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.
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.
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?
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.
What is Catholicism separate from the Church?
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).
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.
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
You might want to read the link in the first post. Its a great overview: http://www.catholic.com/library/pillar.asp
Can you give specifics for what you are talking about here?
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.
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?
Yes. But the President appoints federal judges, and he can’t remove them.
Yes.
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.
After I saw the foul language, I am afraid I didn’t read much further. Sorry. <<shrug>>
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.”
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?
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.
How can an organization created by and staffed by humans, be divine?
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.
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?
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.
Well, you haven’t gotten to my first set of questions, but I have a few more:
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?
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?
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