The infallible Pope asks a question

[ceo_esq]

Here's one simple google hit. Enjoy!

http://www.geocities.com/missus_gumby/papal.htm

Darn, no footnotes.

 

[Elind]

That's what Google is for.

 

[elliotfc]

"We deny that anyone, Jew or Gentile, believer or unbeliever, private person or public official, is exempt from the moral and juridical obligation before God to submit to Christ's lordship over every aspect of his life in thought, word, and deed."

http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/cor/25articles.html

Arrogant or not?

What's more arrogant than objective truth? There are many types of arrogances independent of objective truth, but they too must curtsy.

-Elliot

 

[Elind]

Huhh?

 

[elliotfc]

Huhh?

I have no problem with people saying what they think is objectively true, and saying it passionately. People who say things what are only subjectively true have to, eventually, discover that their arrogant opinions are subject to objective truth. Now, do you think the Church is *wrong* in its assertion? That's something more substantial to me.

The Church is saying what it believes to be objectively true. Why shouldn't they say it with the utmost confidence? It doesn't matter to me if it comes across as arrogant or not. Is it arrogant? I dunno, is it true is what I'm concerned about.

-Elliot

 

[Elind]

I may not believe in the "objective" truth that they do, but I think I was expressing a stronger opinion about how they promote that truth, not that they hold it.

BTW, I do believe this particular issue arose out of a comment suggesting true believers were NOT arrogant. I may be considered arrogant too, as I've admitted, but I do think that I would mostly keep my mouth shut if it wasn't for arrogant believers trying to impose their RELIGIOUS based prohibitions and demands on me.

Let's take the Pope's latest of a long list of demands about how to deal with contraception or stem cell research. Are they really trying to save people by banning condoms or research, or just arrogantly trying to impose a particular religious belief on everyone? Why don't they just tell Catholics to avoid any cures that may come from such research and die with honor?

Most of my life I was content to live and let live, but either because I'm older and more observant or because something has really changed; I now have the impression that many religious groups, Catholics included, are not satisfied with worship in their homes or churches as they seemed mostly to be in my youth, but think they are unfulfilled if they don't work to impose that on everyone else, in one way or another. Kind of like what happens in Islamic countries.

As to is "IT" true; what truth are you talking about? Does God exist? I think there must be another thread on that subject somewhere.

 

[elliotfc]

Most of my life I was content to live and let live, but either because I'm older and more observant or because something has really changed; I now have the impression that many religious groups, Catholics included, are not satisfied with worship in their homes or churches as they seemed mostly to be in my youth, but think they are unfulfilled if they don't work to impose that on everyone else, in one way or another. Kind of like what happens in Islamic countries.

Yeah, I can see how you feel that way. It's not just birth control either. The death penalty types kinda bug me. Many Catholics are also really into global debt relief.

As to is "IT" true; what truth are you talking about? Does God exist? I think there must be another thread on that subject somewhere.

I think what I was meaning was more like...how could you *not* expect the Church to confidently proclaim it's dogma?

-Elliot

 

[Elind]

I think what I was meaning was more like...how could you *not* expect the Church to confidently proclaim it's dogma?

-Elliot

Surely you don't misunderstand me so grossly?

I expect them to, they always have, to the faithful and anyone else who wants to check it out. No problem.

When they want to impose laws based on their dogma and apply them to everyone else, I have a problem.

So, did I really have to explain that, or are you just bumping this thread because you were bored somewhere else?

 

[elliotfc]

When they want to impose laws based on their dogma and apply them to everyone else, I have a problem.

So, did I really have to explain that, or are you just bumping this thread because you were bored somewhere else?

You really had to explain that, thanks. -Elliot

 

[Elind]

You really had to explain that, thanks. -Elliot

Was I suppose to imaginge a in that comment?

BTW, you threw in, seemingly at random, this earlier; "Many Catholics are also really into global debt relief."

So? What was your point?

Supposing I said that many Catholics are also into causing million of preventable deaths, not to mention unwanted pregnancies, by their dogmatic opposition to something as simple as condoms?

Would that be considered an unfair comment about the church you seem to want to defend?

BTW, wonder what happened to St.JosemariaOraProNo, whatever that name means? Came on strong and then went out with a whimper. With a handle like that sounds like a Bishop somewhere who thought he was into more reality than he could deal with.

 

[elliotfc]

Was I suppose to imaginge a in that comment?

No. My fault if I didn't read you carefully enough, I legitimately thank you for yer clarification.

BTW, you threw in, seemingly at random, this earlier; "Many Catholics are also really into global debt relief."

So? What was your point?

If the Church demands we outlaw birth control, that equals bad.
If the Church demands we forgive global debt, that equals good. Or it equals not bad.
If the Church demands that the death penalty be abolished...blah blah blah.

I'm suggesting that the issue, in my opinion, isn't just what the Catholic Church wants. The issue, rather, is the issue. Be it birth control or global debt or the death penalty.

Now, maybe the Church ought not make public policy, or global policy, requests. Tell that to every stinking world leader, and the UN, who have to problem entertaining the Pope and consider the Church to provide good counsel. I could see if nobody in positions of power listened to the Pope...then it would be extremely annoying to hear what the Church's opinions are. But the Church *is* relevant. You'd be better off talking to world leaders and petitioning them to ignore the Church.

Supposing I said that many Catholics are also into causing million of preventable deaths, not to mention unwanted pregnancies, by their dogmatic opposition to something as simple as condoms?

First, I'd congratulate you for recognizing that abortion equals death.

Second, I'd suggest that even if the Catholic church had no opinion on abortion, there would still be millions of abortions every year. Why should I share your assumption that the Church's prohibition of condoms is directly linked to abortion? It's phooey. So...you've got people who listen to the Church and don't use condoms...but then they ignore the church and get an abortion. I'm not buying it.

Third, I think simplicity is irrelevant when it comes to moral matters. Yes, the Church is dogmatically opposed to lots of thinks. It has nothing to do with complexity, or lack thereof.

BTW, wonder what happened to St.JosemariaOraProNo, whatever that name means? Came on strong and then went out with a whimper. With a handle like that sounds like a Bishop somewhere who thought he was into more reality than he could deal with.

Jose Maria Escriva. Ora Pro Nobis. You could look them up.

He probably has better things to do. He made a pointed and significant contribution. We are grateful for that.

-Elliot

 

[Elind]

No. My fault if I didn't read you carefully enough, I legitimately thank you for yer clarification.

Oh. Ok. Sorry for the suspicion. You know how it goes, and needless to say I don't think I've called you stupid.

But the Church *is* relevant. You'd be better off talking to world leaders and petitioning them to ignore the Church.

Yes, obviously that is a fact of life. I threw that critique in there for good measure because I though you were being earlier.

First, I'd congratulate you for recognizing that abortion equals death.

I don't, but I do believe that a condom is much preferable when choice is available and I don't advocate leaving one's faith just to do so, which is why I place the blame on the Pope (starting with).

Second, I'd suggest that even if the Catholic church had no opinion on abortion, there would still be millions of abortions every year. Why should I share your assumption that the Church's prohibition of condoms is directly linked to abortion? It's phooey. So...you've got people who listen to the Church and don't use condoms...but then they ignore the church and get an abortion. I'm not buying it.

Actually I had in mind disease and AIDS in particular as far more significant than abortion in that regard. Sorry or not making that more clear.

Third, I think simplicity is irrelevant when it comes to moral matters. Yes, the Church is dogmatically opposed to lots of thinks. It has nothing to do with complexity, or lack thereof.

Not sure I understand your point here, but I would venture that there is a tendency for anyone who opposes, or promotes, a point of view to couch their arguments in complexity. Smoke and mirrors and all that....and religions are exceptionally good at that; they've had a long time to perfect the art.

Jose Maria Escriva. Ora Pro Nobis. You could look them up.

Not particularly interested given that he's wimped out. I bet I could come up with some snazzy religious handles too if I wanted to make a weak point.

He probably has better things to do. He made a pointed and significant contribution. We are grateful for that.

Really? You are too too kind. He posted a few clips, asked some "genuinely interested" questions and then went back to praying? Rude jerk is what I think.
I hate being stood up

 

[Yahzi]

The much touted papal infallibility has only been used once, IIRC, and then it was to settle an argument about the Virgin Mary.

Not quite. It was also applied to the issue of birth control, which is why the Church can't do the obvious reasonable thing and reverse its stance.

Also, after Popes were declared infalliable in the 1800's, they went through the various speeches of previous Popes and picked out the infallible parts.

Yes... those Popes were infallible... even though they did not know it at the time.

 

[elliotfc]

I don't, but I do believe that a condom is much preferable when choice is available and I don't advocate leaving one's faith just to do so, which is why I place the blame on the Pope (starting with).

It's the Pope's fault that people get pregnant, and get AIDS. Honestly, you think the Pope is more powerful than I do...and I'm the orthodox Catholic!

Actually I had in mind disease and AIDS in particular as far more significant than abortion in that regard. Sorry or not making that more clear.

If the Pope had his way, AIDS WOULD BE ELIMINATED IN FIFTY YEARS. Completely. And it wouldn't cost any money in R&D. But that's too hard, we can't go that route. Why? Because *nobody would listen anyways*. So you're having it both ways. Either people are listening to the Pope, or they are not listening to the Pope. Which is it? I say people are *not listening to the Pope*. If they were, AIDS would be on the decline, and not the rise.

Again, your point is that people get disease and AIDS because they listen to the Pope and don't use condoms. But what about listening to the Pope and not fornicating? The problem is selective following of Church dogma...if there even is that problem, which I'm skeptical about.

Not sure I understand your point here, but I would venture that there is a tendency for anyone who opposes, or promotes, a point of view to couch their arguments in complexity. Smoke and mirrors and all that....and religions are exceptionally good at that; they've had a long time to perfect the art.

They think that objective reality is greater than the material. You suggest, then, that you have a fundamental problem with religion, for that reason. Very well. But then you'd have to expect these things.

Not particularly interested given that he's wimped out. I bet I could come up with some snazzy religious handles too if I wanted to make a weak point.

I'll be charitable and reckon that he has better things to do. I doubt he's reading these posts, trying to find the courage to respond to your posts, but instead cowers and quakes as he piddles himself. Probably 100 people a month stop by a few times, maybe even make a username, maybe post a few times, maybe not, and then after a week never pop in again. That's normal, I think we are the exception.

Really? You are too too kind. He posted a few clips, asked some "genuinely interested" questions and then went back to praying? Rude jerk is what I think.
I hate being stood up

Check his profile. Given his specs, and his fondness for Opus Dei...I suggest going down to South Bend, finding the most traditional Catholic church in the area (certainly not attached to Notre Dame) and handing out some flyers. Don't let your heart be squashed by this temporary separation from you beloved. Love can overcome the greatest adversity!

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Not quite. It was also applied to the issue of birth control, which is why the Church can't do the obvious reasonable thing and reverse its stance.

There are many Catholics who would disagree. I'm not one of them, here's a link:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

-Elliot

 

[St.JosemariaOraProNo]

You have a point, which I interpret as meaning that anything the Pope (or any religious leader for that matter) says is justified within the context of their beliefs.

Nope. Wrong interpretation.

In what way is he holier than you? Aren't all believers equally holy, depending on their personal life alone?

No.

Regardless, asking the same question repeatedly and getting no answer repeatedly seems to me to be an exercise in self delusion.

Who says that we don’t get an answer? It’s just that we are able to accept that the answer is beyond our ability to comprehend. The answer isn’t something we get out of a textbook. The answer is something we have to live. That really is the significant difference between the believer and the unbeliever, the fundamental belief that there is more to reality than “me”, my abilities and my functions. The believer does not need to bottle the world up into neat categories, only to ridicule those things that fall outside of those same categories. The believer accepts the existence of that doubt that makes possible his or her belief.

but I suspect you will claim that Your interpretation is the one intended by your god.

Once again another ignorant assumption. New flash: I’m Catholic. I don’t have a “your interpretation”. Catholics don’t believe in personal interpretation of Scripture.

what it is with your god that it allows so many to "know" that only their interpretation is correct, and then let you ask "why"? A test? Pretty crude if you ask me. Vicious even.

Your first assumption, which you posit as a premise, is fallacious, therefore, your conclusion is erroneous.

But then again I have no doubt they would say the same of me, except that I don't claim the ultimate answers to life.

Really? For someone who does as much dogmatic pontificating as you have done in this thread, I find that assertion laughable. You are just as religious as I am.

Are you telling me that the Pope doesn''t really have a clue about what his god has created the universe for, or are you telling me that perhaps he has doubts if such a god, if it ever existed, still pays any attention whatsoever to what we do to each other?

Um, no. That’s your position.

Fair enough, but here we are more interested, I think, in what the actual posters think, and above all what they rationalize

Apparently you are. I mean, really, what can I write in reply to that illogic?

 

[Elind]

Nope. Wrong interpretation.

No explantion. Notthing for me to say.

BTW, welcome back

No.

Ditto

Who says that we don’t get an answer? It’s just that we are able to accept that the answer is beyond our ability to comprehend. The answer isn’t something we get out of a textbook. The answer is something we have to live. That really is the significant difference between the believer and the unbeliever, the fundamental belief that there is more to reality than “me”, my abilities and my functions. The believer does not need to bottle the world up into neat categories, only to ridicule those things that fall outside of those same categories. The believer accepts the existence of that doubt that makes possible his or her belief.

Sorry, but that sounds to me like a poor, sorry, answer. From your perspective speaking; God gave us fairly admirable powers of perception and insight yet requires that we put it all into suspended animation whenever we run into a difficult problem? One factor that confuses me with you and Elliotfc (I am assuming that you also are Catholic), is that your church does not seem to hold science in the same disdain that you do. What you call neat categories that should simply be taken on faith are to real thinking beings only challenges that need to be considered.

Do you not see how simply a few words change something from a "given" to an expression of the real humanity?

Probably not

Once again another ignorant assumption. New flash: I’m Catholic. I don’t have a “your interpretation”. Catholics don’t believe in personal interpretation of Scripture.

News flash. Neither do many "non Catholics" I've debated a few. What they believe in is not a personal interpretation, but God's interpretation. Now you tell me the difference.

Your first assumption, which you posit as a premise, is fallacious, therefore, your conclusion is erroneous.

So if it is not your interpretation, whose is it?

Really? For someone who does as much dogmatic pontificating as you have done in this thread, I find that assertion laughable. You are just as religious as I am.

Cute but wrong, of course depending on what you consider "religious" to mean. I read all the astronomy and science information and more, that I can find time for. It's a beautiful fascinating place, existence, but I don't kiss the ground for anything except for the pleasure of being here and trying to understand it. Now, you can call that religious if you wish, but it worships nothing that you call a god; ultimately only my ability to see it to the extent that I can, and also most importantly not distort it with dogma that is pretended to come from anywhere but from myself.

Um, no. That’s your position.

Um, no answer to anything. Does that mean you agree but don't have an answer, yet?

Apparently you are. I mean, really, what can I write in reply to that illogic?

Sorry, can't quite grasp the origin of this one and don't have the time to backtrack. However since you clearly think it was "illogic" I'm sure it made an impression on you.

I seem to recall you were quoting powers other than your own. I think I meant I'm not debating them since they don't post here. So you're on your own. Keep praying.

 

[elliotfc]

From your perspective speaking; God gave us fairly admirable powers of perception and insight yet requires that we put it all into suspended animation whenever we run into a difficult problem?

No. We are to use our faculties and our powers of discernment when faced with difficult problems. We are also to understand that we have limitations and that a reality greater than ourselves may not be grasped in the same way we can, and do, grasp many tangible and material concepts and things.

One factor that confuses me with you and Elliotfc (I am assuming that you also are Catholic), is that your church does not seem to hold science in the same disdain that you do.

Ach! Science is great! Do I worship it, and make objective reality contingent on scientific methodology? Of course not. How does recognizing this equal disdain?

What you call neat categories that should simply be taken on faith are to real thinking beings only challenges that need to be considered.

You can do both you know, I don't think I've ever suggested otherwise. I have, and do, consider things like the Trinity and Transubstantiation. There is nothing simple about those topics. Do I aslo accept them on faith? Yes, I do. The amout of literature in existence about such topics show that Catholics for centuries have carefully considered these topics. Do they also accept them on faith? Sure.

This is analogous to Neo-Darwinian-macro-evolution. Is the framework accepted as a matter of faith? Sure. Are the details carefully considered? Sure. I would never knock an evolutionist for accepting their theory on faith, because it's more than that.

As for these neat categories, surely they are of a different species. Can you be scientifically rigorous in approaching the Trinity? No. Don't equate that with either an absence, or impossibility, of careful consideration.

Cute but wrong, of course depending on what you consider "religious" to mean. I read all the astronomy and science information and more, that I can find time for. It's a beautiful fascinating place, existence, but I don't kiss the ground for anything except for the pleasure of being here and trying to understand it. Now, you can call that religious if you wish, but it worships nothing that you call a god; ultimately only my ability to see it to the extent that I can, and also most importantly not distort it with dogma that is pretended to come from anywhere but from myself.

Just your own dogma then. A false god comes in all shapes and sizes and species.

-Elliot

 

[Elind]

No. We are to use our faculties and our powers of discernment when faced with difficult problems. We are also to understand that we have limitations and that a reality greater than ourselves may not be grasped in the same way we can, and do, grasp many tangible and material concepts and things.

"We are to...."

We may have to but when you say "we are to.." you have already given up the main part of your free will. Run into a difficult problem and all you have to say is "we have limitations and cannot grasp this".

So it has always been with religion.

 

[elliotfc]

"We are to...."

We may have to but when you say "we are to.." you have already given up the main part of your free will. Run into a difficult problem and all you have to say is "we have limitations and cannot grasp this".

So it has always been with religion.

Making a choice is using your free will, not giving it up. I could say that by accepting a theory based on evidence, I have given up my free will as well.

-Elliot