Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

I take it back ... Pat Buchanan ...

by Evie Apr 25, 2005 1:55AM PDT

... does have moments of brilliance Wink

Behind the rage at Benedict XVI

... And so the new pope is denounced as "God's rottweiler," "der PanzerKardinal," John Paul II's enforcer and the chief inquisitor who cruelly silenced the voices of dissent after Vatican II. What the hostility of the liberal media to the selection of Cardinal Ratzinger tells us is that the conclave got it right. ...

...But, still, why do they fulminate so? Why are so many journalists and cafeteria Catholics making fools of themselves denouncing Benedict XVI? The pope has no authority to force anyone to abide by church teachings. The church cannot interfere with the lifestyles of the rich and famous who wish to live together outside of matrimony, or enter into homosexual relationships, or have abortions, or throw over their wives. The church cannot punish anyone in this world. If they are punished in the next, it will not be Benedict XVI who sends them to Hell.

But if they do not believe in Hell, what are they worried about? What are they whining about? Why do they not simply say: "The church is wrong, the church is out of touch, the church is yesterday. I'm gone."

Answer: Deep in their hearts, they fear the church is right. They are unsettled because they fear that when the church says it has been given by Christ custody of the truths about how men must live to reach eternal life, it is right. When liberal Catholics say people have been "hurt" by Catholic teachings, what they are saying is that their consciences are hurting. ...

Evie Happy

Discussion is locked

11 Posts
- Collapse + Expand Details
- Collapse -
It's an interesting viewpoint, but I find myself disagreeing
by Kiddpeat Apr 25, 2005 2:33AM PDT

I don't think the left is motivated by fear, although fear may indeed be in their heart. I think it is a political assault which seeks to dominate, or take over, the RCC. The goal is another institution which will pronounce the left's agenda to be righteous. It would aid immensely in imposing their agenda within the US and other countries.

- Collapse -
You are probably right ...
by Evie Apr 25, 2005 2:49AM PDT

... I don't think the fear motivates the liberal media or non-Catholics that seem so keen on the RCC changing. But I do think he nails the a la carte Catholics pretty well, especially those that get by on the notion that in the end, the Church's truths are not what is important, but ones own conscience. Methinks they are less sure in their quietest moments that their consciences are clear. Would be less self-doubting if the Church would just "get with it" and not oppose their personal "truths".

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
True. We are masters at self deceit. We can easily train and
by Kiddpeat Apr 25, 2005 7:59AM PDT

or fool our conscience if we approach it the right way.

- Collapse -
The Church CAN
by Jerry562 Apr 25, 2005 3:09AM PDT

excommunicate the people that don't live a Catholic life as described by the Popes outlines.

- Collapse -
I think part of the hub-bub ..
by Evie Apr 25, 2005 3:23AM PDT
- Collapse -
Thanks Evie
by Echo2 Apr 25, 2005 7:51AM PDT

After our conversation a few days ago, I have to say,I did not view him in the same favorable light. Here, I think, Pat has hit the nail on the head.

- Collapse -
Answer from a squelched dissident thologian
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] Apr 25, 2005 1:49PM PDT
- Collapse -
JPII told Archbishop Romero to stop making a fuss over all
by Ziks511 Apr 25, 2005 7:47PM PDT

the desaparecidos including all the priests and the Mary Knoll Sisters who were shot by the military in El Salvador. Told him to shut up entirely in fact. Then he sends the Ratizinger in the Woodpile out to silence the finest theologians of the age in Hans Kung and others. Now Ratzinger has time to define his own papacy, and I hope he defines it by thinking before choking off others opinions and thus becomes an ornament to his mitre not just the stick holding it up.

Rob

- Collapse -
So Dave ...
by Evie Apr 25, 2005 8:49PM PDT

... if the Head of the Department of Evolutionary Biology at Secular U began teaching Darwin's THEORY as a THEORY and writing lengthy dissertations extolling the virtues of competing theories such as Creationism or ID, you would be honking your horn (if in daylight of course) in support when they tried to fire him?

This guy sounds just a bit full of himself.

I began to see things differently, ultimately concluding that Catholics, although they must hold on to the core doctrines of faith, can, and at times should, dissent from the more peripheral teachings of the church.

Unfortunately, the leaders of the Catholic Church feel differently.

GASP! How DARE the leaders of the Church feel this way.

Ratzinger ? now Pope Benedict XVI ? told the Catholic University of America to revoke my license to teach theology because of my "repeated refusal to accept what the church teaches."

And the problem with this is? Someone doesn't get to TEACH Catholic theology if one doesn't teach CATHOLIC theology.

At issue was my dissent from church teachings on "the indissolubility of consummated sacramental marriage, abortion, euthanasia, masturbation, artificial contraception, premarital intercourse and homosexual acts," according to their final document to me.

Some of those might qualify as peripheral teachings, others really go more to the core of the faith. Sounds like someone who wanted to mold the religion to meet his own failings to me.

I see he seems to have found a home at a Southern Methodist University. Good for him.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
This was part of the approach used by liberals to infiltrate
by Kiddpeat Apr 25, 2005 10:51PM PDT

ptotestant seminaries. Once they got control, they fired every conservative who was still standing.

- Collapse -
Skimmed it again didn't you!
by Edward ODaniel Apr 26, 2005 2:11AM PDT
I was fired. It was the first time an American Catholic theologian had been censured in this way. At issue was my dissent from church teachings on "the indissolubility of consummated sacramental marriage, abortion, euthanasia, masturbation, artificial contraception, premarital intercourse and homosexual acts," according to their final document to me. It's true that I questioned the idea that such acts are always immoral and never acceptable (although I thought my dissent on these issues was quite nuanced).

Earlier in the article however he acknowledged just what I an others have tried to get through to you - although they must hold on to the core doctrines of faith, can, and at times should, dissent from the more peripheral teachings of the church.

Those things he cited as reasons for his firing are NOT peripheral teaching, but CORE doctrines.

CHARLES E. CURRAN, like you and other Cafeteria Catholics, wants to pick and choose only those tidbits from the Bible and other religious writings and manuscripts that appeal to them and to disregard the rest as somehow being irrelevant despite their having been spoken to and of at the same time and often in the same passages as the ones y'all accept because they don't interfere with your preferrec conveniences and lifestyles.

His and other Cafeteria Catholic's options are love it and live up to it or leave it or remain a hypocrite in the cafeteria.

Back to Speakeasy forum

CNET Forums

Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Brand Forums
Roadshow Autos
Off Topic

Other Forums

Forum Info