Ed Dionne: Papal election turns back on Vatican II

And not use that other human trait of PLANNING so that we don't act on every urge the second it comes upon us? [ /sarcasm ]

Evie

the value of life is an intrinsic Christian belief. Measures that demean or degrade that value, murder, abortion, and birth control, go against Christian values.
I truly have no clue what the purpose of your last post was.
If you're attempting to argue the correctness of the Church's belief, I'm not going to bother because you're set in your beliefs and so am I, discussing it would have no purpose.
But the fact remains that according to their beliefs, Christians are correct in their denial of birth control and such. Accepting birth control and similar concepts is not a simple issue... it would effectively create another belief system.

which birth control does."

And your Iraq unit's Catholic chaplain says what about denying lives to Iraqis? OK if they're combatants?
"every life is precious-NOT?"
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

essentially stated that a Catholic is either a Catholic and follows the church's creed or is not a Catholic.

He doesn't want cafeteria Catholics watering down the church.

Paul said there were grounds for divorce. Jesus for adultery, and Paul if a nonbelieving spouse wants to terminate the marriage. The right to remarry is, of course, entailed by a legitimate divorce. The implication by Paul's addition of a ground suggests that there may be additional grounds, but this is not stated. In the churches I've attended in the last few decades, divorce is seen as something that can be forgiven. Forgiveness implies the ability to be renewed and move on.

While I have not seen your discussion of natural law, I think the suggestion that it is morally bankrupt is simply wrong. Paul, I think, argues that natural law is quite real and was put in place by God.

Catholic Dave.

Y'all want a religion of convenience rather than a church of consistency of religious precepts.

You (and to be fair, many others in that cafeteria) are upset that in essence the new pope's message is that he expects Catholics to either live up to and by the Catholic creed or leave to follow their desires.

Cardinal Ratzinger had spoken and written forcefully about his sense of the threats to the church, both internal and external. Whether they are dissident theologians, pedophile priests, "cafeteria Catholics" who disregard the ban on artificial birth control, or "celibate" third world clergy who keep mistresses, the new pope's solution is likely to be a more forceful reiteration of the church's creed and the necessity of either living by it, or leaving it.

"How much filth there is in the church, even among those who, in the priesthood, should belong entirely" to God, he said in Rome on Good Friday last month.

Must be truely disappointing to have as one's spiritual leader one who is telling y'all that religion is not a matter of convenience and situational ethics and morality.

What conservatives call "cafeteria Catholicism" was in fact promulgated in a Vatican II document saying that while Catholics have a duty to form their conscience with due consideration of the teachings of the hierarchy, one's individual conscience is the ultimate authority of what one should do. Like collegiality, most Popes since then have tried to back away from those doctrines, since they diminish the Church's power. And that's what every Pope since John XXIII except one has been porimarily concerned with -- maintaining the Church's power, even at the expense of ministering to her people. The one exception, John Paul I, was probably poisoned by the conservatives.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

and descriptive term used extensively by both liberals and conservatives as well as moderates to describe their ethically and morally challenged situational brethren.

Cafeteria Catholics such as yourself are simply a distinct SECT (much as Branch Dividians were a SECT) noted for their changing "values". Many Yuppies as well as many old hippies evolved into Cafeteria Catholics (maybe I shouldn't say that as it appears to be proof that with accepting evolution one has no need for intelligence whether for design or any other reason).

Your obviously introverted view of Vatican II indicates why the Catholic leadership has attempted to "back away" because it was misunderstood by too many of the masses including yourself. It was never intended to allow a Catholic to absolve themselves of the consequences of their lifestyle chosen in contravention to the Church's teachings whether that lifestyle included homosexuality, incest, murder, abortion, or anything else. That however is how you and others seem to have taken it to allow.

Looks like you need to go back and actually learn a bit about precepts past and present--good place to start would be your local church leadership although undoubtedly what they would be telling you would not sit pleasantly within your currently flawed perceptions.

make whether it's true or not. Wow!

and Curia. Here's a link to a Yahoo search that got nearly 1100 hits on "John Paul I poison." He died the day after he told intimates he was going to reverse the ban on birth control (he was a member of the majority of Paul VI's cCommission that voted nearly unanimously to reverse the ban, advice Paul VII declined at the last minute to follow lest the change "confuse the faithful") and replace most of the members of the then scandal-ridden Curia.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

it is easily explained by looking at the subject matter of your ravings. Alomst every one of them stands as strong supporting documentation for the following observation.

"If this country had a national psychologist, I'm afraid the Democratic party would be diagnosed with terminal projection. They have done nothing except accuse their opponents of every moral failing that they themselves are practicing." --Duane Patterson

Yes, we are aware that although you talk like, walk like, wag tail like, and regurgitate their party line you claim to not be a Democrat and keep us in stitches attempting to liken your politics to Libertarianism but an adherent of the Democratic Party is what you in fact are despite protestations to the contrary.

I thought this was an old and honorable tradition in the Church.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

POWER trip!

'If you don?t like the rules or can?t follow the rules, why is one a member of XYZ?'

The you did not mean YOU.

Comprende? (sp?)

liberal Catholics also believe that our connection to God is through the sacramnets, which require a legitimate chain of sacramental succession from the Apostles. Besides, you miss the point that two of the fundamental bones of contention (collegiality and the primacy of individual conscience) are in fact doctrines approved by the majority of the Church hierarchy assembled at the Second Vatican Council, so to liberals it is the conservatives who are abandoning Catholic doctrine, even if of more recent origins. There's currently a "wait and see" attitude, but if the new Pope is as doctrinaire as I fear, I would not be surprised if there were not eventually a major reshuffling between the Episcopal and Catholic churches, with the conservative Episcopalians becoming Catholic, and the liberal Catholics becoming Episcopalian (the Episcopal Church does have a legitimate sacramental succession according to Catholic teaching, though not legitimate authority).

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

A friend of mine left her "High" Episcopal Church when the Book of Common Prayer was revised, women could become priests, and joined the Greek Orthodox Church.

Other denominations now have female pastors.

So, it was OK for the above to make changes, but apparently Catholics should not. Rubbish!

I think Pope Benedict XVI was chosen with transition in mind. Also, he now has a "new job" as a Pastor.

Half of the world's Catholics live in South America. Their hopes for change are different - their focus is that the Church has not done enough re: poverty and oppression, which does not coincide with those in the USA.

I forget when the marriage "rules" were changed- sometime around the 1860s? My grandfather was caught in that. He married my grandmother in a Moravian church. Even before the "rule" was changed, his priest told him he was living in sin. He never entered his own church again. (No wonder!) When I was doing a genealogical search, a priest in Ohio wrote me, and pointed out when it became not OK for Catholics to marry outside the church, and that my grandfather's priest was wrong.

I also forget when it happened, but the Church does accept Christian baptism from other denominations when a person converts. And that marriages outside the church can be Blessed upon conversion.

When man makes rules, man can change them.

On one trip overseas, we were touring an Anglican Cathedral. Our Irish guide hurried up, and said excitedly, "Come with me. They are saying Mass!" Well, after several minutes it was apparfent it was not a Roman Catholic Mass. The only way to tell the difference in the churches was to look to see if the Host was present.

Angeline


click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The Jewish tradition is mysogenistic -- women were "unclean" during and after their period, were separated from the men at Synagogue, and not allowed to enter into theological discussions there (a major problem for a proseletyzer, neh?) One of the Jewish prayers even thanks G*d for "not making me a woman" (exact meaning, inexact wording). It was impossible for Jesus to have a female Apostle (who became the first priests) under those circumstances -- as it was, there are places in the Bible where he was criticized for associating with sinners, publicans, and women. There was a similar situation with Gentiles, and He didn't have any Gentile Apostles, either -- though he was more open with and about them than most Jews (remember the good Samaritan, and the woman at the well -- how shocked she was that He, "a Jew," would ask her for water?). The Church rectified that oversight in the mid-first century, as I've discussed elsewehere, but still uses the same tired old arguments to deny full participation to women. I still recall when my wife was discussing her outrage about the Mormons not allowing Blacks to be priests (this was in the 70's -- that's been changed since, thanks to a "revelation"). Her brother said "but you can't be a priest!" and she had no response.
The prohibition on women priests is man's law, Evie, not God's -- and a poor and hurtful law at that. At Church last week we were asked to "pray for more vacations." I prayed -- but that the Church would be willing to accept the vocations it now denies, to women and married men, including the married ex-priests who want to return to their calling.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Freudian slip?

I see married men before women being allowed in the priesthood. As I understand it, married priests do not "move up the ladder".

What is your response to this?: Women Priests ? No Chance

Evie

... about not ordaining women as priests: http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg10.htm

Care to comment?

Evie

For many decades the Mormon Church refused to ordain Blacks until there was a "revelation." The Church's position on women is as fundamentally flawed.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

before making such nonsense comments as your "The Church's position on women is as fundamentally flawed."

But wait, I forget that staunch cafeteria Catholic that you are Genisis holds no meaning or import in your "modern" views.

frequently said that he only accepts what Jesus said. Of course, Dave would like to take Jesus aside and give Him a fast course on the positions that He, Jesus, should hold and teach to others.

* continuing your thought that Genesis holds no meaning for Dave.

No less a person than Paul said "in Chirst Jesus there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female." How then is half the human population from full participation in His "mystical body" (aka the Church?) It's not a matter of if it will happen, but when. Had John Paul I lreigned for 25 years, it might well have happened by now.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!