Pope Ratzi

[Mr.Moto]

@MaxTheVool

Bricker, a question: if the Catholic church is such a moral authority, how to you reconcile its strong opposition to the Iraq war with your support of that war? (Or has this been covered elsewhere?)

Pope Benedict XVI answered this himself in a letter to Cardinal McCarrick in 2004 (obviously before his elevation).

@Pope Benedict XVI

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Source.

This conforms with my understanding of the Catechism as well, and so seems a pretty well settled matter from a Catholic viewpoint.

[Homebrew]

*t may still be permissible to … to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty…

Sounds like Benedict may be setting up a change in the Church’s stance on executions. BTW, at what point did the Church first decide to be anti-death penalty? Obviously it supported it in the past, what with The Spanish Inquisition and all.

[Homebrew]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The RCC does not forbid oral sex as foreplay but you’re supposed to follow it up with intercourse…or to put it more crudely, you’re not supposed to come in her mouth…at least not on purpose.

I guess bukakke is right out then.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Homebrew

I guess bukakke is right out then.

If everyone engaged is Catholic and is singing Adeste Fideles, it’s all right.

Daniel

[jayjay]

@Homebrew

Sounds like Benedict may be setting up a change in the Church’s stance on executions. BTW, at what point did the Church first decide to be anti-death penalty? Obviously it supported it in the past, what with The Spanish Inquisition and all.

This will be incredibly nitpicky, especially as it doesn’t really change your conclusion at all, but the Spanish Inquisition wasn’t run by the RCC. It was entirely a Spanish government institution, begun by Isabella and Ferdinand, although it was headed by a member of the clergy (Torquemada).

[Bricker]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The RCC does not forbid oral sex as foreplay but you’re supposed to follow it up with intercourse…or to put it more crudely, you’re not supposed to come in her mouth…at least not on purpose.

Correct.

[Mr.Moto]

@Homebrew

Sounds like Benedict may be setting up a change in the Church’s stance on executions. BTW, at what point did the Church first decide to be anti-death penalty? Obviously it supported it in the past, what with The Spanish Inquisition and all.

Not a change from what I can see. From the Catechism:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

And again, there may be some debate and disagreement about what constitutes necessity and rarity, a disagreement noted by the Pope.

[fiercesheep]

@Homebrew

Perhaps you don’t know that I’m gay, fiercesheep. Or maybe you’re unaware of the pronouncements from the church that I’m part of a anti-family culture of death because of that fact. It could be that you are unaware of the Church’s insistence that same-sex relationships are an attack on marriage and that adoption by gays does violence to the kids.

Fuck the church.

Hi Homebrew

AS it happens I didn’t know that you were gay. I am of course aware of the anti-gay pronouncements; ironically something that the Fundamentalist Christians and the Catholics can agree on

I guess if someone was villifying my lifestyle I might equally riled; except of course they are - Agree with and use contraception? Yep! Pro-choice? Yep! Woman? Yep! What I’m trying to say is that the RCC is irrelevant so why sweat it? The RCC doesn’t make the laws; that’s not what’s stopping you getting the legal equality you rightly deserve. But what I am not trying to do is get into a fight with you or anyone else about it. I just really don’t understand the vitriol and the hatred I’m reading, not just from you but from so many others.

Sorry if I pissed you off, btw.

[furt]

@Estilicon

Benedict XVI was JP II right hand since 1981. He isn’t more conservative taht our last Pope but the fact is that his job was to punish the heretics, (in that way he was the bad cop and JPII the good one)

I think this is a very good point that most people have not considered.

[jayjay]

fiercesheep, I think part of the disconnect is location. The RCC is the largest single religious denomination in the United States. That’s a lot of voters being directly influenced by the Church’s teachings. It (along with the LDS) is one of the big agitators against SSM, though in a slightly quieter way than the loudmouths.

In other words, it really DOES affect those of us who aren’t members (anymore).

[Captain_Amazing]

@Homebrew

Obviously it supported it in the past, what with The Spanish Inquisition and all.

And to nitpick even more, the death penalty was never part of canon law, and even the Spanish Inquisition wouldn’t sentence people to death. The person would be found guilty under canon law of being a heretic or whatever, then turned over to the state, and then they’d be found guilty in the secular court of heresy and sentenced to death for that.

[Homebrew]

Nitpick or weasel words? Pope Sixtus IV issued the Papal Bull that authorized the “secular” government to begin the Inquisition which was carried out by Torquemada.

[RedFury]

@Bricker

Before the war, I believed what the President believed - that we had information about an imminent threat. This information was not available to the Vatican, and so their judgement of whether the conflict met the criteria for a just war was not based on full information.

Of course, as it happened, the information we had was not correct. Knowing what we know now, I would not have supported the start of the war. But based on our best knowledge at the time, I believed it was the correct thing to do.

Translation: Longwinded euphemism for “they lied to us, yet as the Hypocritical Conservative Religious Bot that I continually show myself to be (this thread as good an example as any), I am incapable of condemning them for it and I am thus reduced to making up bullshit excuses.”

[Mr.Moto]

Be that as it may, it doesn’t make him, or me, a bad Catholic.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Homebrew

Nitpick or weasel words? Pope Sixtus IV issued the Papal Bull that authorized the “secular” government to begin the Inquisition which was carried out by Torquemada.

Yeah, but it still wasn’t Torquemada who sentenced them to death.

[Bricker]

@RedFury

Translation: Longwinded euphemism for “they lied to us, yet as the Hypocritical Conservative Religious Bot that I continually show myself to be (this thread as good an example as any), I am incapable of condemning them for it and I am thus reduced to making up bullshit excuses.”

In what way am I hypocritical? Religious, yes, and conservative, yes, and I assume in your mind that proves the “bot” charge. But where have I been hypocritical? I’m completely consistent.

[Homebrew]

Matthew 27:24
When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

And the Bush Administration isn’t responsible for what happens to the prisoner in cases of “Extraordinary rendition” either I presume?

Additionally I guess you don’t count the cases of those who died during their questioning as executions. But beyond the Spanish Inquistion there were later ones in England, Germany and elsewhere that killed and tortured under the auspices of seeking confessions for heresey and witchcraft. The church is not innocent.

Ironcially Benedict XVI was in charge of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as Holy Office of the The Inquisition, conveniently renamed in 1965.)

[Loopydude]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The RCC does not forbid oral sex as foreplay but you’re supposed to follow it up with intercourse…or to put it more crudely, you’re not supposed to come in her mouth…at least not on purpose.

So…is it a bigger sin to swallow or spit?

[Frank]

@Bricker

I’m completely consistent.

Can’t argue this. You are nothing if not consistent. Sometimes to a fault, but still…

[Captain_Amazing]

@Homebrew

And the Bush Administration isn’t responsible for what happens to the prisoner in cases of “Extraordinary rendition” either I presume?

Morally responsible, maybe. But the prisoner wasn’t executed under US law, so it wouldn’t count as a legal execution.

Additionally I guess you don’t count the cases of those who died during their questioning as executions. But beyond the Spanish Inquistion there were later ones in England, Germany and elsewhere that killed and tortured under the auspices of seeking confessions for heresey and witchcraft. The church is not innocent.

If they died under questioning or torture, it’s not an execution. The death penalty wasn’t imposed. And, which later inquisitions in England, Germany, and elsewhere are you talking about? The only time England was Catholic after the Spanish Inquisition was during the reign of Queen Mary, and I’m pretty sure that all the executions and sentences for Protestantism in her reign were handed down by secular courts. At least, there was no English Inquisition established.