The ambassador's name was Pio Laghi who said it during the trial of dictator Jorge Rafael Videla, and El Mundo is a well-established Spanish news outlet.
What I'm trying to say, and maybe I didn't say it correctly, is that you're not going to convince a person who is a former member of a faith that believes that the clergy of their former religion is differently than what they say it is. If a religion has abused a person and covered it up -- as has what happened to my family members -- that experience and the implication speaks volumes more than canon law and lofty theory. When the leaders of a religion have perpetuated evils throughout history -- such as anti-Semitism, the Inquisition, the quashing of democracy in Europe, the aiding of juntas in Latin America -- and claimed a mantle from God from it, that should speak volumes. I get a feeling that people are more sympathetic to the Church because of Pope Francis, but more than one reformist Pope has ended up dead in two years, only to be replaced with more of the same.
And in this case, the Church is the faith. As a Catholic you have to believe that the Church is the bride of Christ as established through Peter (the "rock" of the Church, Shimon "Petrus"), and that the Pope's word is inerrant. You can TRY to be a Catholic without acknowledging the hierarchy and papal infallibility, but it's not official.
The ambassador's name was Pio Laghi who said it during the trial of dictator Jorge Rafael Videla, and El Mundo is a well-established Spanish news outlet.
Thank you, that is remarkably helpful and I'll look into it (although no promises on being able to intelligently comment on it here any time soon.
What I'm trying to say, and maybe I didn't say it correctly, is that you're not going to convince a person who is a former member of a faith that believes that the clergy of their former religion is differently than what they say it is. If a religion has abused a person and covered it up -- as has what happened to my family members -- that experience and the implication speaks volumes more than canon law and lofty theory.
I think I see one part that you aren't understanding. I'm not just talking to you. Yes, I am discussing it with you. But we are doing so in a public forum, where several people can see the discussion. It is not just about you and me. It's about every person who looks in this thread. Even if you (or someone else's) view is coloured by a personal experience that prohibits them from analyzing the arguments objectively, that doesn't mean other people can't.
When the leaders of a religion have perpetuated evils throughout history -- such as anti-Semitism, the Inquisition, the quashing of democracy in Europe, the aiding of juntas in Latin America -- and claimed a mantle from God from it, that should speak volumes.
Quite frankly, if you think that the Catholic Church has done any more (or less really) than any other power in substantially the same position (aka governments and religions) then you are deluding yourself. These problems you identified are not a failing of the church, specifically, but are rather failings of humankind. I challenge you to find any government of substantial age or substantial power that has not engaged in any such similar abuses.
Now, that doesn't excuse it. At all. But, it would be foolish to expect the Church to be distinct. Especially given that one of it's tennants is that *all* have fallen short. Not all except the church. Indeed, in my (admittedly limited) review so far it appears that the Church has at least acknowledged some blame in the Dirty War.
I get a feeling that people are more sympathetic to the Church because of Pope Francis, but more than one reformist Pope has ended up dead in two years, only to be replaced with more of the same.
I don't get that feeling, but feelings aren't really something we can discuss with any meaningful level of clarity so we should probably jsut leave it at that.
Also, do you really think we are still operating in a time period where someone within the church could get away with assassinating the Pope? Is it possible, sure, I guess. But I find the proposition that someone within the church would kill the pope just so they can get rid of his radical ideas and instill a new Pope that toes the line a bit... Dan Brown. If he is assassinated it will not be from someone *within* the Church.
And in this case, the Church is the faith. As a Catholic you have to believe that the Church is the bride of Christ as established through Peter (the "rock" of the Church, Shimon "Petrus"), and that the Pope's word is inerrant. You can TRY to be a Catholic without acknowledging the hierarchy and papal infallibility, but it's not official.
Again, you bring forth "almost correctisms" that seem right to anyone who doesn't *actually* know what the Church teaches. The Pope is not inerrant in general, and is only inerrant when speaking ex Cathedra. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Ex_cathedra). And, even if you were to ascribe to absolute Papal inerrancy, that would not inextricably tie the faith to the men, because the infallibility does not extend down the chain. It is limited to the individual Pope.
It is easily possible (and indeed has happened in the past) for the Pope to not live up to the teachings that he, himself, ascribes to or purports to ascribe to. That is called being hypocritical, and it occurs when ones actions do not line up with ones stated faith. if the faith were indistinguishable from its adherents, it would be impossible for its adherents to be hypocritical.
(Side Note, given the direction this is taken, I'm sending BS a PM asking him to move it to the religion section since thats what its about now. If it changes locations, thats where to look).
Quite frankly, if you think that the Catholic Church has done any more (or less really) than any other power in substantially the same position (aka governments and religions) then you are deluding yourself. These problems you identified are not a failing of the church, specifically, but are rather failings of humankind. I challenge you to find any government of substantial age or substantial power that has not engaged in any such similar abuses.
Now, that doesn't excuse it. At all. But, it would be foolish to expect the Church to be distinct. Especially given that one of it's tennants is that *all* have fallen short. Not all except the church. Indeed, in my (admittedly limited) review so far it appears that the Church has at least acknowledged some blame in the Dirty War.
I don't get that feeling, but feelings aren't really something we can discuss with any meaningful level of clarity so we should probably jsut leave it at that.
Also, do you really think we are still operating in a time period where someone within the church could get away with assassinating the Pope? Is it possible, sure, I guess. But I find the proposition that someone within the church would kill the pope just so they can get rid of his radical ideas and instill a new Pope that toes the line a bit... Dan Brown. If he is assassinated it will not be from someone *within* the Church.
Again, you bring forth "almost correctisms" that seem right to anyone who doesn't *actually* know what the Church teaches. The Pope is not inerrant in general, and is only inerrant when speaking ex Cathedra. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Ex_cathedra). And, even if you were to ascribe to absolute Papal inerrancy, that would not inextricably tie the faith to the men, because the infallibility does not extend down the chain. It is limited to the individual Pope.
It is easily possible (and indeed has happened in the past) for the Pope to not live up to the teachings that he, himself, ascribes to or purports to ascribe to. That is called being hypocritical, and it occurs when ones actions do not line up with ones stated faith. if the faith were indistinguishable from its adherents, it would be impossible for its adherents to be hypocritical.
(Side Note, given the direction this is taken, I'm sending BS a PM asking him to move it to the religion section since thats what its about now. If it changes locations, thats where to look).
The Church is claiming a mantle from God and they are claiming to act on God's behalf. When you claim a duty from God, that's beyond human scope, it is supranatural. And to claim a duty from God (and have people believe it) gives a certain degree of credibility and infallibility. Thus we get people like Jim Jones who say they are Jesus, and are able to get away with anything. Imagine an institution that is given the military protection of a sovereign democratic government, that claims to be the spiritual authority of a billion human lives, that has a presence in every country where they are allowed (and even some where they aren't), and are considered the rightful authority of the legacy of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and Savior. That entity would be almost absolutely powerful. And we know about absolute power.
I heard a story about Pope Francis in Brazil on NPR yesterday, he was driving in his regular vehicle (not a Popemobile), and was offered mate by a young man. He drank the mate. He could have been easily poisoned, accepting drinks from strangers. People said it spoke of his humility (again harkening to Francis of Assisi), but it wasn't a smart move from a security standpoint. Now imagine someone REALLY wants to kill him. It doesn't seem that hard if he's accepting drinks from strangers.
You don't find it a wee bit suspicious that Pope John Paul I was a softliner on contraception and mysteriously ended up dead in his bed 33 days after becoming Pope? This was 1978, not 1127.
Can you provide sources on Catholicism outside of Wikipedia? The small section on ex Cathedra did not speak to your point. Also, if you're getting your information on Catholicism entirely from Wikipedia, I highly suggest more reputable sources like EWTN, Catholic Encyclopedia, and Catholic.org.
The Bishops walk a fine line here setting up social expectations for their adherents and institutions they run. I think this should be argued at the very least and go to court. I haven't decided either way, but making people question the church and the medical community is a good thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Nope, the Catholic Church is very anti-woman to the point of where they tell a woman to get AIDS because condoms are abortion.
The point is moot. It remains moot and will continue to be moot. You want to know why because if the Catholicism means enough for you to follow it you are most probably going to accept the doctrine of celibacy (Something which Catholicism is big on.) as well making the chances of contracting an std by sexual means less likely.
If you are a lifelong adherent to Catholicism or in other words do what the Pope wants you to do you are either going to have...
1) No partner and no sex
2) One partner and no sex
3) One partner and as many times sex as you have children ie 1 - 5 times
So how anyone can think that any of that promotes the spread of std's is beyond me. This is off course predicated on actually following the teachings of Catholicism which is assumed if you want to make the argument that something a church teaches is bad for the people who follow it.
To think that any institution that has the doctrine of celibacy not just until marriage but even in a round about way in marriage as well promotes the spreading of any STD's is unfair to the point of being ridiculous. OK I get it a lot of people do not like churches but is it too much to ask that the criticism they level be at least rooted in reality?
You never see these people blaming Hollywood for spreading STDs, and yet casual sex is the norm and not the exception in Hollywood works. "Sex is meaningless fun, wear a condom or pop a pill and there will be no consequences more often than not!" If weight loss surgery was easier to perform, they would probably be encouraging people to gorge themselves all the time, too.
Just like you never see them chastise themselves for being anti-women for all the ways in which sex as a "need" contributes to rape.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What I'm trying to say, and maybe I didn't say it correctly, is that you're not going to convince a person who is a former member of a faith that believes that the clergy of their former religion is differently than what they say it is. If a religion has abused a person and covered it up -- as has what happened to my family members -- that experience and the implication speaks volumes more than canon law and lofty theory. When the leaders of a religion have perpetuated evils throughout history -- such as anti-Semitism, the Inquisition, the quashing of democracy in Europe, the aiding of juntas in Latin America -- and claimed a mantle from God from it, that should speak volumes. I get a feeling that people are more sympathetic to the Church because of Pope Francis, but more than one reformist Pope has ended up dead in two years, only to be replaced with more of the same.
And in this case, the Church is the faith. As a Catholic you have to believe that the Church is the bride of Christ as established through Peter (the "rock" of the Church, Shimon "Petrus"), and that the Pope's word is inerrant. You can TRY to be a Catholic without acknowledging the hierarchy and papal infallibility, but it's not official.
Thank you, that is remarkably helpful and I'll look into it (although no promises on being able to intelligently comment on it here any time soon.
I think I see one part that you aren't understanding. I'm not just talking to you. Yes, I am discussing it with you. But we are doing so in a public forum, where several people can see the discussion. It is not just about you and me. It's about every person who looks in this thread. Even if you (or someone else's) view is coloured by a personal experience that prohibits them from analyzing the arguments objectively, that doesn't mean other people can't.
Quite frankly, if you think that the Catholic Church has done any more (or less really) than any other power in substantially the same position (aka governments and religions) then you are deluding yourself. These problems you identified are not a failing of the church, specifically, but are rather failings of humankind. I challenge you to find any government of substantial age or substantial power that has not engaged in any such similar abuses.
Now, that doesn't excuse it. At all. But, it would be foolish to expect the Church to be distinct. Especially given that one of it's tennants is that *all* have fallen short. Not all except the church. Indeed, in my (admittedly limited) review so far it appears that the Church has at least acknowledged some blame in the Dirty War.
I don't get that feeling, but feelings aren't really something we can discuss with any meaningful level of clarity so we should probably jsut leave it at that.
Also, do you really think we are still operating in a time period where someone within the church could get away with assassinating the Pope? Is it possible, sure, I guess. But I find the proposition that someone within the church would kill the pope just so they can get rid of his radical ideas and instill a new Pope that toes the line a bit... Dan Brown. If he is assassinated it will not be from someone *within* the Church.
Again, you bring forth "almost correctisms" that seem right to anyone who doesn't *actually* know what the Church teaches. The Pope is not inerrant in general, and is only inerrant when speaking ex Cathedra. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Ex_cathedra). And, even if you were to ascribe to absolute Papal inerrancy, that would not inextricably tie the faith to the men, because the infallibility does not extend down the chain. It is limited to the individual Pope.
It is easily possible (and indeed has happened in the past) for the Pope to not live up to the teachings that he, himself, ascribes to or purports to ascribe to. That is called being hypocritical, and it occurs when ones actions do not line up with ones stated faith. if the faith were indistinguishable from its adherents, it would be impossible for its adherents to be hypocritical.
(Side Note, given the direction this is taken, I'm sending BS a PM asking him to move it to the religion section since thats what its about now. If it changes locations, thats where to look).
The Church is claiming a mantle from God and they are claiming to act on God's behalf. When you claim a duty from God, that's beyond human scope, it is supranatural. And to claim a duty from God (and have people believe it) gives a certain degree of credibility and infallibility. Thus we get people like Jim Jones who say they are Jesus, and are able to get away with anything. Imagine an institution that is given the military protection of a sovereign democratic government, that claims to be the spiritual authority of a billion human lives, that has a presence in every country where they are allowed (and even some where they aren't), and are considered the rightful authority of the legacy of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and Savior. That entity would be almost absolutely powerful. And we know about absolute power.
I heard a story about Pope Francis in Brazil on NPR yesterday, he was driving in his regular vehicle (not a Popemobile), and was offered mate by a young man. He drank the mate. He could have been easily poisoned, accepting drinks from strangers. People said it spoke of his humility (again harkening to Francis of Assisi), but it wasn't a smart move from a security standpoint. Now imagine someone REALLY wants to kill him. It doesn't seem that hard if he's accepting drinks from strangers.
You don't find it a wee bit suspicious that Pope John Paul I was a softliner on contraception and mysteriously ended up dead in his bed 33 days after becoming Pope? This was 1978, not 1127.
Can you provide sources on Catholicism outside of Wikipedia? The small section on ex Cathedra did not speak to your point. Also, if you're getting your information on Catholicism entirely from Wikipedia, I highly suggest more reputable sources like EWTN, Catholic Encyclopedia, and Catholic.org.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
You never see these people blaming Hollywood for spreading STDs, and yet casual sex is the norm and not the exception in Hollywood works. "Sex is meaningless fun, wear a condom or pop a pill and there will be no consequences more often than not!" If weight loss surgery was easier to perform, they would probably be encouraging people to gorge themselves all the time, too.
Just like you never see them chastise themselves for being anti-women for all the ways in which sex as a "need" contributes to rape.