

[tomndebb]

Who, me? I honestly don't know.

I do know this: His dad was a Muslim, no child ever sheds things that intilled upon them by their father. He may not be a Muslim, but he must have some sympathies for the religion of his father.

I do know this: The Liberation Theology spewed out at the church Obama attended is not authentic Christianity. Even protestants would agree with that. It has all to do with politics and racial power (the race depending on which race is preaching it) and very little to do with the Gospel.

One time when John Paul II visted Nicaragua he publically chastised a priest that was espousing their Nicaraguan form of Liberation Theology.This is the sort of answer that got this thread off the rails. Instead of sticking to answering questions about Catholicism and simply declining to answer off-topic questions, you chose to insert your personal views, (views that appear to be based at least partly on factual errors), into the discussion.

President Obama was never a Muslim and never lived in a Muslim household, so you need to find out what you are talking about on that topic.

Any claims regarding "authentic Christianity" are seriously out of scope, both for this thread and, frankly, for your competence to answer. (You may hold whatever personal opinion you might choose, but if you are asserting that you are providing "Catholic" answers, you are out of your element.)

The Liberation Theology endorsed by Reverend Wright shared only a name with the Liberation Theology that was advanced in Latin America twenty years earlier and the pope's remarks had as much to do with the political nature of the priest's actions as it did with his philosophical expression. (Besides which, the pope deciding to condemn one thought as alien to Catholicism simply fails as an effort to place such though outside Christianity.)

I had hoped that you would stick to answers regarding actual Catholic beliefs. I am not going to play ping pong with this thread, so it is now here for the duration. However, if you really wish to simply answer questions regarding Catholicism, (even conservative Catholicism), you might wish to limit your answers to factual assertions, expressing your opinions in separate threads.

[Snarky_Kong]

Terry, have a minute? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13451846&postcount=30)

[Snarky_Kong]

Here, rather.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=596712

[BrainGlutton]

How many Catholics does it take to change a light bulb?

Three . . . but they're really only one.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Can we get a mod to retitle the thread, "ask the link the Catholic guy posts"?

For what it's worth, he's sort of correct about the paedophilia thing: it's generally defined as paraphilic attraction to pre-pubescent children, which would exclude the 14-17 year olds. Of course, his attempt to shift the focus to homosexuality is rather sad.

[Snarky_Kong]

Can we get a mod to retitle the thread, "ask the link the Catholic guy posts"?

For what it's worth, he's sort of correct about the paedophilia thing: it's generally defined as paraphilic attraction to pre-pubescent children, which would exclude the 14-17 year olds. Of course, his attempt to shift the focus to homosexuality is rather sad.

Yeah, only 49% of the rapes involved pedophilia.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Closer to 73%. But hey, that's better than all of them, I suppose.

[Lemur866]

And yes very small moves by a pope - or even a president or king or whatever - speak volumes. After all, even though spiritually we believe the Pope is the shepherd of Christ's Church, he is also a sovereign head of state. Therefore small gestures mean a lot in diplo-speak.


What did the Pope's small moves mean when he watched these half-naked acrobats?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YZ7hMS3Llo

[Girl From Mars]

Who, me? I honestly don't know.

I do know this: His dad was a Muslim, no child ever sheds things that intilled upon them by their father. He may not be a Muslim, but he must have some sympathies for the religion of his father.

You mention you came to your Catholic faith "late in life"; would you mind sharing your religious background prior to your conversion, and that of your parents since you believe this is an indicator to someone's sincerity about their faith?

[manila]

In the early 80's, Papa JP abolished the Devil’s Advocate role in investigating potential saints.

As a result of this reform, he was soon able to canonize 500 and beatify 1,300 people in his tenure. (Including the Poisonous Albanian Dwarf) Compared this to only 98 canonizations from all of his predecessors in the 20th century.

This new breed of "Saint-Lite" gives to me a hint of a 'playing to the crowds' gesture in so much as to garner local support as is also the recent shift in emphasis as to "souls" of stillborns not going to limbo ( as taught when I was a catholic) to trust in the mercy of god!

That latter also seems to be a response to the desertion of bereaved catholic parents in Africa to Islam (where their teaching doesn't penalise stillborns. )


As a conservative catholic how do you view these develeopments?

[tomndebb]

. . . as is also the recent shift in emphasis as to "souls" of stillborns not going to limbo ( as taught when I was a catholic) to trust in the mercy of god!

That latter also seems to be a response to the desertion of bereaved catholic parents in Africa to Islam (where their teaching doesn't penalise stillborns. )This is silly. Limbo was never a teaching of the church, (although it was taught by various Catholics), but simply theological speculation that never made it to the level of actual doctrine. I don't know any informed Catholic who still believed in Limbo dating back to the 1960s.

[manila]

A google search on International Theological Commission Souls of stillborns

Shows it was very much in the news right up to last year. Although the various links still show that the report can be interpreted either way.

this link http://community.babycenter.com/post/a25665121/where_is_my_stillborn_daughter

Quotes a Zenith piece from a council member who says the position of Limbo may be defensible. ( warning the thread is extremely upsetting dealing with the subject of stillborn children and parents suffering terrible anxiety)

However, being out of any catholic theology discussion groups for many many years am not really sure how mainstream catholics view these Theological bodies.

But I would hold that their makeup is generally informed catholics

[terryobrien80]

Theological questions:

-Who do you think are saved? Only Catholics or all Christians or good human beings or all human beings in general?
-Do you believe the earth to be young or old? Do you believe God used evolution to create Man?
-Do you believe in papal infallibility?
-What are your opinion of the Protestant Reformers?

1 The Catholic Church is very specific in teaching that other Christian communities live the life of grace and the word of God and that God uses those communities as means of salvation (see 817, 818, 819 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM)). It also teaches that even non-Chriastians can be saved (see 847 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM)).

2. The earth is old of course. Only ther most extremists Fundie believes in a 10,000 year old earth.

3. Yes I beliebve in Papal Infallibility. That is Dei fide (read this (http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp)).

4. Obviously I believe the reformers were wrong in the extreme regarding theology & doctrine. Beyond that I don't think much of them one way or the other, good or bad. They were men of their times.

[terryobrien80]

Piffle.

The claim that it is homosexuality that is causing the problem, (with the subtext that recent changes in seminaries either allowing or promoting homosexuality), has been a serious claim by a number of far right bishops and a few similar lay groups--and it is hogwash.

There have been substantial numbers of girls who have been abused, just as there have been abuses of boys. (If anything, the press has played up the attacks on boys more than on girls.) Beyond that, the stories that have been coming to light have involved kids going back well into the 1950s. (There would probably be more cases from the 1940s and earlier, but the people who would be in those age groups are now well into their 60s or older and probably do not want to bring forth such claims at this point in their lives.) The most serious accusations have been made against people like John Geoghan who was actually ordained before the Second Vatican Council was convened.

Now, I do not claim that you support the deliberate attempts to misdirect people regarding the issues nor that you are one of the people who falsely claim that changes in seminary practices have created the problem, but your claims do echo the more generalized comments made by people such as Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone--comments that are without basis in fact.

Your remarks concerning the distributed nature of church authority are correct, although people who wish to see the church as monolithic will never be persuaded of that fact, but your efforts to shift the discussion into one of homosexuality is simply wrong.


Sorry, but you are just wrong. Period. If I was 18 years old and I had sex with a guy that was 14, would I be a pedophile or a homosexual? A homosexual of course.

Pedophelia involves sex with pre-pubescent children. As I have aleady stated, the cases overwhelmingly involved young men, around 14. That is not pedophelia. Period. (see post #56 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13452061&postcount=56)).

[AlienVessels]

Sorry, but you are just wrong. Period. If I was 18 years old and I had sex with a guy that was 14, would I be a pedophile or a homosexual? A homosexual of course.

No, you would be a rapist.

[terryobrien80]

......Any claims regarding "authentic Christianity" are seriously out of scope, both for this thread and, frankly, for your competence to answer.......

My competance? Perhaps.
But since I merely offer what the 2000-year-old Church says on the subject, my source has the greatest of competance. Unless you think the Pope & Magestirium are an incompetant source. If you do that it is you, not I, who suffers from a dearth of competance.

[terryobrien80]

Originally Posted by terryobrien80 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13455020#post13455020)
Sorry, but you are just wrong. Period. If I was 18 years old and I had sex with a guy that was 14, would I be a pedophile or a homosexual? A homosexual of course.
No, you would be a rapist.

Yes, if it were forced, that would be true.
But still not a pedophile.
And THAT was my point.

[The Other Jeffrey Lebowski]

Sorry, but you are just wrong. Period. If I was 18 years old and I had sex with a guy that was 14, would I be a pedophile or a homosexual? A homosexual of course.

Pedophelia involves sex with pre-pubescent children. As I have aleady stated, the cases overwhelmingly involved young men, around 14. That is not pedophelia. Period. (see post #56 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13452061&postcount=56)).

Do you know anything about math? From your cite, 40% of the cases are 14 or older. I'm no mathematician, but I do believe that 40% is less than half, meaning that your use of the word "overwhelmingly" is incorrect. Are you familiar with the term "willfully obtuse"?

[Nava]

You are talking about "orders", not branches.

All priests - or nuns for that matter - belong to the One Church, and believe in One set of doctrines. The different "orders" are based on the spiritual disciplines of their founders and emphasize one aspect of the faith more than others: Jesuits, Fransiscans, Dominicans, the Sisters of Mercy, etc. etc. Some emphasize education, some emphasize care for the poor, some emphasize the monastic disciplines, etc.

Yes but what I'm asking is whethere there are any you identify more closely with. For example, I identify closely with both Jesuits and Franciscans (no surprise, both orders are highly influential in my area and my father's side of the family has studied at the Jesuits since they opened their first school), but tend to break in hives when in the presence of an Augustin and would cause hives to Opus Dei novices.

Ah, and I'm one of those Catholics who believe in social justice, pleasedtomeetya. My house was built by a coop organized by the local priest in the 1960s, a part of the social justice movement which was very big in Spain.

[terryobrien80]

Do you know anything about math?

This is the last time I will address this. I started this thread to talk about Catholic teaching, not the sins of individal people I do not know. Nobody here is free of sin, and I mean NOBODY.

I just said that "Pedophelia involves sex with pre-pubescent children". So you can drops that age number lower that 14... ..WAY lower. I simply threw out "14" as one example.

Also, I said earlier: "Now mind you, I AM NOT EXCUSING THE PRIESTS AT ALL. But, you cannot fix a problem if you don't know the root of the problem, and it was not pedophelia (although there were a few instances of that as well.)"

Now, if you people can't get your heads out of the gutter and address the topic then I'll just ask that the thread be closed, and I'll walk away having learned a valuable lesson (one which I have learned before but apparently forgot).



.

[terryobrien80]

Originally Posted by terryobrien80 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13451866#post13451866)
You are talking about "orders", not branches.

All priests - or nuns for that matter - belong to the One Church, and believe in One set of doctrines. The different "orders" are based on the spiritual disciplines of their founders and emphasize one aspect of the faith more than others: Jesuits, Fransiscans, Dominicans, the Sisters of Mercy, etc. etc. Some emphasize education, some emphasize care for the poor, some emphasize the monastic disciplines, etc.

Yes but what I'm asking is whethere there are any you identify more closely with. For example, I identify closely with both Jesuits and Franciscans (no surprise, both orders are highly influential in my area and my father's side of the family has studied at the Jesuits since they opened their first school), but tend to break in hives when in the presence of an Augustin and would cause hives to Opus Dei novices.

Ah, and I'm one of those Catholics who believe in social justice, pleasedtomeetya. My house was built by a coop organized by the local priest in the 1960s, a part of the social justice movement which was very big in Spain.

1) Sorry, I misunderstood. I suppose I identify with the Redemptorist spirituality, which palces heavy emphasis on the sacraments.

2) Well the Church HAS a social doctrine, so in a sense ALL Catholics believe in social justice. My point eartlier was that these doctrines have been perverted by some Catholics in order to advance a particular agenda. This is no secret.

[FinnAgain]

If the Heterosexual Lifestyle (whatever that is) doesn't involve statutory rape, then why would the Homisexual Lifestyle (whatever that is)?

Do your beliefs on sexuality inform your religious views, or is it the other way around?

[terryobrien80]

see post #193

[AlienVessels]

Yes, if it were forced, that would be true.
But still not a pedophile.
And THAT was my point.


You're playing word games.

A 14 year old is not capable of consent. Force doesn't matter.

Heterosexual refers to the general gender attraction. That appellation is not relevant here because the rapist is preying on children that cannot give consent. The issue is not the gender they're attracted to, but the age.

Your hair splitting fails any reasonable test of meaning. It does fit the profile of an apologist however.

[terryobrien80]

I see that nobody - or almost nobody - wants to address the thread topic, so I'll ask the Mod to close the thread.

For the people who asked sincere questions about my beliefs, I thank you for your questions.

For those who want more info, try this: http://www.catholic.com/library/pillar.asp (http://www.catholic.com/library/pillar.asp)

[FinnAgain]

see post #193

Yes, that post does not address let alone answer my questions. Do I understand correctly, then, that you refuse to elaborate in your comments here about a 'homosexual lifestyle' and/or your views on sexuality and their relationship with your religious views

[Nava]

1) Sorry, I misunderstood. I suppose I identify with the Redemptorist spirituality, which palces heavy emphasis on the sacraments.

Thank you.

[The Other Jeffrey Lebowski]

Now, if you people can't get your heads out of the gutter and address the topic then I'll just ask that the thread be closed, and I'll walk away having learned a valuable lesson (one which I have learned before but apparently forgot).
I'm sorry that you feel that way, but your view on the nature of of these heinous crimes, and the nature of homosexuality is, in my humble opinion, inherently wrong. I am a lapsed Catholic, and though I'm not gay, I am empathetic to their struggles against those that deem them to be evil, or flawed (more so than all others, as all of us are imperfect). The Church's treatment of this group of people is one of the main reasons why I have left the flock. So, in any discussion of Catholicism and the Church, for me at least, this is a major point to be talked about, not one to be dismissed because it's beneath you.
I truly believe that if Jesus were alive in this day and age, he would be on their side in this "fight".

[Bryan Ekers]

So what's the deal with gay marriage? Why does anyone try to oppose it gaining legal recognition? What do you think will happen if it becomes legal across the entire U.S.?

Assuming, of course, the OP hasn't abandoned the thread.

[terryobrien80]

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm)

[Nava]

Yeah well, everybody is called to chastity. But the majority of heterosexuals aren't required to have it.

[Bryan Ekers]

I get that the Vatican has an official policy on the matter, but as a self-described conservative, what's your stand on the consequences of the legality of gay marriage?

[terryobrien80]

Yeah well, everybody is called to chastity. But the majority of heterosexuals aren't required to have it.

Yes they are.

And for the record: A mortal sin is a mortal sin. Their sin's are no worse than mine. But I admit mine are sins, they don't, and therein lies the problem (from a Catholic POV that is).

The reason this issue gets so much ink spilled over it as opposed to the sins of heterosexuials is because, as they say, "The squeeky wheel gets the grease". If heterosexuials organized big parades with colorful flags promoting adultery or masturbation or whatever, they'd be getting just as much attention.

[terryobrien80]

I get that the Vatican has an official policy on the matter, but as a self-described conservative, what's your stand on the consequences of the legality of gay marriage?

Personally? I'd say let them have something that gives them the same rights, hospital visitation, taxes, etc. But do not call it marriage.

You see, that is the agenda here. They want to change the definition of the word. If it was all about the rights of a couple... ..heck, a lot of states grant them that already. But that's NOT what its about. Its about something far more nefarious.

[Bryan Ekers]

Personally? I'd say let them have something that gives them the same rights, hospital visitation, taxes, etc. But do not call it marriage.

You see, that is the agenda here. They want to change the definition of the word.
And... is that a bad thing? Words get redefined and expanded all the time. Heck, "bit" was a perfectly good word before the computer people got hold of it and added their contribution, and it remains a perfectly good word afterward.

But that's NOT what its about. Its about something far more nefarious.

And that is what, exactly? How will it manifest, and when?

[Der Trihs]

Personally? I'd say let them have something that gives them the same rights, hospital visitation, taxes, etc. But do not call it marriage.Can't be done, the word has legal meaning. And doing so is an insult anyway, it's a way of telling homosexuals that they are so "evil" that they aren't allowed to do something that even serial killers are allowed to do.

You see, that is the agenda here. They want to change the definition of the word. If it was all about the rights of a couple... ..heck, a lot of states grant them that already. But that's NOT what its about. Its about something far more nefarious.No, it's about people wanting to get married. The opposition to single sex marriage on the other hand is about nothing but bigotry and malice. Purely a matter of evil, without a single redeeming characteristic.

[Bryan Ekers]

Yeah, we get it, Trihs. Meantime, I'm trying to ask the OP's opinion rather than pre-emptively assuming it's an evil opinion. I hope that'll be your one contribution on the subject in this thread, seeing as I don't expect (based on observation and experience) that you ever vary from that recital, and it doesn't improve with repetition.

[Der Trihs]

Yeah, we get it, Trihs. Meantime, I'm trying to ask the OP's opinion rather than pre-emptively assuming it's an evil opinion. I hope that'll be your one contribution on the subject in this thread, seeing as I don't expect (based on observation and experience) that you ever vary from that recital, and it doesn't improve with repetition.It's a very one sided dispute. There's been the occasional thread where anti-SSM people are challenged to come up with a reasonable argument for their side; none ever have.

[terryobrien80]

.....it's about people wanting to get married. The opposition to single sex marriage on the other hand is about nothing but bigotry and malice......

No, its about God.
You think God is a bigot?
Remember the premise of this thread. If you want to reject Christianity and Christian belief, that of course is your own affair. But do not sit there and tell me my Christian values are all about bigotry. That very statement reveals your OWN anti-Christian bigotry, and ignorance as well.

[Bryan Ekers]

I know, I know, and in all honesty I have no expectation that terry will have anything original to offer on the subject, either. I just like the process more than skipping to the end.

[Der Trihs]

No, its about God.
You think God is a bigot?As typically described, yes. If your god hates homosexuals, then he's just as bigoted as anyone else who hates homosexuals.


But do not sit there and tell me my Christian values are all about bigotry. That very statement reveals your OWN anti-Christian bigotry, and ignorance as well.You do realize that not all Christians agree with you? Including the homosexual ones who want to get married?

Bigoted values are bigoted whether or not they are "Christian values" or any other sort.

[terryobrien80]

I know, I know, and in all honesty I have no expectation that terry will have anything original to offer on the subject, either. I just like the process more than skipping to the end.

Thats absurd. That's like saying I have nothing to new to offer on the molecular makeup of water, there for talking about water is a waste of time.

What do you expect me to do, elaborate on the blatantly obvious? You think I can do better than God? Homoseuxual activity is a violation of Divine Law and Natural Law. Laws that defy morality are immoraw laws. That is why abortion is immoral and wrong, regardless of what the Courts say. Homosexual activity too is immoral and wrong, depite what Liberal heathens say.

But its all good man. At some point down the road we will ALL know who was right and who was wrong, and I personally do not fear THAT day in the slightest.

[Der Trihs]

And...he's gone. He posted another copy-and-paste OP that got disappeared.

[Bryan Ekers]

Oh, well... I gave it a shot. And here I am an atheist liberal (well, a Canadian moderate, which makes me a liberal by U.S. standards) who was willing to engage the OP, so he can't make any absolute claims about us on this board to the effect that we're all out to get him or something.

[Der Trihs]

Oh, well... I gave it a shot. And here I am an atheist liberal (well, a Canadian moderate, which makes me a liberal by U.S. standards) who was willing to engage the OP, so he can't make any absolute claims about us on this board to the effect that we're all out to get him or something.Eh, he had "Internet martyr" written all over him; he's probably talking right now about how the evil atheist Commie liberal SDMB banned him because they couldn't handle the Truth.

[Gyrate]

No, its about God.
You think God is a bigot?
Remember the premise of this thread. If you want to reject Christianity and Christian belief, that of course is your own affair. But do not sit there and tell me my Christian values are all about bigotry. That very statement reveals your OWN anti-Christian bigotry, and ignorance as well.What's with this argument lately? "You're calling me a bigot? Well you're a bigot for calling me a bigot!" Sorry, but calling someone out for intolerance is not an equivalent act of intolerance, any more than arresting someone for kidnapping is an equivalent act of kidnapping.

And I appreciate your attempt to hide behind God ("It's not me! It's God! Are you calling God a bigot, you bigot?") but I'm afraid it is you. And frankly it saddens me that you consider God to be so petty.

[On preview] Alas, poor terry. Now he'll be left to stew in his own worldview with no one to martyr him, the poor persecuted Catholic.

SDMB: Internet Hairshirt.

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, with any luck, his God will punish him sooner or later. Or he'll punish himself for the guilt he feels for not living up the standards of his God.

[Marley23]

I've banned the OP, so I'm locking this thread.