NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jQjAIPlGEFkMsL4LzVbOmz8Q1UfgD96UJCN00

Your thoughts?

Either it means someone in the Catholic Church does grasp basic human biology after all, or is just covering up their asses after another embarassment. Then again unless the excommunications are lifted it's just lip service.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jQjAIPlGEFkMsL4LzVbOmz8Q1UfgD96UJCN00

Your thoughts?

The opinions of one man don't really amount to much. Especially, if you ask did they do something about the excommunication?

Talk is cheap......

I have some hope for the Church yet.

There's actual disagreement about this. Good.

I find it difficult to imagine why they would still mandate excommunication in a case where the mother's life is threatened.

I find it difficult to imagine why they would still mandate excommunication in a case where the mother's life is threatened.

Because no good deed should go unpunished.

I thought they were lifting the excommunication.

I find it difficult to imagine why they would still mandate excommunication in a case where the mother's life is threatened.

Because they are the god damn church, duh.

I find it difficult to imagine why they would still mandate excommunication in a case where the mother's life is threatened.

Who are you to question the will of God ? It is His wish according to His representative on Earth, and no doubt there is some underlying wisdom we as puny humans cannot see.

Now go sell the girl to her rapist.

I hope this leads the way to the acceptance of stem-cell research. One can dream...

Who are you to question the will of God ? It is His wish according to His representative on Earth, and no doubt there is some underlying wisdom we as puny humans cannot see.

Now go sell the girl to her rapist.

No no, you're suppose to sell the family some ticket thing so that the Church will pray for the aborted baby who is now in Purgatory.

The opinions of one man don't really amount to much. Especially, if you ask did they do something about the excommunication?

Talk is cheap......

Unless that man happens to be the dude in charge of abortion policy at the Vatican. Which he is. And so his opinion is actually quite important.

Archbishop Fisichella is the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, the group specifically created by Pope John Paul II to study questions such as abortion and inform Church policy.

Their website:
http://www.academiavita.org/portal.jsp?lang=english

Unless that man happens to be the dude in charge of abortion policy at the Vatican. Which he is. And so his opinion is actually quite important.

Archbishop Fisichella is the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, the group specifically created by Pope John Paul II to study questions such as abortion and inform Church policy.

Their website:
http://www.academiavita.org/portal.jsp?lang=english

That doesnt make his talk any less cheap unless policy is changed over it.

And I cant see Benny going along with it.

That doesnt make his talk any less cheap unless policy is changed over it.

And I cant see Benny going along with it.

It certainly does an indicate a willingness on the part of the Vatican hierarchy to look at abortion from more than just a traditional view.

It certainly does an indicate a willingness on the part of the Vatican hierarchy to look at abortion from more than just a traditional view.

It does, but after watching the Catholic Church take one step foward and two steps back throughout all of history, Im not optimistic.

But I dont mean to rain on anyone's parade. Id be really happy if this translated into policy change.

It does, but after watching the Catholic Church take one step foward and two steps back throughout all of history, Im not optimistic.

But I dont mean to rain on anyone's parade. Id be really happy if this translated into policy change.

Why should the Church change its policy on abortion? Or, to put it differently, when has the Church stood on something other than principle?

I find it difficult to imagine why they would still mandate excommunication in a case where the mother's life is threatened.
Because some are misogynistic, hidebound lunatics who'd prefer a nine year old girl risk death rather than be spared a risky pregnancy and then raise the product of her rape by her stepfather?

Why should the Church change its policy on abortion? Or, to put it differently, when has the Church stood on something other than principle?

Evolution.
Heliocentric Universe.

No no, you're suppose to sell the family some ticket thing so that the Church will pray for the aborted baby who is now in Purgatory.
Ha ha, yeah, funny, hasn't been done in a few hundred years. As long as we're flinging misconceptions around, when do you burn your sacrifice in the Wicker Man? Before or after communing with the devil and flying on your broom?

Evolution.
Heliocentric Universe.

Why are those principled discussions? Abortion = death, and the Church doesn't support death. That's all it needs to boil down to.

Why are those principled discussions? Abortion = death, and the Church doesn't support death. That's all it needs to boil down to.

If I understand you correctly, I think slavery would be an example of the Church changing its doctrine to reflect the change in moral principles that occurred throughout history.

Interesting, but I can't see Pope Sidious letting much more than talk happen on the issue. He's even more conservative than most of the church elders.

Why are those principled discussions? Abortion = death, and the Church doesn't support death. That's all it needs to boil down to.

An interesting viewpoint. Consider the ethical implications. In this case, not permitting an abortion is forcing - yes, forcing - the girl to bear the product of her rape, at the possible expense of her own life, and then raise them.

Way to defend life - by ruining the lives of innocents.

Ha ha, yeah, funny, hasn't been done in a few hundred years. As long as we're flinging misconceptions around, when do you burn your sacrifice in the Wicker Man? Before or after communing with the devil and flying on your broom?

I think we're either to do it at Ostara or Beltane, can't remember which. Also, we communicate with our Dark Lord and Master, burn the human sarcrifice and then fly on our brooms and terrorize the local village. *nods*

Am I the only one who can joke about religion?

Ha ha, yeah, funny, hasn't been done in a few hundred years. As long as we're flinging misconceptions around, when do you burn your sacrifice in the Wicker Man? Before or after communing with the devil and flying on your broom?

While I understand your point, he doesnt have a Holy Book that is still claimed to be the inspired word of God demanding he do those things.

Christians do.

Why are those principled discussions? Abortion = death, and the Church doesn't support death. That's all it needs to boil down to.

Many other things can influence the discussion, however. The fact that the bible says nothing about abortion. The fact that the church could reverse its position on embryo = life. Or they could say abortion is OK to save the life of the mother, because otherwise 9 year old rape victims die, and that = bad.

They imprisoned Galileo for heresy for daring to say the Earth was not the center of the universe. Then he was publicly lauded by Pope John Paul II and they admitted they were wrong to have treated him this way -- and there is now a statue to him in the Vatican.

Not that it does much for Galileo, but they have admitted they were wrong and sought to set it right on some occasions. Perhaps speaking against the excommunication of these doctors and the child's mother is a step in that direction when it comes to clear cases of "mother's life is in danger." I don't expect it will be put forth as a regular method of birth control, or that other forms of birth control will be permitted -- but a touch of humanity is what is necessary to transform mere law into justice.

If I understand you correctly, I think slavery would be an example of the Church changing its doctrine to reflect the change in moral principles that occurred throughout history.

Good call. I have no good argument against this except perhaps that by the strict moral standards I attribute to the Church, slavery was never "right", merely "accepted". As enlightened individuals we know that slavery = death (of property ownership, of certain natural rights, etc.), so perhaps the Church's position evolved out of paternalistic Euro-centrism and into what it should have been all along.

I would amend my statements, lest anyone get the wrong impression, with the fact that obviously the Church responds to social pressures, and there is no absolute right or wrong, but when we are discussing the Catholic Church it is not incorrect to say that they believe there are absolutes.

An interesting viewpoint. Consider the ethical implications. In this case, not permitting an abortion is forcing - yes, forcing - the girl to bear the product of her rape, at the possible expense of her own life, and then raise them.

Way to defend life - by ruining the lives of innocents.

I'm not defending the Church, merely trying to explain it.

Also, with original sin, none of us are innocent. ;)

While I understand your point, he doesnt have a Holy Book that is still claimed to be the inspired word of God demanding he do those things.

Christians do.



Many other things can influence the discussion, however. The fact that the bible says nothing about abortion. The fact that the church could reverse its position on embryo = life. Or they could say abortion is OK to save the life of the mother, because otherwise 9 year old rape victims die, and that = bad.
Do they?

It is permissible to end the life of an unborn child before it can be felt to move, according to the Bible, and merely pay a fine, unless the woman is harmed. If she is harmed, then the consequence is death. Go ahead. Look it up.

... he doesnt have a Holy Book that is still claimed to be the inspired word of God demanding he do those things. Christians do....The fact that the bible says nothing about abortion...

Do you see that these two sentences are not consistent?

They imprisoned Galileo for heresy for daring to say the Earth was not the center of the universe. Then he was publicly lauded by Pope John Paul II and they admitted they were wrong to have treated him this way -- and there is now a statue to him in the Vatican.

Not that it does much for Galileo, but they have admitted they were wrong and sought to set it right on some occasions. Perhaps speaking against the excommunication of these doctors and the child's mother is a step in that direction when it comes to clear cases of "mother's life is in danger." I don't expect it will be put forth as a regular method of birth control, or that other forms of birth control will be permitted -- but a touch of humanity is what is necessary to transform mere law into justice.

To be completely fair to the church (not something I normally do, take it when you get it:p), their biggest problem with Galileo wasnt his theory. It was the fact that he was a dick, and when he presented it basically said "Anyone who disagrees with me is a retard". Thats why his book was banned initially. The guy deciding was offended.

Course he published his book anyway, and boom, heresy.

Do you see that these two sentences are not consistent?

The church admits that their doctrine on abortion is not based off anything in the bible. The church also claims that their book is the inspired word of God. The inconsistancy is not my problem, and I dont plan on defending them over it.

Do they?

It is permissible to an unborn child before it can be felt to move, according to the Bible, and merely pay a fine. Go ahead. Look it up.

Yeah, I know, Im well aware of that passage. That has fuck all to do with what I said. I was saying that Willie's comment is what the bible actually says you should do.

Yeah, I know, Im well aware of that passage. That has fuck all to do with what I said. I was saying that Willie's comment is what the bible actually says you should do.

Eh I was just making a joke to be honest. While I am sorry that Kat didn't see it as a joke, and I apologize if I offended her. I do take my own Pagan belief seriously, but I believe that my God and Goddess, and Yahweh gives us the ability to laugh at ourselves once in awhile. Hence my reply to Kat post about Wicker man, Satan, and Brooms.

Then again, I've always had a weird sense of humor.

...

The church admits that their doctrine on abortion is not based off anything in the bible. The church also claims that their book is the inspired word of God. The inconsistancy is not my problem, and I dont plan on defending them over it.

You (not the Church) claimed that the RC Church has a book, the Bible, that says that the Catholics must do or avoid certain things. Now you (not the Church) are saying that it doesn't say these things.

You (not the Church) claimed that the RC Church has a book, the Bible, that says that the Catholics must do or avoid certain things. Now you (not the Church) are saying that it doesn't say these things.

So the church doesnt say the bible is the inspired word of God? The Roman Catholic Church doesnt tell people to follow the rules in the Bible? Well, this is news to me, and Catholics.

Besides, I think youre failing to differentiate between what I was saying the Bible says and what the Church says. My two comments were not really related, and were addressing a different aspect (the bible in one and the church in the other). The combined them to make it seem like they really had something to do with each other.


For example, Bible says to stone non virgins on their father's doorstep.
The church, rightfully, says thats a bad idea.

Willy took a shot at what the bible said, and kat responded with a stereotype about pagans. My point was that pagans dont have a book that they still claim is the divine truth that tells them to do those things, while Christians do. The bible does tell you to do awful things.

Doesnt mean all Christians pay attention. If they did, wed see a lot more people in jail for homocide via stoning.


Like I said, my comments were not really related.

Yeah, I know, Im well aware of that passage. That has fuck all to do with what I said. I was saying that Willie's comment is what the bible actually says you should do.
No, it isn't. If the bible says that it is permissible to end a fetus' life if you pay a fine, then that's what the bible says you should do.

Eh I was just making a joke to be honest. While I am sorry that Kat didn't see it as a joke, and I apologize if I offended her. I do take my own Pagan belief seriously, but I believe that my God and Goddess, and Yahweh gives us the ability to laugh at ourselves once in awhile. Hence my reply to Kat post about Wicker man, Satan, and Brooms.

Then again, I've always had a weird sense of humor.
I didn't think you'd take my poke back seriously... since we both know that that view of pagans is fictional.

Isn't it? ;)

I didn't think you'd take my poke back seriously... since we both know that that view of pagans is fictional.

Isn't it? ;)

It's as fictional as The Bible is my dear. ;)

No, it isn't. If the bible says that it is permissible to end a fetus' life if you pay a fine, then that's what the bible says you should do.



Yeah, but Willy wasnt talking about a fetus. He was talking about Purgatory.

Which, in retrospect, I was thinking of The Alma Mater's comment, not Willies. There is nothing in the Bible about indulgences. Im dropping it.

Yeah, but Willy wasnt talking about a fetus. He was talking about Purgatory.

Which, in retrospect, I was thinking of The Alma Mater's comment, not Willies. There is nothing in the Bible about indulgences. Im dropping it.

Yea, I was making a poke about the old practice of Indulgences. The Church dropped that a long time ago.

Yea, I was making a poke about the old practice of Indulgences. The Church dropped that a long time ago.

I know. I said that in my comment.

I just wasted about 15 minutes becaue I got your post confused with TAM.

Oh, I don't know... the Bible's a solid thing as far as I can tell... *turns over one of her three in hands*. (They're different versions, btw.)

So that DOES mean that you fly through the air and pinch girls as they sleep and make milk go sour and eggs go rotten and dance naked in the woods round a fire and commune with the devil! WITCH! WITCH!!!

WILGROVE TURNED ME INTO A NEWT!!!

Yeah, but Willy wasnt talking about a fetus. He was talking about Purgatory.

Which, in retrospect, I was thinking of The Alma Mater's comment, not Willies. There is nothing in the Bible about indulgences. Im dropping it.

Hmm ? Which statement of mine are you referring to ?
That God works in mysterious ways and it is not up to us puny humans to question the words of His representative ?

Or the reference to the Biblical rule that a raped unbethroted woman should be sold to her rapist, who should then marry her with no possibility of divorce ? I did not make that up you know.

Ha ha, yeah, funny, hasn't been done in a few hundred years.
Actually, Benedict is reviving the practice of "indulgences" (or trying to; it's a hard sell these days).
Interesting, but I can't see Pope Sidious letting much more than talk happen on the issue.
I don't know, may we'll find Fisichella hanging from a bridge.
To be completely fair to the church (not something I normally do, take it when you get it:p), their biggest problem with Galileo wasnt his theory. It was the fact that he was a dick, and when he presented it basically said "Anyone who disagrees with me is a retard". Thats why his book was banned initially.
But the Church didn't act only against Galileo, it issued a blanket ban against any Copernican literature. It was not until the 1830's that the Church grudgingly allowed the imprimatur to textbooks which described heliocentric astronomy with the introductory phrase "Scientists believe that..." (it was still heresy to say it was true, but good to educate Catholic kids about what it is that those silly scientists say).
The Church can retract the personal condemnation of Galileo, but can't officially rescind the blanket ban on Copernicanism because the Pope who issued that Bull (Alexander VII) "used the magic words": he called it an ex cathedra proclamation "by virtue of our apostolic authority as the vicar of St. Peter", and enjoined it as a duty on all the faithful "to abjure and renounce the false Pythagorean doctrine that the earth is subject to a double motion, a diurnal rotation about an axis and a yearly revolution about the sun"; using the magic words makes that proclamation "infallible" so all they can do is hope everyone forgets it was ever said.

Oh, I don't know... the Bible's a solid thing as far as I can tell... *turns over one of her three in hands*. (They're different versions, btw.)

So that DOES mean that you fly through the air and pinch girls as they sleep and make milk go sour and eggs go rotten and dance naked in the woods round a fire and commune with the devil! WITCH! WITCH!!!

WILGROVE TURNED ME INTO A NEWT!!!

Wait, if you're a newt, then how are you able to talk?!

Dammit...I knew I missed something from that spell.... *flips through Book of Shadows*.

Or the reference to the Biblical rule that a raped unbethroted woman should be sold to her rapist, who should then marry her with no possibility of divorce ? I did not make that up you know.

This one, and I know you didnt make it up. Thats what sparked my whole arguement.

Why are those principled discussions? Abortion = death, and the Church doesn't support death. That's all it needs to boil down to.
Then the church is crazy.

Or you could just be wrong. That might be more likely.

See, death is an inevitable part of life. Even Jesus died. In fact, if he hadn't died, he could never have been resurrected, and therefore...

The church does not oppose death. That would be silly. The church opposes killing. Or rather, it says it does. In practice, it has killed or condoned the killing of millions over the centuries. What it actually opposes is abortion, plain and simple. But apparently that is open to review, just like its positions on other controversial issues.

Actually, Benedict is reviving the practice of "indulgences" (or trying to; it's a hard sell these days).

I don't know, may we'll find Fisichella hanging from a bridge.

But the Church didn't act only against Galileo, it issued a blanket ban against any Copernican literature. It was not until the 1830's that the Church grudgingly allowed the imprimatur to textbooks which described heliocentric astronomy with the introductory phrase "Scientists believe that..." (it was still heresy to say it was true, but good to educate Catholic kids about what it is that those silly scientists say).
The Church can retract the personal condemnation of Galileo, but can't officially rescind the blanket ban on Copernicanism because the Pope who issued that Bull (Alexander VII) "used the magic words": he called it an ex cathedra proclamation "by virtue of our apostolic authority as the vicar of St. Peter", and enjoined it as a duty on all the faithful "to abjure and renounce the false Pythagorean doctrine that the earth is subject to a double motion, a diurnal rotation about an axis and a yearly revolution about the sun"; using the magic words makes that proclamation "infallible" so all they can do is hope everyone forgets it was ever said.

Actually dogmatic theologians disagree on which papal pronouncements are infallible, and that phrase "by virtue of our apostolic authority..." does not at all automatically render a pronouncement infallible. The only two papal pronouncements indisputably recognized as infallible by all Catholics are Immaculate Conception and Assumption. The papacy itself hasn't even gotten around to compile the list of what is infallible and what isn't.

Actually dogmatic theologians disagree on which papal pronouncements are infallible, and that phrase "by virtue of our apostolic authority..." does not at all automatically render a pronouncement infallible.
Not by itself, but together with a pronouncement of a duty enjoined on all the faithful it does: according to the Vatican I council, assuming they were infallible about what infallibility is (maybe they thought they were being infallible, but they were mistaken?)
The only two papal pronouncements indisputably recognized as infallible by all Catholics are Immaculate Conception and Assumption. The papacy itself hasn't even gotten around to compile the list of what is infallible and what isn't.
They don't dare.
Of course, the whole doctrine of infallibility itself doesn't make any sense if there is no way to distinguish an "infallible" statement from any other: then it only amounts to, "Once in a while the Pope actually says things that are true, but there's no way to tell which things those are." I don't think even the worst opponents of the Catholic Church would deny that at least once, the Pope has said a true thing.

So the church doesnt say the bible is the inspired word of God? The Roman Catholic Church doesnt tell people to follow the rules in the Bible? Well, this is news to me, and Catholics.

Besides, I think youre failing to differentiate between what I was saying the Bible says and what the Church says. My two comments were not really related, and were addressing a different aspect (the bible in one and the church in the other). The combined them to make it seem like they really had something to do with each other.


For example, Bible says to stone non virgins on their father's doorstep.
The church, rightfully, says thats a bad idea.

Willy took a shot at what the bible said, and kat responded with a stereotype about pagans. My point was that pagans dont have a book that they still claim is the divine truth that tells them to do those things, while Christians do. The bible does tell you to do awful things.

Doesnt mean all Christians pay attention. If they did, wed see a lot more people in jail for homocide via stoning.


Like I said, my comments were not really related.

What I'm trying to point out is that you can't just say that 'The Bible says x', and 'the Church says the Bible's right', and add them together to say that 'the Church says that you should do x'.

Good call. I have no good argument against this except perhaps that by the strict moral standards I attribute to the Church, slavery was never "right", merely "accepted". As enlightened individuals we know that slavery = death (of property ownership, of certain natural rights, etc.), so perhaps the Church's position evolved out of paternalistic Euro-centrism and into what it should have been all along.

I would amend my statements, lest anyone get the wrong impression, with the fact that obviously the Church responds to social pressures, and there is no absolute right or wrong, but when we are discussing the Catholic Church it is not incorrect to say that they believe there are absolutes.



I'm not defending the Church, merely trying to explain it.

Also, with original sin, none of us are innocent. ;)

Wow, half an hour means a lot of posts, apparently. Oh, well.

VC, Original Sin doesn't work that way. Remember, a central tenet of Christian theology (particularly Catholic theology) is that Jesus' death effectively removed original sin.

So-

Either: You are right, and original sin means that the girl, despite being a rape/incest victim, is not innocent, and therefore is not deserving of the protection of the Church (or anyone else). Guess what? This also means that the fetuses, alive or not, are not innocent, either - bang! No grounds for excommunication! After all, no inncoent lives were taken. Further, this logic undermines the Church's entire anti-abortion stance.

Or: You are wrong, and original sin doesn't apply here, because Jesus dies on the cross to remove the stain of original sin. In which case, the fetuses (if they count as alive) are innocent, but so is the girl - who is therefore entitled to mercy and salvation. Bang! - excommunication is no longer a viable option!

Either way, excommunication under these circumstances, irrespective of the Church's normal condemnation of abortion, is not a viable resolution. And kudos to the Vatican for having the intellectual honesty, not to mention compassion, to realise it.

EDIT: Learn your history, VC. At one time, the Church did, in fact, attempt to theologically justify slavery as part of "God's Order". This was, in fact, one of the more significant stumbling blocks on the road to end it.

What I'm trying to point out is that you can't just say that 'The Bible says x', and 'the Church says the Bible's right', and add them together to say that 'the Church says that you should do x'.

But thats the thing. The Church does say the bible is right, that it is the inspired word of God. The fact that they just ignore certian parts of it, to me, speaks of issues with the bible, and hurts its claim to be the inspired word of God.

Logically speaking...

If the Bible says X
And the Church says the bible is right/the inspired word of God
Shouldnt the church also say that you should do x?

EDIT: Im well aware of that the Church's (and many Christian's) rebuttle will be, and their rebuttle opens up a whole host of other theological questions, but thats a topic that will lead to an epic threadjack and is for another thread.

The Church asserts that only the Church can give us the correct interpretation of what the Bible means. Your claims about what the Bible says, no matter how simple to read the Bible passages in question may seem to be, have no weight if the Church says those passages mean something else.

WILGROVE TURNED ME INTO A NEWT!!!

http://b4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/01140/49/55/1140025594_s.gif

"A newt?"

Not by itself, but together with a pronouncement of a duty enjoined on all the faithful it does: according to the Vatican I council, assuming they were infallible about what infallibility is (maybe they thought they were being infallible, but they were mistaken?)

Nope, even if taken together with a pronouncement of a "duty enjoined" does not make it infallible, and Vatican I agrees. Keep in mind the context of Church history; doctrinal extramontanism and papal supremacy is only a very recent phenomenon from the past 200 years or so; in previous centuries local archbishops, sponsored by local kings, openly flouted papal decrees no matter how strong of language the pope used. For example recall that Cardinal Richelieu openly expelled the Jesuits from France because they were agents of the pope trying to assert papal authority in France, yet the pope nonetheless did not dare to excommunicate him. Never in history has "strong language" been considered any justification for papal power.

They don't dare.
Correct, which is why Immaculate Conception and Assumption are the only two dogmas unanimously agreed upon to be infallible.

Of course, the whole doctrine of infallibility itself doesn't make any sense if there is no way to distinguish an "infallible" statement from any other: then it only amounts to, "Once in a while the Pope actually says things that are true, but there's no way to tell which things those are." I don't think even the worst opponents of the Catholic Church would deny that at least once, the Pope has said a true thing.

There are ways to distinguish infallible from fallible statements, though obviously theologians disagree which are infallible and which are fallible, besides the two (Immaculate Conception and Assumption) I mentioned, and theologians even disagree on how to judge which is infallible and fallible. On this issue there is no unanimous opinion. But then again you have to keep in mind the historical context; theological unanimity (and even papal infallibility) are anachronisms and for most of the history of the Catholic Church (especially before the split with the Eastern Orthodox Church), there were multiple centers of theological authority, not just the pope, and even local bishops and archbishops (being traditionally appointed by kings rather than by popes) openly challenged the center of power in Rome. Something simple like the present ambiguity regarding which dogmas are fallible or infallible is a relic of that bygone era, even if the modern church has become much, much more centralized than before. The papal bull against Copernicanism certainly comes from a time where theological authority in the Catholic Church was much more diffuse, and attempts to impose unanimity or infallibility on that time period are not really accurate.

But thats the thing. The Church does say the bible is right, that it is the inspired word of God. The fact that they just ignore certian parts of it, to me, speaks of issues with the bible, and hurts its claim to be the inspired word of God.

Logically speaking...

If the Bible says X
And the Church says the bible is right/the inspired word of God
Shouldnt the church also say that you should do x?

EDIT: Im well aware of that the Church's (and many Christian's) rebuttle will be, and their rebuttle opens up a whole host of other theological questions, but thats a topic that will lead to an epic threadjack and is for another thread.

You come from a distinctly Protestant point of view regarding the relation between the Bible and the Church. Which isn't surprising because I'm assuming you're American- the Protestant historiography of the bible predominates in American public schools, due to various historical factors, which is why most Americans even if they're not Protestant, are raised on the Protestant point of view regarding the bible. In fact many if not most American Catholics share the Protestant view of the Bible, since most American Catholics are enrolled in historically Protestant-centric public schools.

The traditional Catholic point of view is totally different (needless to say). Whereas Protestants believe the Church is built on the Bible, Catholic theology holds that the Church "created" the Bible, and that the Bible is an "instrument" or "tool" of worship just like "rosary beads", a "picture of a saint", or even a physical brick-and-mortar "church building". Catholics therefore believe the Church, being the author of the bible, can interpret it and dispose of it any way it wants, just as the Church, being the builder of a particular church building, can use it and dispose of it any way it wants.

In summary:
Protestants believe : The Bible preceded the Church
Catholics believe: The Church preceded the Bible

lots of jawing

The comment that got you so riled up was a joke. So... right.

In summary:
Protestants believe : The Bible preceded the Church
Catholics believe: The Church preceded the Bible
That's an odd way of putting it.

No Proddy I know of would argue that all bits of the Bible precede the (early) Church, for otherwise who would Paul be writing to?

That's an odd way of putting it.

No Proddy I know of would argue that all bits of the Bible precede the (early) Church, for otherwise who would Paul be writing to?

Whoops, I actually introduced some confusion when I editted my post and switched the quote I was quoting. Originally I quoted a post by KoL regarding the Old Testament, so my comment would make more sense in that context.

This was what I originally quoted: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14605097&postcount=33

My intended point is that in traditional Catholic and Orthodox theology, the Church preceded the authorship of the Book of Genesis.

That's an odd way of putting it.

No Proddy I know of would argue that all bits of the Bible precede the (early) Church, for otherwise who would Paul be writing to?

Well, Paul became a disciple of Christ after falling, hitting his head and then having a conversation with Christ long after the Crucifixion, so maybe he wrote to other people he thought he saw. ;)

Note: I don't hold Paul in particularly high regard. :tongue:

My intended point is that in traditional Catholic and Orthodox theology, the Church preceded the authorship of the Book of Genesis.

The Church preceded creation? Isn't that a paradox?

The Church preceded creation? Isn't that a paradox?

Nope, notice my exact words were "preceded the authorship of the Book of Genesis." That means according to traditional theology, the Church existed before Genesis was written, but not before the events described in Genesis.

My intended point is that in traditional Catholic and Orthodox theology, the Church preceded the authorship of the Book of Genesis.
That's not current Catholic orthodoxy, surely?


Note: I don't hold Paul in particularly high regard.
Oddly, I quite like some of what Paul writes.

Not all though.

Nope, notice my exact words were "preceded the authorship of the Book of Genesis." That means according to traditional theology, the Church existed before Genesis was written, but not before the events described in Genesis.

Okay, this is news to me, so If you could provide some source of the Catholic Church claiming this, I'd be grateful.

and surprised

Okay, this is news to me, so If you could provide some source of the Catholic Church claiming this, I'd be grateful.

and surprised

That's not current Catholic orthodoxy, surely?

There are really two answers to this. Both Catholic and Orthodox orthodoxy always regard the Pentecost as the birth of the modern apostolic church structure- which occurred years after Jesus' birth. But in terms of the pre-apostolic church, that is traditionally considered to go back to the days of Abraham. Extremely traditional Catholics and Orthodox regard Jews as having split away from the church of Abraham, Moses, etc. (modern mainstream historians take the opposite view- Christians split from Judaism) As such, the traditionalist Christians regard themselves as the direct heirs and inheritors of Abraham and Moses, while regarding the Jews as schismatics. This view of "Jews as schismatics" was in fact the mainstream view throughout Catholic Europe before the Jewish emancipations.

You are correct, Catholics probably don't make a big deal out of this precise theological historiography nowadays especially after the liberalizing tendency of Vatican II. (The precise theology is still very much in the mainstream in Eastern Orthodoxy) In practice, Catholics still regard the Church's power to interpret the Bible as if the Church wrote every single page of the Bible.

My question did they excommunicate the rapist???

Nope, even if taken together with a pronouncement of a "duty enjoined" does not make it infallible, and Vatican I agrees.

Vatican I decided that ex-cathedra pronouncements promulgating a duty to all the faithful are infallible. That definition of infallibility may or may not be accepted by everybody, but that is what they said.
theologians even disagree on how to judge which is infallible and fallible.

In which case, as I said, the doctrine of "infallibility" is meaningless: unless there is a clear-cut class of statements which are known to be infallible, it amounts to nothing more than a claim that at least some statements by the Pope have been true.
The papal bull against Copernicanism certainly comes from a time where theological authority in the Catholic Church was much more diffuse
Quite the contrary: the Counter-Reformation was a period of centralization of authority, as the Catholic Church felt itself under siege.

So, it came to this.

Even the VATICAN is doubting itself now. Good.

My question did they excommunicate the rapist???

Ooh. Good question.

Ooh. Good question.

I mean come on. Excommunicating abortion doctors and the like I guess is just a weird Vatican thing. But hey lets definitely Excommunicate child rapist.
Maybe give automatic indulgence to anyone who rapes him in prison as well.

Unless that man happens to be the dude in charge of abortion policy at the Vatican. Which he is. And so his opinion is actually quite important.

Archbishop Fisichella is the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, the group specifically created by Pope John Paul II to study questions such as abortion and inform Church policy.

Their website:
http://www.academiavita.org/portal.jsp?lang=english

If everybody else, thinks "yea right whatever" on his pronouncements, then no his opinion doesn't matter.

Again; unless the excommunications are terminated; it's nothing more then lip service.

I mean come on. Excommunicating abortion doctors and the like I guess is just a weird Vatican thing. But hey lets definitely Excommunicate child rapist.
Maybe give automatic indulgence to anyone who rapes him in prison as well.

They probably transferred him to another parish quietly.

They probably transferred him to another parish quietly.

Ohh! Low blow! :D

They probably transferred him to another parish quietly.

yeah apparently the rapist deserves to be made a priest because his twins were aborted against his will.

Ooh. Good question.

They didn't, and the archbishop defended it. I'm working, but let me translate what he said...

"Esse padrasto cometeu um pecado gravíssimo. Agora, mais grave do que isso, sabe o que é? O aborto, eliminar uma vida inocente."

"This stepfather committed a very serious sin. However, do you know what is more serious than that? Abortion, taking an innocent life."

Ugh. I feel low translating what he said, the skills that feed me shouldn't be used for translating such crap. But trust me, this translation is good.

I thought they were lifting the excommunication.
Nope. I'm pretty sure on the pope can "de-excommunicate" someone.
My question did they excommunicate the rapist???

Nope. Certain sins get you auto-excommunicated. Rape is not among them. Being party to an abortion is. One could argue that the rapist caused the situation with lead to the abortion.

Nope. Certain sins get you auto-excommunicated. Rape is not among them.

Well of course. They would run out of Priests......

They didn't, and the archbishop defended it. I'm working, but let me translate what he said...

"Esse padrasto cometeu um pecado gravíssimo. Agora, mais grave do que isso, sabe o que é? O aborto, eliminar uma vida inocente."

"This stepfather committed a very serious sin. However, do you know what is more serious than that? Abortion, taking an innocent life."

Ugh. I feel low translating what he said, the skills that feed me shouldn't be used for translating such crap. But trust me, this translation is good.

"Incestuous child rape is a terrible sin, but NOT AS TERIBBLE as abortion! Even if it was to save a child's life!"

Even the Spanish Inquisition had standards.

"Incestuous child rape is a terrible sin, but NOT AS TERIBBLE as abortion! Even if it was to save a child's life!"

Even the Spanish Inquisition had standards.

Trust me, it didn't feel good to render it to English either. :p

"Incestuous child rape is a terrible sin, but NOT AS TERIBBLE as abortion! Even if it was to save a child's life!"

Even the Spanish Inquisition had standards.

sometimes the catholic church confounds me.
Simply rule the abortion as need for the health of the girl. Rule it still a Sin.
But rule all the sin falls on the one who raped her causing her to need the abortion.

Vatican I decided that ex-cathedra pronouncements promulgating a duty to all the faithful are infallible. That definition of infallibility may or may not be accepted by everybody, but that is what they said.
Alexander VII actually made no such promulgation of "a duty to all the faithful" in regards to heliocentrism. I think you misquoted.
In which case, as I said, the doctrine of "infallibility" is meaningless: unless there is a clear-cut class of statements which are known to be infallible, it amounts to nothing more than a claim that at least some statements by the Pope have been true.

The doctrine of infallibility in fact intended to make no stronger claim than the claim that at least some statements by the Pope have been true; in fact the actual purpose of the doctrine is "simply" to assert that the Pope is capable of speaking for all Christians. To an outside observer this may seem "meaningless" or "quibbling" but this holds extremely profound theological consequence for Catholics and Orthodox, since the debate over whether the Pope is even capable of speaking for all Christians is at the very heart of the identity of the apostolic churches.

Quite the contrary: the Counter-Reformation was a period of centralization of authority, as the Catholic Church felt itself under siege.

The Counter-Reformation in fact helped weaken papal authority, as the Counter-Reformation empowered the Catholic kings and princes of Europe to assume more control over their national churches on the pretext of battling Protestantism, but in reality just letting the kings and princes grab more power from papal control. Pope Paul III was actually quite reluctant to convene the Council of Trent (the Counterreformation council) since that would've conceded theological and political power to the cardinals who made up the council; the pope wanted to preserve all power for himself, and he was mindful of medieval Church history whose major theme was the contest between Popes and Councils for power. In the end, there was no real choice since the cardinals were independently powerful (sponsored by kings) and the pope had to acquiesce to the Counter-Reformation council.

This is why after the Counter-Reformation, a series of major heresies like Gallicanism and Febronianism arose in Catholic Europe, sponsored by Catholic kings and independent cardinals, and were never suppressed because the pope was always afraid to excommunicate powerful kings and cardinals. Gallicanism and Febronianism were only suppressed hundreds of years later by Vatican I, because by that time, the kings and independent cardinals lost their power during the post-French Revolution era, and given that the new secular governments of Europe had no interest in enforcing theology, the Pope could finally assert his authority over the traditionally diffuse authorities in the Church.

They didn't, and the archbishop defended it. I'm working, but let me translate what he said...

"Esse padrasto cometeu um pecado gravíssimo. Agora, mais grave do que isso, sabe o que é? O aborto, eliminar uma vida inocente."

"This stepfather committed a very serious sin. However, do you know what is more serious than that? Abortion, taking an innocent life."

Ugh. I feel low translating what he said, the skills that feed me shouldn't be used for translating such crap. But trust me, this translation is good.

Wow. Sorry you had to do that. :(

Wow. Sorry you had to do that. :(

It's okay, though I feel like Jean Grey having to mind-scan Cthulhu.

Well of course. They would run out of Priests......

And it's not like they have a lot of them these days anyway.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jQjAIPlGEFkMsL4LzVbOmz8Q1UfgD96UJCN00

Your thoughts?

Its one man's opinion and words. The Catholic Church doesn't endorse everything that one official says, and in fact apparantly agrees with the excomunication since to my understanding the Pope makes the final decision.

This isn't the Catholic Church defending the little girl's abortion its one man with a heart speaking his opinion. He'll probably be excomunicated too.

Its one man's opinion and words. The Catholic Church doesn't endorse everything that one official says, and in fact apparantly agrees with the excomunication since to my understanding the Pope makes the final decision.

This isn't the Catholic Church defending the little girl's abortion its one man with a heart speaking his opinion. He'll probably be excomunicated too.

Yeah, that too. The thread title is very misleading.

This isn't the Catholic Church defending the little girl's abortion its one man with a heart speaking his opinion. He'll probably be excomunicated too.

yeah just watched it live on pope TV. the pope even hit him with this silver mallet. or maybe it was professional wrestling.

yeah just watched it live on pope TV. the pope even hit him with this silver mallet. or maybe it was professional wrestling.


Yooouuurrrr'e Excomunicated! *smash*\
And then the College of Cardinals proceeded to lay a beatdown like no other on the poor man.

Yooouuurrrr'e Excomunicated! *smash*\
And then the College of Cardinals proceeded to lay a beatdown like no other on the poor man.

got to admit the catholic church got interesting since Mel Gibson became pope.

got to admit the catholic church got interesting since Mel Gibson became pope.

If he was in charge, the Jewish Controlled Media would have blocked all broadcasts.

If he was in charge, the Jewish Controlled Media would have blocked all broadcasts.

no they would put him on all channels because then no one would take hims seriously.

They didn't, and the archbishop defended it. I'm working, but let me translate what he said...

"Esse padrasto cometeu um pecado gravíssimo. Agora, mais grave do que isso, sabe o que é? O aborto, eliminar uma vida inocente."

"This stepfather committed a very serious sin. However, do you know what is more serious than that? Abortion, taking an innocent life."

Ugh. I feel low translating what he said, the skills that feed me shouldn't be used for translating such crap. But trust me, this translation is good.

Catholic Leader holds misogynistic position.

In other news, water is wet, Barrack Obama is black, and bears shit in the woods.

There's hope yet. Perhaps the Church can, truly, evolve. *shrugs*

They didn't, and the archbishop defended it. I'm working, but let me translate what he said...

"Esse padrasto cometeu um pecado gravíssimo. Agora, mais grave do que isso, sabe o que é? O aborto, eliminar uma vida inocente."

"This stepfather committed a very serious sin. However, do you know what is more serious than that? Abortion, taking an innocent life."

Ugh. I feel low translating what he said, the skills that feed me shouldn't be used for translating such crap. But trust me, this translation is good.
That's just disgusting.

One hopes that a remark like that would cause a massive public backlash against the one who said it. If not, if people are too afraid of the church to denounce that, or if :eek2: people actually agree (surely not possible), then I'm afraid that society is not evolved enough.

That's just disgusting.

One hopes that a remark like that would cause a massive public backlash against the one who said it. If not, if people are too afraid of the church to denounce that, or if :eek2: people actually agree (surely not possible), then I'm afraid that society is not evolved enough.

Everyone here is pissed off at him. Our President made remarks against him.

We're not Zaire. ;)

Everyone here is pissed off at him. Our President made remarks against him.

We're not Zaire. ;)
Good. I knew I could count on you guys. ;)

Everyone here is pissed off at him. Our President made remarks against him.

We're not Zaire. ;)

the US is sending evangelical missionaries to convert the population now.

yeah just watched it live on pope TV. the pope even hit him with this silver mallet. or maybe it was professional wrestling.BANG BANG, Ratzinger's silver hammer came down upon his head, DOOT de DOOT doot, BANG BANG, Ratzinger's silver hammer made sure that he was dead...

BANG BANG, Ratzinger's silver hammer came down upon his head, DOOT de DOOT doot, BANG BANG, Ratzinger's silver hammer made sure that he was dead...

VERDAMMT! I wanted to make this joke and forgot...

Well, kudos.

That's not current Catholic orthodoxy, surely?

I don't think they do hey. Certainly since the bible contains the Hebrew scriptures which were written before the Catholic chruch was founded. Maybe he is getting confused and the Catholic church believes that the New Testament came after the church.

I certainly would like to see some Catholic sources on this.

That's just disgusting.

One hopes that a remark like that would cause a massive public backlash against the one who said it. If not, if people are too afraid of the church to denounce that, or if :eek2: people actually agree (surely not possible), then I'm afraid that society is not evolved enough.

Just to say something here. If one does equate abortion with murder than is not murder a worse crime then rape?

Note: I am not defending the statement not am I defending the rape or the abortion.

Your thoughts?

The Holy See is just trying to patch the damage done by that brazilian bishop.

To sum it up, the image of the Catholic Church given by that jerk is, more or less, as follows:

1.Abortion is EVIL! THE MOST EVILEST EVIL EVER! Auschwitz was nothing compared to it!
2.I don't care if the mother is going to die of childbirth because she's only 9! Wimminz are there to make kids!
3.Doctors know shit about human health! And anyway who cares, only the soul is immortal, da mihi animas caetera tolle!
4.Raping your 9-years-old stepdaughter is a minor sin!

And you wonder WHY the Holy See isn't very happy with Bishop Jerk Jerkson?

The Holy See is just trying to patch the damage done by that brazilian bishop.

AFTER a while SUPPORTING him.

this would all work itself out if i was given possession of the catholic church.

Just to say something here. If one does equate abortion with murder than is not murder a worse crime then rape?


Generally speaking yes. Though there is a clause often used by the Catholic Church itself to justify actions which aren't normally allowed, but are taken nevertheless as emergency measures.

Ad maiora mala vitanda. To avoid greater evils.

AFTER a while SUPPORTING him.

Of course they can't openly say "hey yer a jerk and an idiot". Things in Rome are usually done in a more intricated way. Anyway, I doubt that Bishop Jerkson will last much longer in his place... do you know, promoveatur ut amoveatur?

this would all work itself out if i was given possession of the catholic church.

Here. It's yours. Only condition, the Musei Vaticani and the Cappella Sistina are to be kept open to the public, 365/365, from 8.00 to 20.00, and entry shouldn't cost more than 20 €.

Here. It's yours. Only condition, the Musei Vaticani and the Cappella Sistina are to be kept open to the public, 365/365, from 8.00 to 20.00, and entry shouldn't cost more than 20 €.

as long as i can adjust for inflation later on down the road, done.

as long as i can adjust for inflation later on down the road, done.

He said it shouldn't cost more not that it can't cost more than 20 euros.

He said it shouldn't cost more not that it can't cost more than 20 euros.

Well yeah, but when i Redo all the art work and Painting to point to me being a god, I want it to be reasonably affordable to see by the people.

as long as i can adjust for inflation later on down the road, done.

Fine.

Fine.

As my first act as pope Gay marriage is now sanctified.

My second act allows the woman the option for an abortion in the cases of rape, incest or danger to health.

My third act is to place the church on neutral stance in regard to other abortions.

My fourth act is to automatically excommunicate anyone who kills someone in an attack on an abortion clinic/doctor.

My fifth act is to allow priest to Marry,

My sixth automatically excommunicate a priest convicted by local authorities or the church of molesting a child or anyone who hides information of such events.

Okay time for a day of rest.