Almost enough to make me become Catholic again

[rubato]

"You will notice that in all disputes between Christians since the birth of the Church, Rome has always favored the doctrine which most completely subjugated the human mind and annihilated reason."

"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the Christian sect in horror. But what shall we substitute in its place? you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast, and you ask me what you shall put in its place?"


Voltaire

[Lord Jim]

LMAO!!!

How stupid does a person have to be to think that quotes from a guy writing 250 years ago would be relevant in a discussion about a present day Pope?

Rube-Stupid, that's how stupid....

Why don't you post something about The Inquisition or witch burnings rube?

My God what a tool...

[oldr_n_wsr]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I got a lot out of SueU's post.
Excellent

[RayThom]

Obviously, and once again, I'm not being taken seriously in here. Curses, "Fredo-ed," again.

I should have asked Pat Robertson before coming here. Let's face it, if there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. I just knew my God and Savior would have a place for Old Shep in heaven.

https://www.cbn.com/700club/scottross/c ... souls.aspx

I'm still not sure about the pooper-scooper dogma, however. Serious thoughts... only. Thank you.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I got a lot out of SueU's post.
Excellent

I agree but I'm still thinking about it - particularly the second quote.

As to RayTHom, I think a RayBan is in order (Sorry, wrong thread). Are there dogs in heaven? No. Will there be dogs on the New Earth - good question! Probably not - only cats. All dogs will go to the other place in the hope that Ray keeps his promise

Meade

[RayThom]

“If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.” ― Will Rogers.

"If I have any beliefs about immortality, it is that certain dogs I have known will go to heaven, and very, very few persons." -- James Thurber

[dgs49]

For another approach, it is relatively easy to conclude , whether you are "religious" or not, that anything "harmful" is wrong and should be avoided.

But the perception of "harm" is subject to some discretion when one considers attenuated or indirect harm, as in harm to "the environment." Some believe it is "harmful" and thus unacceptable to hunt wild animals, particularly when it is not necessary to meet our needs, i.e., for "sport," or, say, to make oneself a fur coat. And in fact, it is possible to meet all of our biological, nutritional needs without killing any wild or domestic animals, so a non-religious or religious person might say that killing animals is in virtually all cases, harmful and thus evil.

Abortion is an even more poignant example. Some people of good conscience (I must force myself to presume) are personally convinced that a child-in-utero is nothing more than an appendage on the person of its "mother," and thus, the mother should have absolute control over whether or not that child-in-utero may continue to exist. Abortion is therefore not "harmful," and is morally inconsequential.

So people "of good conscience" can differ on what is "harmful" and hence "evil" or secularly "sinful."

But religious people - particularly those who hold the Bible in high regard - also believe that some acts (both active and passive) can be "sinful" even though they are not harmful in any discernable way. Lust is such a sin. Greed. Anger. Gluttony. Selfishness. Arrogance. Prejudice. Hate.

Even if these attitudes are not acted upon, they are "sinful," and hence morally consequential to one who takes the Bible seriously.

Homosexual acts are in the same category. If you ignore the transmission of communicable diseases, one can conclude that homosexual acts are quite harmless and morally neutral, including when divorced from any committed relationship. For that matter, the same could be said of heterosexual acts between single adults.

To the extent that the Pope meant that atheists and other "non-believers" could be considered moral and acting acceptably if they simply "follow their conscience," he was denying something pretty fundamental in the Christian faith. If he were speaking "ex Cathedra," it would have been newsworthy, and one might even say, outrageous.

[dgs49]

For another approach, it is relatively easy to conclude , whether you are "religious" or not, that anything "harmful" is wrong and should be avoided.

But the perception of "harm" is subject to some discretion when one considers attenuated or indirect harm, as in harm to "the environment." Some believe it is "harmful" and thus unacceptable to hunt wild animals, particularly when it is not necessary to meet our needs, i.e., for "sport," or, say, to make oneself a fur coat. And in fact, it is possible to meet all of our biological, nutritional needs without killing any wild or domestic animals, so a non-religious or religious person might say that killing animals is in virtually all cases, harmful and thus evil.

Abortion is an even more poignant example. Some people of good conscience (I must force myself to presume) are personally convinced that a child-in-utero is nothing more than an appendage on the person of its "mother," and thus, the mother should have absolute control over whether or not that child-in-utero may continue to exist. Abortion is therefore not "harmful," and is morally inconsequential.

So people "of good conscience" can differ on what is "harmful" and hence "evil" or secularly "sinful."

But religious people - particularly those who hold the Bible in high regard - also believe that some acts (both active and passive) can be "sinful" even though they are not harmful in any discernable way. Lust is such a sin. Greed. Anger. Gluttony. Selfishness. Arrogance. Prejudice. Hate.

Even if these attitudes are not acted upon, they are "sinful," and hence morally consequential to one who takes the Bible seriously.

Homosexual acts are in the same category. If you ignore the transmission of communicable diseases, one can conclude that homosexual acts are quite harmless and morally neutral, including when divorced from any committed relationship. For that matter, the same could be said of heterosexual acts between single adults.

To the extent that the Pope meant that atheists and other "non-believers" could be considered moral and acting acceptably if they simply "follow their conscience," he was denying something pretty fundamental in the Christian faith. If he were speaking "ex Cathedra," it would have been newsworthy, and one might even say, outrageous.

[Scooter]

some acts (both active and passive) can be "sinful" even though they are not harmful in any discernable way. Lust is such a sin. Greed. Anger. Gluttony. Selfishness. Arrogance. Prejudice. Hate.

You don't get how obsessions, which all of those are, are harmful? How they distract from what is really important and are therefore unhealthy for both body, mind and heart? You really are stupider than a stump.

To the extent that the Pope meant that atheists and other "non-believers" could be considered moral and acting acceptably if they simply "follow their conscience," he was denying something pretty fundamental in the Christian faith. If he were speaking "ex Cathedra," it would have been newsworthy, and one might even say, outrageous.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgement of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.

Catechism of the Catholic Church (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1999). p.398.

Must be pretty galling that an atheist is able to show you up over and over again for just how completely ignorant you are of the dictates of the Church you profess to believe in.

I don't suppose it registers with you how fatuously arrogant you are to believe that you know more about what it means to be Catholic than the pope.

What a buffoon.

[Joe Guy]

Abortion is an even more poignant example. Some people of good conscience (I must force myself to presume) are personally convinced that a child-in-utero is nothing more than an appendage on the person of its "mother," and thus, the mother should have absolute control over whether or not that child-in-utero may continue to exist. Abortion is therefore not "harmful," and is morally inconsequential.

Are you really that clueless?

Have you never known someone who has had an abortion?

Have you not at least heard what a woman goes through emotionally prior to the abortion and for the rest of her life?

Obviously not.....

[Econoline]

WOW. Just, WOW.

Pope Bluntly Faults Church’s Focus on Gays and Abortion
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: September 19, 2013

Pope Francis, in the first extensive interview of his six-month-old papacy, said that the Roman Catholic Church had grown “obsessed” with preaching about abortion, gay marriage and contraception, and that he has chosen not to speak of those issues despite recriminations from some critics.

In remarkably blunt language, Francis sought to set a new tone for the church, saying it should be a “home for all” and not a “small chapel” focused on doctrine, orthodoxy and a limited agenda of moral teachings.

“It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time,” the pope told the Rev. Antonio Spadaro, a fellow Jesuit and editor in chief of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit journal whose content is routinely approved by the Vatican. “The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.

“We have to find a new balance,” the pope continued, “otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”

The interview was conducted in Italian during three meetings in August in the pope’s spartan quarters in Casa Santa Marta, the Vatican guesthouse, and translated into English by a team of translators. Francis has chosen to live at Casa Santa Marta rather than in what he said were more isolated quarters at the Apostolic Palace, home to many of his predecessors.

The interview was released simultaneously on Thursday morning by 16 Jesuit journals around the world, and includes the pope’s lengthy reflections on his identity as a Jesuit. Pope Francis personally reviewed the transcript in Italian, said the Rev. James Martin, an editor-at-large of America, the Jesuit magazine in New York. America and La Civiltà Cattolica together had asked Francis to grant the interview, which America is publishing in its magazine and as an e-book.

“Some of the things in it really surprised me,” Father Martin said. “He seems even more of a free-thinker than I thought — creative, experimental, willing to live on the margins, push boundaries back a little bit.”

The new pope’s words are likely to have repercussions in a church whose bishops and priests in many countries, including the United States, often appeared to make combating abortion, gay marriage and contraception their top public policy priorities. These teachings are “clear” to him as “a son of the church,” he said, but they have to be taught in a larger context. “The proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives.”

From the outset of his papacy in March, Francis has chosen to use the global spotlight to focus instead on the church’s mandate to serve the poor and marginalized. He has washed the feet of juvenile prisoners, visited a center for refugees and hugged disabled pilgrims at his audiences.

His pastoral presence and humble gestures have made him wildly popular, according to recent surveys. But there has been a low rumble of discontent from some Catholic advocacy groups, and even from some bishops, who have taken note of his silence on abortion and gay marriage. Earlier this month, Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, R.I., told his diocesan newspaper that he was “a little bit disappointed in Pope Francis” because he had not spoken about abortion. “Many people have noticed that,” the bishop was quoted as saying.

The interview is the first time Francis has explained the reasoning behind both his actions and omissions. He also expanded on the comments he made about homosexuality in July, on an airplane returning to Rome from Rio de Janeiro, where he had celebrated World Youth Day. In a remark then that produced headlines worldwide, the new pope said, “Who am I to judge?” At the time, some questioned whether he was referring only to gays in the priesthood, but in this interview he made clear that he had been speaking of gays and lesbians in general.

“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality,” he told Father Spadaro. “I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.”

The interview also serves to present the pope as a human being, who loves Mozart and Dostoevsky and his grandmother, and whose favorite film is Fellini’s “La Strada.”

The 12,000-word interview ranges widely, and may confirm what many Catholics already suspected: that the chameleon-like Francis bears little resemblance to those on the church’s theological or political right wing. He said some people had assumed he was an “ultraconservative” because of his reputation when he served as the superior of his Jesuit province in Argentina. He pointed out that he was made superior at the “crazy” young age of 36, and that his leadership style was too authoritarian.

“But I have never been a right-winger,” he said. “It was my authoritarian way of making decisions that created problems.”

Now, Francis said, he prefers a more consultative leadership style. He has appointed an advisory group of eight cardinals, a step he said was recommended by the cardinals at the conclave that elected him. They were demanding reform of the Vatican bureaucracy, he said, adding that from the eight, “I want to see that this is a real, not ceremonial consultation.”

The pope said he has found it “amazing” to see complaints about “lack of orthodoxy” flowing into the Vatican offices in Rome from conservative Catholics around the world. They ask the Vatican to investigate or discipline their priests, bishops or nuns. Such complaints, he said, “are better dealt with locally,” or else the Vatican offices risk becoming “institutions of censorship.”

Asked what it means for him to “think with the church,” a phrase used by the Jesuit founder St. Ignatius, Francis said that it did not mean “thinking with the hierarchy of the church.”

He said he thinks of the church “as the people of God, pastors and people together.”

“The church is the totality of God’s people,” he added, a notion popularized after the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, which Francis praised for making the Gospel relevant to modern life, an approach he called “absolutely irreversible.”

And while he agreed with the decision of his predecessor, Pope Benedict, to allow the broader use of the traditional Latin-language Tridentine Mass, he said that the more traditional Mass risked becoming an ideology and that he was worried about its “exploitation.” Those who seek a broad revival of the Tridentine Mass have been among Francis’s harshest critics, and those remarks are not likely to comfort them.

In contrast to Benedict, who sometimes envisioned a smaller but purer church — a “faithful fragment” — Francis envisions the church as a big tent.

“This church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people,” he said. “We must not reduce the bosom of the universal church to a nest protecting our mediocrity.”

“The proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives.” Again....*W*O*W*

(Here's The full interview, published in America: The National Catholic Review.)

[Scooter]

Beat me to it.

Would love to see Dave's reaction when the RC Church starts marrying same-sex couples and makes abortion a sacrament.

[Sue U]

It appears to me that New Pope isn't changing policy, only stating what he feels the emphasis should be. While the change of tone is all nice and inclusive-sounding, I doubt you'll be seeing construction of the Pope Francis Abortion Clinic and Same-Sex Marriage Center any time soon.

[Lord Jim]

It appears to me that New Pope isn't changing policy, only stating what he feels the emphasis should be.

That looks accurate to me...He wants the Church to be known for more than just those things.

I don't think there's any chance at all that the Church will change it's opposition to abortion or gay marriage, but I would say I think it may be possible that it's position on contraception, (at least some forms of it ) might be modified.

[RayThom]

I used to feel, meet the new pope, same as the old pope. Oddly, I'm starting to warm up to our new pope-ster. I'm beginning to think he spent enough time in Mar del Plata to know which way the wind blows.

Go get 'em, P-Frankie. Maybe we don't get fooled again.

[Econoline]

[Guinevere]

Meh.

It's vague words, not doctrinal changes. Note he says absolutely nothing about women, who remain less than second class citizens within the Catholic Church.

[Big RR]

One thing at a time Guin; he seems to be endorsing the ministry approach the previous pope criticized a group of US nuns for. He may be up for some more change. sure, he's a long way from embracing women as equals, but he may take a few steps toward that. For an institution the size of the RC church, that's probably the best anyone can do.

[Lord Jim]

He's trying to broaden the message of the Church, improve it's image, (which has obviously taken a lot of hits) and attract more people to the faith...

All of which, from where I sit, is all to the good...

However, I reiterate what I said earlier about his seemingly lackadaisical, (almost naive) attitude about his personal security...(This was very much on display during his recent trip back to Argentina)

The approach that he's taking is not going to be met with universal applause...some people are going to be pissed off...

So to the usual gang of suspects who would love to have the opportunity to off any Pope, (like the Islamic terrorists) we can now add some unbalanced ultra-conservatives (not all ultra-conservatives are unbalanced, but there are certainly some) types within the membership of the Church itself, who may see him as a threat to the religion and want to eliminate him.

[MajGenl.Meade]

“The church is the totality of God’s people,” he added, a notion popularized after the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s"

In the 1960s was it? I expect that might be a bit of a surprise to Christ, St Paul, Luther, Calvin, the Baptists, to name butaphew.

FWIW I think he makes a good point about the overemphasis of these three contentious issues which too often overshadow the main thing. Perforce, he had to draw attention to them in order to discuss.

Meade