Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design

[kskiska]

Philosophers, scientists and other intellectuals close to Pope Benedict will gather at his summer palace outside Rome this week for intensive discussions that could herald a fundamental shift in the Vatican's view of evolution.

There have been growing signs the Pope is considering aligning his church more closely with the theory of "intelligent design" taught in some US states. Advocates of the theory argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex that they must have been designed by a higher intelligence. Critics say it is a disguise for creationism.

A prominent anti-evolutionist and Roman Catholic scientist, Dominique Tassot, told the US National Catholic Reporter that this week's meeting was "to give a broader extension to the debate. Even if knows where he wants to go, and I believe he does, it will take time. Most Catholic intellectuals today are convinced that evolution is obviously true because most scientists say so." In 1996, in what was seen as a capitulation to scientific orthodoxy, John Paul II said Darwin's theories were "more than a hypothesis".

(snip)

A few months later, Cardinal Schönborn, who is regarded as being close to Benedict, wrote an article for the New York Times backing moves to teach ID. He was attacked by Father George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory. On August 19, Fr Coyne was replaced without explanation. Vatican sources said the Pope's former astronomer, who has cancer, had asked to be replaced.

more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1859760,00.html

[Lindacooks]

1. Most intellectuals see evolution as true because the

EVIDENCE supports it, not because others SAY it is true.

Sheesh.

[longship]

88. Correct! There are no arguments of authority in science.

The only authorities in science are the facts and how they fit together.

[harun]

323. Not yet they don't

If you add all the human like specimens we have fossils of that are different from us and brought them to life today they would not fill up a bus.

You call that evidence?

I am not arguing for or against your theory of how things happened but that sure as hell isn't scientific evidence of anything.

[jsamuel]

326. evolution is not all about humans

humans are a part of evolution, but evolution is not encompassed by humanity

Denying evolution is denying the existence of DNA. Yet we put people in jail daily using that as 100% positive proof of crime. If you want to deny evolution, do you want to let all the criminals convicted on DNA evidence to go free? Do you want all the mothers/fathers proven to be biological to be scattered because you don't believe in DNA.

[beam me up scottie]

2. Oh great.

Want to tell me again that this dude isn't as bad as we thought he was going to be?

A prominent anti-evolutionist and Roman Catholic scientist, Dominique Tassot, told the US National Catholic Reporter that this week's meeting was "to give a broader extension to the debate. Even if knows where he wants to go, and I believe he does, it will take time. Most Catholic intellectuals today are convinced that evolution is obviously true because most scientists say so." In 1996, in what was seen as a capitulation to scientific orthodoxy, John Paul II said Darwin's theories were "more than a hypothesis".

Uh, no, most catholic intellectuals are convinced that evolution is true because they understand science, not because "most scientists say so."

Could he be any more intellectually dishonest or insulting? :mad:

[regnaD kciN]

18. Please note that this quote came from a highly-biased source...

It's probably no more reliable than quoting Randall Terry on the Bush administrations plans to seek a law banning abortion.

While I wouldn't assume that I know what +Ratzinger may do, I'll believe this particular matter when I see it, and not just read speculation from one side of the issue.

[beam me up scottie]

22. I hope you're right.

If not, I expect catholic intellectuals to raise the roof, so to speak.
None of the catholics I know believe in creation OR intelligent design so this really bugged me.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

28. Dominique Tassot's qualifications as a 'scientist'

Q: What is your scientific training?

Tassot: I graduated from the Paris School of Mines, which is an elite school of engineering. I studied mathematics, physics and chemistry. In my professional career I worked in metallurgy plants, not in a teaching or research centers (sic).
--from an interview in the National Catholic Reporter

IMO metallurgy is an engineering profession, not a scientific one, especially in this case, where Tassot doesn't mention doing any graduate studies in science nor work outside of the industry. Additionally there is no mention of ANY coursework in biology, which would seem to be the minimum criteria for presenting oneself as a scientist qualified to discuss evolution on scientific terms. Methinks he's misrepresenting himself as a scientist to give his arguments the patina of credibility.

"I'm not a real doctor, but I play one on television."

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. Sounds almost exactly qualified as a friend of mine who is now a minister

who studied physics and material sciences at a top university, worked for a few years for a steel company, and then became a minister in a presybterian church. However, he thinks evolution is the right description of what happened, and what should be taught; when I told him about the Flying Spaghetti Monster rebuttal to the attempt to get ID taught in school, he described the FSM as "an appropiate response to a crazy policy". So I guess we're even on "religious 'experts' who had some scientific training". Of course, my friend doesn't call himself a 'scientist' - he just studied some at university.

[immoderate]

46. But it's not an excuse. (Of course I kow your not doing that.)

He has enough education IMO to understand evolution and the scientific method.

--IMM

[cmkramer]

60. ITA

When I was a child attending Catholic schools, I remember the prevailing opinion being something along the lines of "God created the world, but evolution tells you how He did it". The Creation story? Basically a myth which was meant to illustrate just how all-powerful God was.

My college roommate considered herself a "Jeffersonian deist" -- she believed in God, but was skeptical about Jesus as anything but a really cool guy who preached loving kindness and was killed by TPTB of the time for questioning authority. Was almost totally ignorant about the Bible. She also believed God got everything started -- the "primal mover" theory.

What I'm trying to say that I would not assume that this means a slippery slope all the way over to creationism.

[Ian David]

31. Maybe he'll publicly embrace Intelligent Pedophilia soon? n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

41. This will just continue the slothing off of American Catholics from the

Vatican. Catholics have had their faith tested too much already. What with the pedophile priests and the exposure to HIV because the church does not allow their followers to use condoms. They jump on the Evangelical's Creationist bandwagon, and they'll just lose more supporters.

[bemildred]

3. Bemildred prepares to continue to ignore the Pope. nt

[roguevalley]

12. may I join you Bemildred

[bemildred]

13. Indeed, and welcome.

:hi:

[IndianaGreen]

4. The last time religious dogma trumped science and reason

they were burning heretics and witches at the stake.

What's next for this Pope, a man that as a cardinal headed the same office that once was known as the Holy Inquisition?

Even Islam rejects intelligent design!

[krispos42]

23. This says it all, I believe

[customerserviceguy]

26. I beg to differ

Religious dogma has trumped science and reason in every state that voted to ban equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian people. It's still running around out there, people. This is just one more example, that's all.

On the other hand, what do I care what bullshit Catholics believe? I left that church over two decades ago, they believe a lot of crap that I cannot stomach anymore.

[Erika]

5. Intelligent design is BS big time

Disease, birth defects, etc. certainly do NOT show intelligence in design, or the warring nature of people.

I scoff at any indication of intelligence in our design.

[zulchzulu]

6. Whatever marketing scheme it takes to make mo' money...

Based on the fickle, morally subjective activities of the Vatican ever since they have been pilfering money from their guilt-laden subjects, this is nothing new.

They must have done some surveys where dumb people who believed in their hateful marketing "God brand" also went for the obvious stupid shit, namely called "intelligent design". After all, being against fags getting married has made lots of money and votes.

There's a sucker born every minute ready to spend their money. Or has the Pope could say:

"If they obey and serve him, they shall spend their days in prosperity, and their years in pleasures." Job 36:11

Obey, you dumb fucks...obey...

[Gman]

7. Frankly, as a Catholic, I'm not the least bit surprised with Ratzinger

he was chosen because the staunch conservatives in the church took over. These people have very strong ties to the American RW who are pushing their agenda throughout the world.

Most importantly, this is absolutely NOT an issue of the Pope's infallibility by any stretch of the imagination. It's just an old man that would like to die thinking Gallileo is still burning in hell.

[Erika]

14. The Catholics embraced Hitler for his stand endorsing Christianity

Why wouldn't a far right winger Pope endorse W? He did.

[patrick317]

66. That is a lie

The Church helped save thousands of Jew from the clutches of Hitlers gas chambers...it is a seemingly perpetual myth you state here. You should apologize.

[Finder]

74. Many Catholics did but the not the church officially. n/t

[LostinVA]

141. "Hitler's Pope" is an accurate portrait of how the Church's

REFUSAL to slam Hitler and the camps help result in the deaths of untold nu,bers of people. Cornwell's book has been attacked by the Church almost as much as the "DaVinci Code," but it's dead on right. Many brave Religious risked their lives -- and lost their lives -- for saving Jews... but His Holiness sure didn't.

[patrick317]

191. False

The Pope helped saved thousands of Jews during Hitler's war, though modern anti-Church scholars will not bother to tell you that. The Pope condemned Hitler and the Church fought in the underground to save as many as they could. They did so much that the Jews sent an envoy to the Vatican after the war with to delever a special gift of gratitude.

[cap]

289. the Pope did not threaten to excommunicate any Catholic who

participate in the SS and who rounded up the Jews.

[LostinVA]

330. False -- John Cornwell is a devout Catholic

He is NOT an "anti-Catholic scholar" by any means. He is actually quite moderate in his beliefs. However, the Church hierarchy and it's Religious and Lay minions *nudge* treat anyone left of Attila the Hun as "anti Catholic."

Pshaw.

[drfresh]

319. Oh come on, thats not very fair

Who are you to say that the Pope would like to imagine Galileo burning in hell, thats just unfair to assume what he's thinking. For the record I don't think the Pope is infallible, nor am I Catholic. But I do agree with the Vatican on evolution (as a matter of science) and on intelligent design (as a matter of faith)

[zreosumgame]

8. ah, once again an 'infallable' pope

proves how willingly fallible they really are...

[Erika]

15. Kind of like an infallible GOP? n/t

[Occulus]

19. .

oops

[OregonDem]

9. Inteligunt Dezine

Well if God told the man in the pointy hat then it must be true. I wonder if this will mean there will be a greater push by the fundie sheep to teach this crap in schools; like we need to fall further behind more countries in the science department.

[Speck Tater]

10. The church takes one step closer to being completely irrelevant.

Next stop, the new dark ages.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. Pope Maladict is just hastening the end

Remember, he is the next-to-last pope. According to a list drawn up by Saint Malachy in 1134, the current Pope will be followed by one more, described thus: "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there shall reign Peter the Roman who will feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the terrible judge will judge the people. The end."

So why not go just a bit insane? It's not like he needs to leave anything for his successor.

[Hardrada]

16. As an atheist with no stake in this

I continue to be quite amused.

[SoyCat]

21. As a fellow atheist, I think we do all have a stake in this. I believe

this will just further dumb down science. Students will learn less and less and it will be even more accepted by the 'mainstream'.

[beam me up scottie]

24. And this atheist agrees with you.

Just because they're not killing us anymore doesn't mean their actions aren't having a negative effect on us.

It's our duty as liberals to protect science from bible thumping troglodytes.

[Zhade]

125. I think we HAVE to have a stake in this.

While the Catholic Church IS waning, it still wields a lot of influence - enough to assist in AIDS deaths in Africa, for example.

We can't afford to ignore this, but I share the sense of amusement at the same time. After all, Ratzinger already apparently believes in a lot of other magical nonsense, so this isn't really surprising.

But it is a problem.

[The_Casual_Observer]

17. Him taking a position like that contributes nothing to the advancement

of civilization. The man and his beliefs belong in the dark ages.By doing that he will confirm that he is just a stupid little old man.

[Occulus]

20. Occasionally, fiction is prescient.

[krispos42]

25. All those thousands of divinity students...

And they can't see through the BS. Where are all the swarms of theologins that have been rigorously trained in logic and reason? I mean, they have all of those prists and bishops and such that have gone to seminary school or whatever.

[Alacrat]

27. I don't see why this is a surprise

I would expect the Pope to endorse intelligent design. I'm not Catholic, and I've never followed the church's position on this issue. IMO there is a middle ground that should be acceptable to the church,ie.. God created everything, and things have evolved since the time of their creation. IMO, evolution is an undeniable fact, but it doesn't have to conflict with someone who chooses to believe creationism. Creationism/Intelligent design do have their points, the Earth and all it's amazing creature's, with the complexity of life, and the fine balance that has to be maintained to sustain life, make the argument that a supreme spiritual being put a lot of thought and planning into it, have some merit. I consider myself to be a spiritual person, and have no problem believing both. There are arguments on both sides which make you think. I heard one against evolution, regarding faith, I thought it was interesting. It goes like this: If you had a junkyard full of airplane parts just sitting unassembled, do you believe, on their own, they would ever be able to assemble themselves into an airplane and fly? Most would answer no, it would take more faith in evolution to believe this could happen, than it would to believe someone would have to assemble them, ie..supreme being. This is a simple argument, but one that inspires thought. Flame away if it makes you feel better.

[acmavm]

32. The more complex that a scientific theory is, the more I believe that

there is a God. The Theory of Evolution just reinforces that fact.

My God is a God of logic and order. He's not an ethereal Amazing Kreskin with a magic wand and the need to take a day off (although we can't agree on which day it was. Saturday or Sunday.)

I look at things like evolution, conception, flight, even really far out stuff like the 'String Theory' and I see the mind of God at work.

I look at things like the Inquisition, Crusades, and the bush** administration and I see the mind of a corrupt and flawed group of human beings.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

44. Nice.

I'm with you.

[last1standing]

34. I'm not trying to flame...

but that junkyard analogy is just plain silly. The many forces of nature have caused evolution throughout millions of years. You can't just try to compare that with the "concept" that a junked airplane could reassemble itself. There's no underlying logic to it. It would be like saying gravity might not exist because you can make a yo-yo work or birds can fly. Nature deals with non-living matter through erosion and decomposition, it deals with species survival through evolution. This has been proved without any doubt.

As for the problem with the pope embracing ID, it means that yet again the religious nutjobs have decided to use a fake theory as their groundwork for science education. This decision will affect millions of catholic school students who's teachers will now be under more pressure to teach them "junkyard science". In a few years they will probably believe that an old airplane can reassemble itself and fly because they will have been taught that a magical man in the sky causes all sorts of non-provable things to happen and will have never heard of evolution other than in mocking terms.

If this was a flame, so be it, but your post didn't inspire me to think, it inspired me to correct your misstatements.

[KittyWampus]

37. the notion that particles of physical matter JUST HAPPEN to form molecules

that JUST HAPPEN to form proteins THAT JUST HAPPEN to ad infinitum with no preexisting capacity for Intelligence requires just as much faith as a belief in a Sky-god doing the same thing by fiat.

Especially since all those developments that happen along the road of Evolution happen in synchronicity with each other.

And Darwinists will never explain how Consciousness JUST HAPPENS to develop out of Physical Matter when it is not made out of Physical Matter but merely uses Physical Matter as its vehicle and means of expression.

Funny, its totally possible to believe Nature and the Universe has an underlying, innate Intelligence without even proposing an omnipotent sky-god.

[last1standing]

38. You can believe anything you like.

The problem is working to inject your faith into the schools and textbooks of our students which is what ID is all about. Once again, evolution has been proved, ID (which is just a bullshit propaganda term for creationism) has not and never will be. If you want to belive it, feel free, but don't try to corrupt our schools with fake science and mythology. You have your churches and temples for that.

As for your demand that we "Darwinists" explain consciousness to you, if we had fewer people trying to stop the progress of learning and research into evolutionary processes you might have had your answer by now.

[Ian David]

50. The intellectually lazy and small-minded find it much easier to believe...

that just because they don't understand something, it must be some sort of miracle.

"If I don't know it, then it must be un-knowable, because I'm wicked smaht!"

It makes them feel better to think that something too compliated for them to grasp must be magic.

It's more comforting than believing there are things they can't wrap their tiny little brains around.

In any case, even if ID were (by some MIRACLE) actually true, it's still not science, and has no place in public schools.

[Speck Tater]

120. The more accurate analogy is this...

You need to understand the nature of the forces acting to bond atoms into molecules. For proteins to "just happen" is really more like putting a handful of magnets in a box, shaking the box, and discovering that, lo and behold, some of the magnets have stuck together.

The more you know about organic chemistry the less mysterious it all becomes.

But this does not imply that there is no God. I for one happen to think that the Great Cosmic Consciousness built the laws of nature in such a way that evolution became possible. As for consciousness "just happening", I personally don't believe that. I believe that consciousness is elemental, like matter and energy, it is a fundamentally different kind of stuff emanating from the Great Cosmic Consciousness. It does not rely on matter to exist, but it uses material biological vehicles (such as out human brains and bodies) as a way of interacting with the rest of physical reality.

[Zhade]

127. Great analogy!

The poster you replied to will likely ignore it in favor of her self-created silliness, but that doesn't dilute the accuracy or import of your analogy. Well-said!

[Zhade]

126. Believe whatever unsupported nonsense you make up. That's your right.

Just don't try to force others to buy into your bullshit, since it's not proven and likely not even close to true.

[lakercub]

149. Be that as it may

we await your evidence for this intelligence. Simply stating "the other way is too hard to have happened" doesn't make that opinion valid. Please present you evidence.

[Alacrat]

201. The junk yard argument

isn't an argument against evolution, it is an argument for the creation of first life. Scientist can not tell us exactly how life first began. They have theories, but absolute proof. To anyone who says I'm pushing my beliefs, I'm not pushing any belief. I believe what I believe, and that is my business, I don't push my beliefs on anyone. Evolution of species on the other hand has been proven, and I believe it's true. How life first began is a different story.

[last1standing]

291. Gravity is a theory but I don't see you or anyone else knocking it.

The first thing you need to understand is that a scientific theory only becomes so when there is enough existing data to make it more than a hypothesis. So yes, there is proof to back scientific theories on the beginning of life. The second thing you need to understand is that there is no way to prove something 100% that obviously happened long before any recorded history. What you're falling back on is the old "Can you prove God doesn't exist?" argument which holds no water. Any reasonable person knows you can't prove a negative. What we can prove is that based upon modern data, scientific theories on the origins of life are not only possible, but probable.

You're free to believe any myth or superstition you can conjur up, but when you try to give your opinions equal footing with scientific fact you are bound to be taken to task for it. I believe that there was possibly some help in some way to get things started, myself, but I would never try to inject my beliefs into a discussion on science as that would be extremely regressive.

Like I said before, this isn't an attempt to flame you. I just want to make it very clear that ID and science are not equally acceptable theories as there is absolutely no data to back up ID and plenty to back up scientific theory.

[gorbal]

45. I always believed we were all aspects of one consciousness broken off

I guess because I get these rare, but intense psychic flashes that I can't explain. I see this consciousness as helping to mold itself into new forms. Our part of it in the way we decide whether or not to go to the gym. Feelings and aspects of ourselves we cannot help were formed long ago and are so much a part of us that to get rid of them would be like tearing off a finger.

Um, er, that's always been my theory, even before I heard about all this "intelligent design" nonsense.

[lakercub]

98. Yes but since an airplane

is not self-replicating and does not introduce its genetic materials as well as its genetic flaws to its offspring, the airplane analogy is utterly useless.

[Alacrat]

204. You misunderstood

The airplane analogy is for the beginings of first life, random particles coming together to form a living thing. Once life is created, I believe it evolves, there is to much science to prove it. There is no scientific proof of how life first began, only theories.

[Ian David]

30. But Pope John Paul embraced Evolution, and The Pope is Infallible

Therefore, if Pope Ratso contradicts Pope John Paul... then one if them isn't a real Pope.

[Eurobabe]

48. Off to Avignon with Rat'sNest then!

[hedgehog]

59. Infallible only when speaking ex cathedra - from the chair- on

matters of doctrine. Interestingly, the teaching of infallibility is subject to debate because it was instituted unilaterally at Vatican I after most of the bishops who would have opposed it already left. In other words, this attempt to seize authority for the Pope as opposed to the college of bishops is not necessarily so. It is also the topic of Lord Acton's comment "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[patrick317]

68. Not true

JPII did not embrace evolution, he merely admitted it has merit and that it deserves surther study. Also, JPII made no infallible statements about evolution, nor has B16.

[Ian David]

70. So, he didn't so much embrace it as fondle it in the rectory, then? n/t

[patrick317]

71. He did not embrace evolution.

[cap]

288. Teilhard de Chardin???

[greenman3610]

33. I'm a recovering Catholic

and I have no love for the church, but there is a
intellectual tradition in Catholicism that
one can at least respect.

It's disturbing over the last few years to see
the emergence of the kind of Christo fascist
conservative branch of the church that one
kind of associates with the worst Southern
Baptist know nothing shitheads...

[cap]

35. oh please....

most Catholics arent nutcases and wont listen to this crapola...

Virtually none have any push for ID... This is coming from Ratzinger's little chat with Bush that he had right before his coronation.

Ratzinger is sneaky and is warring on the Jesuits. The Jesuits wouldnt put up with this.

[LostinVA]

39. The Jesuits are gonna go bonkers

And, it's not good to tick off The Black Pope. Oi.

[cap]

42. the pope wants to replace the head of the Jesuits

the rumor is that they are pushing for the resignation of the jesuits.

[LostinVA]

54. OMG -- again, they will go BONKERS

I hadn't heard this.... oh man....

[0007]

55. Talking about head......brings reality to the front row

[0007]

302. I could help that young girl to help me!

[GeorgeGist]

36. Fortunately...

evolution is far more intelligent and creative than man.

[leesa]

40. This idiot is really setting the Catholic church back big time!

[Ian David]

53. If only The Vatican would leave the rest of the world alone...

and concentrate on molesting their own children.

I have no problem with them preaching to their own choirs about whatever voodoo they find comforting.

But when they start meddling in politics and school boards, and interfering in the rights of non-catholics, they become a political entity and fair game for criticism of their plan to de-stabilize the world through the spreading of AIDS and poverty.

Why does The Vatican have to force their lifestyle choice upon the rest of the world?

We should spread Democracy to The Vatican.

[truthisfreedom]

43. intelligent design sounds like UFOs to me.

i'm just sayin'.

[Eurobabe]

47. Another reason to Ignore Rat'sNest when he comes to Germany

in a couple weeks.

[truebrit71]

121. Okay, you owe me one computer monitor!!!

Holy Cow is that funny!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[warrens]

49. Hoo boy

Watch the rush for the exits if he tries this. The more traditional catholics won't care, but the young moderates they have been trying to attract will bolt. And the catholic church, at least in the U.S., will become a haven for the elderly.

[Julius Civitatus]

51. The Catholic church embraced evolution, and so did John Paul II

I think the Catholic Church decided to to do the right thing on Evolution by not opposing science. I thin kthey learned something since that little incident with that Galileo fella. ;-)

But suddenly that's over.

I think it's unfortunate, sad, and damaging that Ratzinger will embrace this pseudo-science of "Intelligent Design" pushed by American fundamentalists. This is not a good move, and a step backwards for the Catholic Church... as if the Catholic Church needed any more steps in the wrong direction.

[UTUSN]

52. He was just BIDING HIS TIME, biding his time...

[stepnw1f]

324. O.M.G.!

That picture is creepy. It's Santa Palpatine!

[BootinUp]

56. what century is it?

Maybe I stepped through a worm hole and didn't know it...

[KansDem]

57. Question: Doesn't "Intelligent Designer" = "God?"

Just wondering if "Intelligent Designer" is just a fancy-schmancy word for "God." It has six more syllables and could appeal more to the ivory-tower crowd...

[yellowcanine]

58. I doubt this report. Popes generally do not operate this way. It would

be seen as a rupudiation of John Paul II. That would be unheard of for the Vatican, which values consistency and precedent. John Paul II was certainly aware of ID in 1996 and he chose to ignore it. There is no way the current Pope is going to make a radical change to a policy which is only 10 years old.

[patrick317]

61. The Church will not do this...

It will not take a hard stance for or against evolution until/unless it has proof either way. The Church teaches God created the world and it feels that science and faith should compliment each other, not be enemies of each other.

This Pope is a wise and holy man and he will not place his tamp on ID--though he might make a statement saying ID is worth study.

[Bill McBlueState]

158. if they read the leading journals

If they read the leading journals, they'll find the closest approximation to "proof" that we're ever going to have for the diversification of species via natural selection. It's sort of a settled question among the experts.

[savemefromdumbya]

62. Pope should be meeting to solve starvation in the world......

not worrying about philosophy

[patrick317]

65. The Church does help starving people...

and this topic centers on our origions, which is a fundamental topic of almost all religions.

[stepnw1f]

63. Sounds Like the Pope is Campaigning for Fundimentalists (nt)

[sakabatou]

64. Tinfoil hats on to the replacement of Father Coyne

[mogster]

67. Good ole Joey Ratz

I knew we could count on him.

[YOY]

69. Are they going to 'unteach me' the Evolution I learned in Catholic School?

Sorry, but when they go back on their word, they need to be reminded that it's not the middle ages and the flock needs a damn good explanation for these kinds of things.

If this happens, I am officially going to stop referring to myself as a 'part-time Catholic.' If I wanted to be a Fundie southern Baptist I would have converted long ago.

[ananda]

72. I've always thought of Maledict as..

.. a nazi disguised as a pope.

The guy is fucked, really fucked, and his church officials
are fucked... with regard to stem cell research, to ID,
and of course wrt women's reproductive rights.

Sue

[patrick317]

73. He is merely following his faith in God and

that should not be a surprise.

[ckramer]

75. Time to leave the church

Off you go

[patrick317]

76. Why would anyone want to leave Jesus' Church?

[YOY]

77. Because it's being re-taken over by those who forgot Vatican II

Now you're either for a progressive Catholic Church that changes and adapts with the times or you might as well be a Baptist prottie.

Which is it?

[patrick317]

78. How?

[YOY]

79. Try the topic of the thread for starters

Opus Dei for getting their panties in a knot over poorly written fiction and making us all look like a bunch of stiffs.

Lack of attentiveness to waning numbers of young Catholics in practice in addition to lower numbers of Priests/nuns taking up the call.

Mismanagement of priests who commit unthinkable crimes.

Snuggling up to born-again assholes who don't even think of us a Christians. (Ricky Santorum springs to mind.)

More of a focus on Anti-abortion BS than Catholic Charities work.

That kind of BS.

[patrick317]

80. Okay, yet...

Opus Dei did not really respond much, Catholics defended OD.

The Church is very aware of the numbers of young people attending and practicing. The faith actually increased over the last year, yet numbers of "true" Catholics are probably at 25% or less of the total number. The Church knows this and is working on it.

The mis-management of the Priests is a good point and one that makes the victims and the Church continue to suffer to this day.

Not sure what you mean about the "snuggling" comment...

The Catholic Church still works tirelessly to feed and clothe the poor, more then any other entity on earth. It also defends life at all levels, not sure what's wrong with that...seems like Christ would do the same.

[Hardrada]

85. Well, that's another reason the RC church is losing members:

The so-called "pro-life" position. This is essentially a GOP wedge issue as it used and is handled by repugs with such hypocrisy it is amazing that RC voters haven't figured this out yet. But, yes, the issue is at odds with societal realities etc.

[patrick317]

95. I agree that

the republicans use the "life" issues as a wedghe issue...no doubt at all. Yet, that has nothing to do with truth, nor does "societal" directions impact truth.

[Hardrada]

232. What is truth?

I'd like to wait for your reply but I must be going. I really must be going.

[patrick317]

234. Jesus is truth.

[NuttyFluffers]

292. Wrong. Ahura Mazda is truth.

:rant:

[YOY]

87. Oh trust me I am far more aware of the good deeds the Church does

than many of it's dissenters here. It is that good work, that keeps me Catholic in addition to the acceptance of Science, the 'lesson learned' of keeping Church and State separate, and avoidance of literal interpretation of the Bible as well as considering the faith as part of my heritage.

The protesters I spied in Arlington making an ass of the Catholic Church wearing Opus Dei pins were most certainly acting the part of boobs regarding the De vinci Code. I do not appreciate the strongest voice of the Catholic Church being the right wingers. ie those who forget the golden rule that trumps all: "Do unto others..."

The number of the faithful increasing is not in the developed world...that number is waning. It is increasing in South America (due to high birthrates) and in Africa (due to conversions.) If you are talking about a fast growing faith in North America: that would be the Mormons.

'True Catholics' seems to be an ambiguous term. I sincerely hope you are not referring to those of us who the more staunch 'believers' cut out as 'Cafeteria Catholics.' I sincerely hope you are not referring to people who would actually wear a shirt like this one:

http://www.cafepress.com/buy/catholic/-/pv_design_details/pg_2/id_8478865/opt_/fpt_/c_360/


Snuggling up to the fundamentalist protestant right wing because of a matter of convenience (ie single issue voters who seem to think that outlawing abortion will make it go away or that by legalizing gay marriage, gays will be fornicating on the church steps) is a matter of simple observation. I, and many others, consider Catholics like Rick Santorum using their Catholic faith to blindside Catholic voters into voting for a party that has pretty much been sucked into the fundamentalist protestant mindset to be the ultimate disgrace. Basically using us to support a party that publicly treasures members of a faith that does not even consider us to be Christians: 'born again' Christians.

If you think I'm making that up then you really don't know anything about 'born again Christians' or Southern Evangelicals/Baptists.

[patrick317]

99. I agree that the Church is not growing by much

in the United States (though it did post gains last year). Europe is neary a "Catholic dead zone," and has for all practical purposes become a mission field for the Church.

As for the Da Vince Code, while it is a work of fiction, Brown did try to offer it as accurate history and that books bashes the "blank" out of the faith and Church and Opus Dei, nearly all of which were outright lies or clever deceptions. It does not surprise me many Catholics were upset.

By true Catholic I mean: Catholics who accept and follow all teachings of the faith, not just those they agree with.

[YOY]

118. The book was fiction. The fact that many Catholics got upset with it made

many of us look like fools. One could write about the Pope masturbating with Mother Theresa's corpse and still not upset me...as long as it was not sold in the non-fiction section. (unless there were some really weird evidence behind it.) Getting all upset over this was reminiscent of Muslims getting all upset for Salmon Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses' (ALSO FICTIONAL but using SOME history!!!)

It was a book. A fictional book. Getting bent out of shape over a (very averagely written and sensationalist) piece of fiction is beyond idiotic.

You cannot find the book in the Nonfiction or even the Religious section of the bookstore for a reason.

and frankly I couldn't care less about Opus Dei. They do meddle in schools of thought that should be left in the middle ages.

And according to your definition, I am not a 'true Catholic' because I find the sacrament of confession to be outdated and silly?

Sorry, I consider myself a good Franciscan regardless of that and several other minor important tenants of the faith that are trumped by my belief in One Holy and Apostolic Church (as well as just about everything else in the Apostle's Creed.)

[patrick317]

122. Yes, it was a book...

and some books are very dangerous forms of poison to people who do not know their faith very well. Some people walked away from reading that book thinking it was fact.

Opus Dei merely adheres to the faith, nothing more...it is just not popular to do that today so they get blasted.

Catholics are obliged to attended confession at least once a year. It is not a choice and for the life of me I do not get why anyone would avoid one of the most merciful acts Jesus have us. It is a grave sin to never go to confessio no matter whether a person is a Franciscan, Priest, Pope, Bishop or even a regular lay Catholic. John Paul II went to confession once a week and sometimes twice.

[YOY]

134. If someone was foolish enough to think that the book was fact

I've got a whole bunch of real estate in Florida they might be interested in. Anyone who sources a fictional book as an argument has every right to be laughed off the podium in a debate.

If someone is foolish enough to do that, then they have earned my pity and would get exactly the explanation that I gave you: It is sold in the fiction section for a reason.

We do not ban, protest, or burn books in the 21st century no matter how we dislike them. If you consider thought to be dangerous then you were born in the wrong century. End of discussion.

You fail to recognize why the sacrament of confession was implemented and that of silly pennance...which thankfully has mostly fallen to the wayside (last time I went there was none of that 'say 10 Hail Mary tripe...yeah that'll do something: waste my/God's time with repetition instead of resolution.) I consider it to be the nasty source of the major failing/greatest control methods of the Catholic Church: Catholic Guilt. We should be celebrating our faith and not fearing it. I dislike being told that I have sinned when in all reality, I have not. That old sense of guilt, is something that Catholics must learn to do without. While other faiths celebrate their faith we seem to regret ours with some odd sense of palpable fear of transgressions that are barely worth of note. If anything I have done right by most people and that should be commended instead of talking to a priest about my rather human shortcomings. Beyond that it moreover always seemed like lip service of penitence and did not guarantee any real absolution within oneself. Real forgiveness always seems to come from forgiving yourself and striving to not repeat transgressions. I recall having this same argument with a Holy Roller back in Catholic High School.

He tried to shame me for thinking outside of the box with a 'How Dare you!!!"

As I recall he had knocked up his girlfriend and married her shortly after we graduated. He now spends most of his time protesting outside of abortion clinics instead of trying to actually make the world a better place so that the there wouldn't be a reason why people would not want to bring a child into this world. I suppose we all have to justify our actions and existence with our faith....

Opus Dei adheres to a specific interpretation of the faith. I adhere to mine. If that makes me a non-Catholic in their eyes, then shame on them for further splintering the Church. It is meant to be a broad tent and the narrow minded forget that.

[patrick317]

137. Many people did

in fact think the book spoke about fact and Brown presented it as such. Yet, that is now history.

Confession was given by Christ, and supported by Saint Paul and Saint James in their writings, then continually expected before recieving the Lord in the Eucharist (read the Church fathers and the Didache). Christ also gave the Church authority to make rules and He gave it the authority to make those rules binding on the faithful. What the Church binds here will be bound in Heaven. From the perspective of the Catholic faith, anyone who refuses to go to confession is in grave sin...that is NOT my opinion, you will have to take it up with the Church and since they can bind and loose, I would say these sorts of rules bind every Catholic, wether they like it or not and whether they accept it or not. Even if you find a Priest that agrees with your view, that is worthless, the Church has the last word on earth, not a Priest.

Opus Dei is a holy group that simply tries to teach Catholics to follow the full faith, not just the parts they like.

[YOY]

157. 'Full faith' is a relative term and interpretable on different levels

Funny, but I did have that conversation with a friend in seminary school about confession. We went to high school together.

He didn't think it was a huge deal. If he or you or any hardliner would tell me that I'm going to hell for the 'greivious sin', I'd laugh my ass off. As he put it 'God's not a dick.' I'd like to think that a great institution such as the church was not 'dicklike' as well.

Bear with him, he was stoned to the gills at the time.

He's going to be a hell of a lot better than the priest from my grade school, Father Moriarty. Nasty old grouch. Opus dei type. Funny about how many of the kids I went to grade school don't go to churh now after dealinth with folks like that...

[patrick317]

171. I pray your friend did not become a Priest, because

he is flat wrong and we do not need more false teachings in the Church.

[YOY]

173. He will and he isn't!

Good day sir!

[patrick317]

176. Well, if he is a Priest, then I pray he gets a conversion because

what he told you is wrong...dangerously wrong.

[YOY]

183. I said 'Good Day Sir!'

[patrick317]

186. It is a public forum. Yet, if you

desire for me not to respond, then please do not respond to me

[Name removed]

256. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[plasticsundance]

297. I'm still reading this thread ... but ...

is anyone else appalled at this suggestion written by patrick317:

"and some books are very dangerous forms of poison to people who do not know their faith very well. Some people walked away from reading that book thinking it was fact."

Any red flags being thrown up by patrick's apparent totaltarian stance and passionate hyperbole. Who are you patrick317 to be the judge and measure of another person's faith, even if they share your same religion?

I have great respect for Dr. James Tabor, a religious professor, scholar, and chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina. I found is book, The Jesus Dynasty intriguing and informative. He was critical of the idea (i.e. historical research) at first about the fictional Da Vinci Code, but on reflection he finds it has some historical worth to note. It's called having an open mind. It's called be a healthy skeptic.

[YOY]

310. He's been banned anyways

He started into the abortion issue. Didn't last that long at all...

and yes, that is when he started to really disgust me. I found the Catholic reaction to this book both imbecilic and over reactionary.

Mind you the majority of Catholics don't like Opus Dei much anyways.

[AngryOldDem]

315. That;'s the same reasoning that led to the List of Banned Books

several years ago, and to the office of the Protection of the Faith (not the exact name, but it escapes me at the moment), also known as the Inquisition, of which Ratz -- surprise, surprise -- once headed.

Open-mindedness and healthy skepticism are still seen as threats to some in the Church. And I find that to be tragic, for how else are we to grow, learn, and reach our full potential?

But all this discussion is moot now, anyway.

[AngryOldDem]

205. "Accept and follow"

Does that mean we do not question, or seek explanation? We do not try to understand? I think even the Church itself recognizes that there may be at times good reasons for an individual to not accept a particular Church teaching, although such a person is told to thoroughly examine his or her conscience and be open to belief.

Not trying to pick a fight here. I am truly interested in your views on this.

And make no mistake: The Church is just as much of a shill for the GOP on the pro-life issue as the fundamentalist Protestants are. It's called political expediency.

[patrick317]

210. We can have disagreement and be conflicted

about many teachings, yet we must still follow and obey.

[AngryOldDem]

263. Sorry, but I won't "follow and obey"...

...anything if I have any kind of valid reservation or question. I will do what the Church advises -- seek answers and keep an open mind. Blind faith is not faith at all, IMHO.

[LostinVA]

142. There's a huge difference between the Church and those in the Church

The Church hierarchy sucks.... most Religious and parish-goners don't. You're defending the indefensible.

[YOY]

159. He's a hardliner

but he means well...at least I think he means well. The Roman Catholic faith is supposed to be a broad one that allows for some discussion and (albeit excruciatingly slow) change. I've been having these discussions since I was a kid. Nobody is going to tell me that I'm not Catholic, because I don't play exactly by the rules. At the same time, I refuse to be one of those hardliners who guard the tenants of their faith with bulldoggish tenacity. I'm open to new ideas as anyone with free will should be.

Good to see you LostinVA :hi:

[LostinVA]

160. I'm still debating that, YOY!

Good to see you, too!

[YOY]

175. Naw...no need to debate it

He's a dick. He insulted my one friend who is in seminary school.

[patrick317]

182. I insulted your friend because I said he is wrong?

That is just a fact, not an insult.

[YOY]

185. Wrong is such a relative word...

n/t

[patrick317]

188. Okay, so why feel insulted?

[YOY]

311. because I'm being told a good friend with his feet on the ground

Shouldn't be ordained as a priest by some Opus Dei supporter based on that singular ultraconservative view of Catholicism.

That's about it.

[patrick317]

177. New ways to celebrate the faith

is fiune...yet the teachings do not change no matter how enlightened we think we are.

[YOY]

180. But they can be disproven and replaced

No matter how important we think tradition is! Especially, when we forget that there is one teaching to trump all others!

[patrick317]

184. No...infallible teachings never change.

[YOY]

282. They have before...

Some ideas are not as 'infallible' as you think.

[YOY]

308. One should not confuse 'enlightened' with 'reasonable'/'open to new ideas'

That which does not evolve and develop will die and rot away. It is there that you and all other Conservative Catholics have failed.

They faith has evolved before. It will continue to do so or it will die save in the hearts of your 25%.

[VegasWolf]

82. Pope to reinstate heretic and witch burning Fridays. nt

[patrick317]

83. No--but maybe return to no meat on Fridays.

[VegasWolf]

91. No, that went out in the 60's along with the doctrine of ex cathreda. nt

[patrick317]

94. Not true...

Fridays are still a day of abstinence, yet in the 80s the Bishops voted to allow American Catholics to choose what form of abstinence they will do. Many Catholics retain the "no meat" practice, while other give-up other things, while most Catholics do not even know they are supposed to abstain from something on all Fridays.

Ex Cathedra has never been changed.

[VegasWolf]

96. Do you even know why the doctrine of ex cathedra was invented? To

keep insane popes from spouting garbage as catholic doctrine. Your new catholics may not know about abstinence, but in the 50-60's it was part and parcel of the Churches control. It went the way of the latin mass, which I had to memorize as an altar boy. Fortunately, I was able to see through the hypocrisy of the catholic church when I was 13. The only good thing about the catholic system was that I received a decent education, even though I had to run to stay out of Father B's hands.

[patrick317]

101. Again, not true...

There have been very few "ex cathedra" statements over the Church's 2,000 year history, most people think the Pope is "always" infallible and that is nonsense. The Pope is only infallble when he speaks "ex cathedra" from the Chair of Peter and that is a very rare action...something like 8 times in all history.

Latin is making a come back and the Bishops are considering going back to meatless Fridays. The reaons for these possible changes is the Church feels Catholics should regularly sacrifice something to recall what Christ did for us...and Latin is a far more reverent and beautiful language for Mass.

[VegasWolf]

105. Still wrong ...

Regardless of the number of instances in which the doctrine is used, any instance in which a man proclaims that he knows and is speaking the will of god is either a fool or a schizophrenic like Bush, Falwell, or Robertson. Read your history and you will see that the doctrine of ex cathedra was developed specifically to prevent Popes from rambling on. Ex Cathedra , literally, speaking from the chair, was invented in order that the Bishops could physically restrain insane popes from pronouncing garbage church doctrine by physically preventing that pope from sitting in his chair.

[patrick317]

108. Nope

You are merely spewing modernist anti-Church garbage. You need to do more research. I know that faith very well indeed. Keep trying, this is fun. :)

[VegasWolf]

110. How long have you been in the church, you seem a little young for

such intense brain washing?

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VegasWolf]

115. That must be a very comfortating thought for you. Like most intensely

religious people, you put yourself up above everyone else. I too have spent thousands of hours, but I have come to a vastly different answer than you. Good day.

[patrick317]

116. The same to you. Have a great day.

:)

[CatholicEdHead]

219. That is your opinion

But it will cut most people out of the church. That is the same pre-Vatican II rut we were in as we were a self-contained "members-only" community at the time.

While Latin brings some nostalga to some, it WILL alienate many now. All early services were house-based in the local languages.

[patrick317]

233. Mass will remain in the venacular, yet Latin will be seen more

often.

[cap]

135. Your views arent mainstream Catholicism...

sorry...Almost nobody is doing "no meat" on Fridays except for Lent. Even then most of us eat meat. Havent gone out to lunch with anyone who said that they couldnt eat meat on Friday or passed up an hors d'oeurve on a Friday because it had meat in it.

Think about the food in Irish bars in heavily Irish neighborhoods. Nobody is running around saying they better pass on the corned beef on a Friday.

[patrick317]

139. I agree, most Catholics today don't even

realize they are still bound to abstinence on all Fridays. It is a scandal of sorts.

[patrick317]

140. BTW, "mainstream Catholicism" does not exist. There is

either the Catholic faith in its fullness, or it is something else.

[LostinVA]

145. Not true, and any honest bishop will tell you that

Enjoy your... stay on DU.

[patrick317]

164. What would a Bishop tell me?

[cap]

172. You can speak of the average Catholic... I'm in a 5000 person

strong parish. We run the gamet from the traditional to the liberal. Nobody's passing on meat on Fridays. Right now, the press is on just to get us to give up something for Lent and try and get us to pass on meat on Lenten Fridays (some success there) and maybe even abstain from eating full meals on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday (not too much luck there). Fridays outside of Lent, forget about it.

[patrick317]

189. Preaching of sin in these cases needs to return. It is a sin to ignore

the abstinence rule once one knows about it.

[cap]

192. you are the only person who cares... the rest of us dont

there are a ton of little regulations that practicing Catholics ignore... and dont even bother to confess... and the priests arent asking us to 'fess up.

Never mind... if you recieve communion at 3 pm on the Sunday after Easter -- the Feast of the Divine Mercy... all your sins since Baptism are wiped out.

Nice to have the "get out of jail free card" :)

[patrick317]

195. I am by far no the only one and the Church has entered

a period of intense renewal. Many present day Catholics will not like what they see and will leave, others will feel great joy that the Church is returning to teaching what Christ gave the world.

[cap]

197. nonsense... the jesuits will kick your ass...

eom

[patrick317]

214. Not sure what that means.

[cap]

217. wait till the boot hits your butt...then you'll understand.

[AngryOldDem]

267. Look up the words "logic" and "intelligence" in Webster's n/t

[YOY]

312. Save some for the Franciscans

Please...

[cap]

321. now...now...dont pile on....

there's plenty of these types to go around... :)

[YOY]

322. Yeah, well after you've been called 'Nature Worshiper' by hardliners

You tend to be just as pissed as those who have their belief that scientific and religious thought can coexist and complement each other.

[cap]

325. oh welll..........then, the more, the merrier....

why should I be so selfish ... :)

[CatholicEdHead]

211. A "renewal through purity" movement will fail in the long run

There are many who believe that you need to cross every T and dot every I to be a "Catholic" (Read Stubenville retreat materials for example as you have to be a "Orthodox Catholic" to qualify :puke: ).

Dogmatic purity does not make a renewed church, just one that will be more and more detached from life and fitting into many stereotypes.

[cap]

215. they wont kick us out of the church... they need our sunday contributions

yup... the rest of us, who have been Catholic for generations... will continue on the way we have been...

Since time immemorial, the sticklers have been trying to get the rest of us to fall in line without much success. We never could live up to all the rules and most of us dont even try.

they're having enough problems getting us to skip meat on Fridays... never mind, other bigger stuff, like say, remaining virginal before marriage. 30% of us are living together before marriage. Most of us are using birth control -- and I dont mean natural family planning. A fair number of us are having abortions. Over half of us are pro-choice. We were not amused by Father Pavone and would resent anyone like that showing up and meddling with our ill relatives. (how about a little red meat for patrick317) Hell, we dont even vote Republican when the hierarchy asks us to....

I'm Polish, Catholic, pro-union, and, by the Grace of God, DEMOCRAT!

P.S. Yes, even most Holy, Catholic, Poland has had its periods of anticlericalism...

[patrick317]

218. 30 years ago 70-80% of Catholics followed Church teachings or

at least made a very strong effort. Today that number is 20-25%. Our nation and the world would be better served to get back to being 80%. As the Church goes, so goes the world, that is why the world is in such a mess, the Church let down her guard for at least 30 years...yet she is now awake.

[CatholicEdHead]

231. That would mean more "checking your brain at the door"

As I referenced at the bottom fo the thread, there is "one faith but many theologies". "Church Teachings" can be quite broad. And your post seems to go by an assumption that the world revolves around the RCC, which we all know it does not. If you follow your thought process you end up with a more tiered (and patritical, since the RCC has a only male power structure) power structure.

Ask yourself why Vatican II came around? It was to look at the world more and use the resources of the church to help the world. The RCC only covers a part of the total spiritual beliefs worldwide.

[patrick317]

235. Yes, but as the Church goes, so does the world. It will be the

Church that is attacked and persecuted in the end and the reason why is satan hates Christ.

[patrick317]

216. The goal of ev ery human is to be a saint and to get to Heaven.

Therefore, dogmatic obedience is very important, yet you are correct to say that is not all there is. Without love for others obedience is nothing and without obedience there is no love.

[CatholicEdHead]

225. Yet many dogmas have come and gone in the long RCC history

And many are human-created, hense they need to be all weighted, discussed and applied or not applied on their merits.

[patrick317]

228. Not true, dogmas and doctrines never change. Specific

disciplines and liturgical rituals change (i.e. the Mass is now in the venacular instead of Larin), yet the dogmas and doctrines of the faith never chnage and cannot change.

[cap]

227. baloney....

we've been sinning and whoring since time immemorial and most of us are still going to go to heaven -- maybe some of us will do a little time in purgatory before we get there. We arent the Mormons who believe that only a small minority are going to heaven. Not to let us off of our need to do good works... but most all of us are going to heaven -- not just your 25% of rule bound sticklers. I wouldnt be surprised if a bunch of those folk end up in hell for being nasty to their neighbors -- People who focus on the small rules often are quite mean.

The Catholic God is merciful and we have legions of saints to intercede for us. God just isnt going to throw most of us in hell.

[patrick317]

230. I agree, God is merciful. Yet, God also keeps His promises

and He has given us promises through Jesus His Son and Jesus calls us to obey all that He gave, not just what we want to obey. Jesus also said the path to destruction is wide, and the path to life is narrow.

[cap]

236. so... at the final hour, God is not going to get hung up

on the small stuff. Remember the old Catholic joke about the unworthies getting into heaven. God comes up to St Peter and asks what's going on. St. Peter says that he's turning them away but they are going around to the back door and God's Mother, Mary, is letting them in.

[patrick317]

242. A person either has true faith and love, or he does not. There

is no sneaking in the side door. Also, does anyone really want to purchase more time in purgatory just because they refused to obey here?

[cap]

252. in the great scheme of things not eating meat on Fri

aint gonna buy you much relief....

[cap]

257. I hate to think about what penance Ratzinger is going to be

getting for his support of Bush. There probably will be an extra special one for this crap about intelligent design.

Let's not even think about what tortures Bush will be getting.

[cap]

264. there is a lot of sneaking in...

That's the purpose of the Virgin Mary and the saints.... to help the unworthy and sinners out.

[patrick317]

270. No, Mary and the saints help while we are here.

[cap]

275. you can believe that they wont help you.. .but they're helping me...

they arent gonna run off and sit on their cloud at the last minute when I need them most. Nope, they did not get to be saints by gold bricking. If you want to go without their help, it's up to you. It sounds like you actually want to do some more penance than what you have to.

I dont know about you but except for the Sunday of Divine Mercy, I never have to do more than a few Hail Mary's, Our Fathers and Glory Be's. God aint dishin' out too much to me. There's not too much more waiting for me at the end of this life.

On the other hand, if we look at Ratzinger and the misery that he is inflicting on his people, he will have a whole lot of penance.

As far as following all the rules, didn't Jesus have it in for the Pharisees. Werent they annoying the troops with a lot of stupid little rules like not eating meat on Friday? Why are you wasting your time, beating up on your fellow Catholic for not eating meat instead of beating on the Pope for not being stricter with the pedophiles and those who helped perpetuate the whole nasty system? Why not beat up on the Pope for supporting the Republicans and making everyone's life more miserable?

[ckramer]

317. Sorry, as an atheist, I don't know what you are talking about here

Church and world are not the same thing.

[LostinVA]

245. giggle

[mcscajun]

237. *Your* goal is be a saint and get to heaven. Not everyone's goal is that.

Many of us in the world, and many in DU, believe neither in saints, nor heaven.

Please limit your dogmatic pronouncements to the beliefs of the Catholic Church, and not all of humanity. There are hundreds of other beliefs out there, and they all claim to have the One Truth...the One Way.

Spare the atheistic and agnostic among us, as well as Other Believers In Other Ways, your overwhelming certitude that You and Your Church have THE Answer. Bah!

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."

[patrick317]

244. I can only speak what I believe to be absolute truths. All

people who get to Heaven will have to stand before Christ, and all people are callled to be saints and to get to Heaven. Reject that if you will, yet my statement is true.

[mcscajun]

247. A predictable and totally boring answer. Your truth is yours.

I think you'll have more fun later on in the Religion and Theology Forum...where it gets even crazier than the LBN or GD.

Of course, I hope you have a truly thick skin, 'cause we aren't always so polite as in this thread when discussing religion on DU. Some of us are downright dismissive...which is what I'm about to do with your next, predictable response.

I reject you, your statements, and your Christ. I'd sooner believe in reincarnation, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (of which you'll see and hear quite a lot around here), the Loch Ness Monster, or the great god Zarquon.

[patrick317]

249. Okay--tanx.

[Zhade]

128. Because said church ignores and teaches against reality?

Because said church covers up the rape of children by its clergy as a matter of written, secret policy only uncovered in the last few years?

Because said church doesn't have all the answers?

I mean, I could go on like this for a while - there are plenty of reasons to leave that shallow, sanctimonious, human spirit-crushing institution. Do we really need to list them all?

[patrick317]

132. If one desires Heaven, there is no valid reason

to leave the Church. Mistakes and horrible sins commited by a very small percentage of clergy does not equate to the faith being wrong, it simply means those people were vile in their actions.

[LostinVA]

146. Also against current RC teachings

Faith and salvation can be found outside the Church.

You might prefer hooking up with Mel at his church.

[mcscajun]

166. Nah, Mel and his daddy's church don't acknowledge the Pope's

authority. This poster grovels before it.

[LostinVA]

167. True, but they seem to believe many of the same things!

[mcscajun]

179. Oh, indeed they do. Many, many of them.

I'm sitting here being highly amused by this thread, being a "Collapsed Catholic". :rofl:

[patrick317]

169. If Mel rejects the Pope...

then he is in grave sin.

[patrick317]

168. Yes, salvation can be found...

outside the Church. I never said it could not. However, if one has been taught the fullness of the faith and the chooses to leave, they have placed their eternity at great risk. Also, while people outside the Church can be saved, the path is far more difficult. The safest place to be is in the Church. That is, in a nutshell, what the Church teaches about who can be saved. It is "possible" outside the Church, yet there are far more risks.

[CatholicEdHead]

208. I think it is broader than just the RCC

If you look at almost all spiritual paths they all revolve around the very same ideas. The RCC, as you say is not the "end all" anymore (though some people still believe it). Yet it is easier than you think.

[patrick317]

229. I disagree. Every human being who has lived and will

live, will stand before Christ for judgment after death. The safest path to Heaven is the Catholic Church...that is an unwavering absolute of the faith.

[Hardrada]

240. That's why Martin Luther stood by the Word of God

and not scholastic philosophy and papal pronunciations at the Diet Of Worms. Becuase he understood that he would be in grave peril of judgment not to do so. "Here I stand. I can do no other."

[CatholicEdHead]

265. I have heard that phrase many times

"The safest (or only) way to Heaven is through X Church". Have you missed out on all the ecumenism outreach in the past few decades?

[LostinVA]

331. That is against the teaching of the Church -- heretic!

[stepnw1f]

328. My Mother, a Life-Long Catholic

left the Church because of this pope. And she knows many others who feel he is too regressive for them as well. Sad...

[VegasWolf]

81. Pope to endorse flat earth theory next. nt

[Ravy]

84. I believe in intelligent design...

I also believe in evolution.

Science teaches me that evolution is real. To believe that some "unseen hand" guides this process sometimes, is faith.

I do not believe ID should be taught in schools, because I don't believe faith should be taught in schools. Evolution is science, so to me, not teaching it is insane.

To me, there is a large leap from the essense of life (sigle celled organisms) to the deveopment of a more complex being that cannot be demonstated by evolution alone. Were millions of mammals born without genetalia, for instance, and died off because they couldn't reproduce until a male and female somehow simultaneously developed the necessary reproduction organisms and got together to start a viable line? My scientific knowledge skips over this and millions of similar points I could make. There may be detailed scientific evidence to answer every question I have of how we got from A to B.

I am not a Fundamentalist, nor a Creationist. I simply attribute leaps in our evolutionary history to leaps of faith.

[VegasWolf]

93. Nietzsche's advice to Kierkegaard, "When making those Leaps of Faith,

make sure the the point you are leaping from is not high off the ground."

[Joe Chi Minh]

170. You believe in Intelligent Design!

Don't spoil the kiddies' games now, you wowser.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[patrick317]

89. The Church and its schools are now the safest place

for our kids. Nearly all other instititions, including homes, have not gone through the public cleaning that the Church has...yet nearly all other institutions are at the same level of abuse or higher. The abuse crisis dragged the Church into the open (thank God) and sexual abuse of minors is now nearly a thing of the past (a very good thing indeed), kids are still far more likely to be abused in their homes, public schools and non-Catholic worships places, then they are in the Catholic Church and schools.

[Beelzebud]

90. Any evidence to back that up, or are you just making stuff up?

In my local newspaper there are stories about child raping priests in this area (central illinois) about every 3 months or so, so I just don't buy your argument without seeing a study or some form of proof.

[patrick317]

92. Do some searches on child abuse...and then

do research on current abuse levels within the Church. The Church abuse levels have dropped from a peak of 4% (of Priests) to a level of well below 1% in recent years. The abuse in the Church peaked in the 70s and 80s and has been going down for many years. Pope John Paul II took action in the 90s, yet it was very quiet steps done within the seminaries, and was not made public. Do yuor homework and you will find the truth of today's Church.

[VegasWolf]

97. So the new and improved Catholic Church is better than the old science

phobic, heretic burning, land grabbing, crusading, pedophiliac Catholic Church. Well, then good,
it is time to see the perfect Catholic Church become far more perfect.

[patrick317]

100. The Church

is populated by 1.2 billion sinners...not by 1.2 billion saints. That means bad stuff will happen, just as if does in secular life.

[VegasWolf]

102. Exactly, it is an imperfect institution run by imperfect men. Therefore,

why give this institution any special preference over any other institution. Plenty of secular
organizations provide for food and housing for the poor without requiring all the elaborate pennance and guilt overhead that the Catholic Church does.

[patrick317]

104. Because

Christ is God and Christ started the Church. Everything the Church infallibly teaches stands above everything humans teach because the Church's teachings come from God.

[VegasWolf]

106. Utter nonsense ...

The catholic church was started by King Constantine to consolidate his empire. He merged the few christians of the time with wiccan philosophy. This was all done some 300 years after Christ's death. Christ was even designated a god until the Council of Nicea and even then his godhood was only achieved by a narrow vote.

[patrick317]

107. Nope

This is a modernist twist of things. Saint Peter was the first Pope (see Matthew 16), and there is a line of Popes and clergy dating back to Peter. Christ made Peter head of His Church. It is a modern attack on the Church to try to claim the Church did not exist until the 3rd oir 4th centuries, history proves that to be a myth.

[VegasWolf]

109. If you want to believe in a hand full of carefully selected documents

that Constantine gathered together be my guest. This IS history, what you are saying is a myth. Do you have any scholarly background for your claim, or are you just repeating the bible verbatim.

[patrick317]

111. One would trip over the

evidence if they just bothered to look. It is no debatable that Constatine had a great deal to do with institutionalizing the Church, I agree with that fully. Yet, the Church existed with Christ and later was merely institutionalized because it had to have a foothold in the real world.

[VegasWolf]

112. I take that non-answer as a no. You don't have anything except the bible.

Sorry, I have to run now, those bright rosy red eyeglasses that you are wearing are giving me a headache.

[patrick317]

113. No...it means that I will

not do your work for you. One has to seek truth honestly to find it. I cannot make you and posting a bnuch of proofs will only cause you to try to refute those proofs...silly really. Have a great day. :)

[Zhade]

129. No, it means all you have for "evidence" is the bible.

Which isn't objective evidence, period.

[patrick317]

131. There is plenty of evidence, you can

find it on your own. If I do the work for you, you learn nothing. Beyond that, the Bible is a historical document, despire the modern cries that it is not.

[LostinVA]

153. The Church does not consider the Bible an historical document

It does not believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

Again -- JESUS MARY AND JOSEPH!!! You actually were confirmed with this lack of basic knowledge?! I wouldn't have allowed that in a Confirmation student of mine.

[patrick317]

162. The Church most definitely views

Scripture in the literal sense, along with the allegorical and anagogical senses, with the literal being the primary sense. The Church teaches for example that Adam and Eve were real people, our first parents, etc...

[NuttyFluffers]

295. Oh Most Definitely Not.

my 15+ years of Roman Catholic religious training (and I still refuse to get confirmed) is experience completely opposite of your statement. in fact, literary analysis of writing styles, trying to unweave motivations from different voices, was done explicitly to show just how dangerous it was to take the bible literally. literal interpretation was an interpretation of absolute last resort by every single theological professor i had. tenants may be believed as articles of faith, but they also must be elucidated by analysis and determine if there's any other meaning. the application of judgement was considered paramount, and outright seen as a divine gift, in avoiding pitfalls of understanding and holding to fanaticism (which, albeit, the church failed in its own history). a passage must be determined to have no allegorical, anagogical, etc., down to blatant propaganda (of which there's many, like huge swaths of the book of Judges) before we were allowed to relegate it to the lowest rung on the interpretive ladder -- literal.

so in essence: no, you're wrong. i think you're talking out of your ass.

[stepnw1f]

327. Thank You (nt)

[AngryOldDem]

200. I think this whole thread and others go to show how far right...

...the Church's pendulum has swung over the past couple of decades. Knee-jerk reaction to the "excesses" of Vatican II, but the archconservatism of some has become a tad extreme.

And your observation has been mine as well -- Catholicism has always guarded against taking the Bible literally. Too much is just too open to interpretation, as we have sadly seen from the experiences of other denominations.

[LostinVA]

246. Good post

I know many good Social Justice Catholics (including a Sister) who have become Unitarians or Episcopalians because of some of what you write about. I just became a Proto Catholic -- a Druidic Pagan (with more than a bit of Taoism thrown in).

And, I would still bet I'm a better Catholic than many "real" Catholics.

[cap]

283. on a side bar... you might want to look at the Celtic Church...

we can all argue about how much it has to do with the Roman Catholic Church... but fascinating reading about early saints in Celtic Countries. You can see the Druids and Wiccans almost touching early Christians... especially with the role of Saint Brigid as the Earth Mother Goddess.

[LostinVA]

304. That's why I call Druids Proto Catholics

[AngryOldDem]

313. Social justice is the ONLY thing that is keeping me Catholic

And I'm beginning to think even that won't be enough.

I am truly frightened by the changes that are happening in the Church, especially among the younger members who really have no sense of history. And there are many within the institution who will only be too happy to exploit that ignorance.

[LostinVA]

152. You have no proof, because there is none

The Church does NOT teach that. Good grief. Are you still taking CCD or something??? Go talk to an SJ and get some real Church education.

[LostinVA]

150. Again, nonsense!

The Church teaches that THE Church started with Constantine, but has a "pedigree" back to Peter.

[patrick317]

161. False

The term "Catholic Church" was first coined by St. Ignatius in AD 110.

The Church literally began with Christ and was continued by Peter and the Apostles, with Peter being the first Pope. That is what the Church teaches.

[AngryOldDem]

143. As a Catholic, I have trouble believing this

Sorry, but I do. I always have.

I have never been convinced that Christ **started** what is now the Catholic Church, particularly the Roman branch of the faith. If it wants to consider Peter the first Pope, and so on, that's fine. But I don't think the Church as an **institution** necessarily has been given the mandate by Christ to continue His mission on earth. Give me solid proof other than the circular reasoning I always get when I ask this question and maybe I'll listen. Until then I will always consider that assertion to be somewhat arrogant and not a little divisive, and too often gives the more sanctimonious among the faithful the license to degrade and otherwise marginalize other faiths, particularly Judaism.

To me, "Upon this Rock I will build my Church" could mean many things. Peter, with his obvious human failings and weaknesses, could have been sent by Christ to be a model to mankind as to how to live Christ's message. Nothing more.

And there's only about two things the church considers "infallible teaching," I think -- Mary's conception without the stain of original sin and that she was assumed bodily into heaven. And the other poster is correct that ex cathedra was instituted to keep crazy popes from saying crazy things and making them binding. I agree, though, that it is a widespread misconception that what every syllable the Pope speaks is considered by Catholics to be without error.

[patrick317]

147. If you are

going to bash or minimize Jesus' very Words, then we will likely not get very far in this discussion. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom...and the power to bind and loose (a legal term meaning to make rules that bind or rules that loose or set free). The giving of the keys, especially when compared to Old Testament typology cannot be tossed aside, it is a conerstone of importance. Ex Cathedra was not invented, it was given by Christ to Peter and the Church, and later given a name by the institutional Church.

[gemdem]

181. Ah, a pre-Vatican II Catholic...

Father McGuire would proud that you studied your Baltimore catechism so faithfully.

However, the learned priests and nuns who taught me sometime later (just after Vatican II) moved beyond the Bible and the blue book (or red depending on the time of its printing). I was taught that in general, Catholics DO NOT treat the Bible as a literal document -- although I've seen that some do. You appear to be among this group. I find this to be sad because it allows little room for growth in faith.

The Church has a long and fascinating history (good and bad) -- and there's far more to it than you and so many are willing to see. It is as much a political institution as religious (perhaps moreso), and many agendas have been at work over the last two millenia. It's even debatable about which words are those of Christ -- because of the various councils that decided what gospels were adopted, the various translations of the Bible, the agendas of those who translated and approved the translations. These agendas have turned faith into dogma -- and from what I've seen over the years dogma is faith that if not dead is crippled. Isn't it ironic that Christ spoke against this very thing (if you want to take the Bible literally).

I'm tired of Catholics and Christians who can cite chapter and verse from the Bible (or papal encyclicals and other documents), but they will not extend a hand to help their brother. Dogma or faith?

So much of this dogma gets in the way of those who have true faith.

In the end, the message of Christ can be summed up thusly, "Love God with all your heart and all your might, and love your neighbor as yourself." To quote my brother who has a masters in theology, "Everything else is commentary."

[patrick317]

187. No--post V2.

[AngryOldDem]

196. You still have not given me any proof

that Christ intended that the **Catholic Church** carry on His work after he ascended to heaven. And I was not bashing anything by citing what Catholics say was the "founding words" for the Church. All I am saying is, there can be many interpretations of this. The Bible can be spun to support any kind of agenda. A crude way of putting it, to be sure, but it is no less an invalid observation.

[patrick317]

222. Christ mae Peter the first Pope by giving him the keys

and the power to bind and loose. Later he commisioned all of the apostles to go into the world after having established His Church on the rock of Peter. The early Church new this.

[AngryOldDem]

266. That is still no proof

that Christ founded the Church. Could it be that He commanded the apostles to go and spread the word, without the means of a formal institution? Peter, as I understand it, was one of the weaker disciples, thus the even more powerful symbolism of Christ entrusting him to carry on His mission. I am just not convinced that Christ had the Church in mind when He turned things over to Peter.

Your answer is one I have heard many, many times previous. To me, it always sounds like the old parental canard, "Because I said so."

[CatholicEdHead]

202. No, Ex Cathedra was declared in 1870 after Vatican I

It was actualy a form of anti-Catholism to suggest that the Pope was infallible before then. Want to guess what major church event happended around that time? Yep, the Papal States were lost. Connect the dots.

Wonder about why we call priests by Father? The Irish started doing this a century ago, it was unheard of before then.

Many "traditions" which are idealized date back to the mid 1800's or so.

[patrick317]

220. Ex Cathedra is based on the gifts Christ gave to Peter. Therefore,

while Ex Cathedra was not formally proclaimed in the early Church, ir was always known and understood that the Pope had the charism given by Christ. The challenges to the Church and the Pope often causes the Church to formally pronounce a teaching it has always held.

[CatholicEdHead]

224. Yet, why was it not declared until 1870?

While it may be inferred, it was not explict until that time during a era of Vatican power consolidation. That lead to the oft-used myth by some that the Pope is never wrong which are often seeds for blind following of the Church.

[patrick317]

226. It was not formally declared before then because Catholics

accepted the divinely given authority of the Pope.

[CatholicEdHead]

258. So, in other words the followed blindly until then

and in a time of crisis (e.g. loss of Papal States), needed to be set in stone.

There is a difference between the Pope's authority of the office and assertations that he can do no wrong on specific issues. Dissusions of issues should always be available.

[AngryOldDem]

271. No, as CatholicEdHead pointed out...

...and what bears repeating is that in 1870 the Church was essentially neutralized as a political force by the dissolution of the Papal States. It had to hang on to the illusion of power somehow, which hearkens back to what Lord Acton said. (Not to throw a whole new monkeywrench into this discussion.)

And we don't know how many people accepted Papal authority out of sincere belief, or fear.

[LostinVA]

165. You're basically correct, AOD

I had the bishop of one of the NC dioceses tell me that very thing back in 1988.

[LostinVA]

148. Nonsense -- and a Jesuit will tell you the same

Maybe you need to study some Church theology before spouting off CCD riffs.

And, if you say you have studied RC theology, are a priest, whatever -- I don't believe you.

I was ignoring your posts for a while -- but they are starting to give good Catholics a bad rep.

[patrick317]

155. My writings...

have been approved by a very high archdiocese, with imprimaturs and nihil obstats given for each. I am not in any way outside what the Church actually formally teaches. The problem is that for 30+ years Catholics have run wild into all sorts of modern twists of the faith that has no basis in fact. Vatican II never changed even one doctrine or one dogman, it was pastoral in nature and was intended to make the faith more personal, but V2 has been twisted into something it is not..

[CatholicEdHead]

206. In other words the "letter of the law" or "spirit of the law"

Does crossing every T and dotting every I make you a better person? I do not think so. Do the people serve the Church or does the Church serve the people? That in a nutshell is what most of these discussions are about. When the Church was the State as you refer to in a post down below, it was the former, but now it is more the latter. Life is more than about buildings and services.

[patrick317]

213. I agree.

[CatholicEdHead]

239. Glad we could agree on this.

[lakercub]

103. Theory of intelligent design?

There is no such thing in the scientific sense. I wish people would understand this. When the word theory is used as in the Theory of Evolution it means an idea or hypothesis that has been heavily tested and often verified. There is a ton of evidence and observation in support. That is a SCIENTIFIC theory. Intelligent design is the brainchild of a bunch of creationists who want to worm there way back into schools. There is no research, no experiments, and laughable observations. This means intelligent design is NOT a theory in the scientific sense. It is a belief or a very young hypothesis that needs a lot of work. However, since none of the ID folk ever seem to want to do any original research or testing, I guess ID will never graduate to the level of theory.

Hmmm....I wonder why Dembski and Behe seem to always avoid actually doing the work? Maybe they no its crap and utterly unverifiable? How did this society become so scientifically illiterate? A people with actual knowledge of science and the scientific method would laugh this crap out of the room. Sometimes I despair.

[Ravy]

117. Theory is not always used in the scientific sense (n/t)

[lakercub]

133. When discussing scientific theories, it is

To discuss the "Theory of Intelligent Design" and the "Theory of Evolution" is to give far too much credence to intelligent design, which has not earned the right to be called a theory.

When discussing actual science ALWAYS use the scientific definition of theory.

[formercia]

119. in an attempt to prove God is not perfect. n/t

[BlueEyedSon]

123. Good, let them "align" themselves right back to the dark ages.

[damntexdem]

124. The RC Church is usually more careful than this, ...

since being burned by the Galileo affair.

Can you say 'schism'? Catholic intellectuals accept evolution because most scientists do; catholic scientists accept it because it's good, strongly-supported science. And a great many Catholic people have no problem with it; and they've learned to tune out the Church when it opposes things they have no problem with. But if there were a schism, it would be the intellectuals who would rebel.

[patrick317]

130. It is a myth

to say the Church was burned by the Galileo affair. Most people do not know that the Church NEVER took a stance on whether the sun revolved around the earth, or vice versa. The Church never makes scientific statements of that magnitute. Rather, the Church simply told Galileo to keep his inquiries within the sphere of his peers and not to bring his theories public at a risk of scandlizing the faithful. Galileo balked at the Church and went public anyway, despire many warnings from the Church. At the time Galileo had advanced his theories, the Church had already imbedded Aristotles teachings well into their tradition regarding the sun and earth. The Church always preceeds slowly and cautiously and wanted Galileo to do the same, he refused and he created quite a furor over the mess leaving the Church very little choice. Do not forget, during those days there was no such thing as separation of Church and state.

[LostinVA]

154. Nope

[Jacobin]

136. Well, we all know how scientifically accurate the church as been

:eyes:

So this announcement should be a warning sign to anyone who is trying to figure this stuff out.

Galileo anyone?

[patrick317]

138. Most people do not know...

that the Church NEVER took a stance on whether the sun revolved around the earth, or vice versa. The Church never makes scientific statements of that magnitute. Rather, the Church simply told Galileo to keep his inquiries within the sphere of his peers and not to bring his theories public at a risk of scandlizing the faithful. Galileo balked at the Church and went public anyway, despire many warnings from the Church. At the time Galileo had advanced his theories, the Church had already imbedded Aristotles teachings well into their tradition regarding the sun and earth. The Church always preceeds slowly and cautiously and wanted Galileo to do the same, he refused and he created quite a furor over the mess leaving the Church very little choice. Do not forget, during those days there was no such thing as separation of Church and state.

[lakercub]

144. I assume you would admit, however,

that Galileo was right to point out the facts of reality as opposed to parroting church dogma. Keeping silent while geocentric Aristotelian astronomy was being taught would have been the true crime.

[patrick317]

151. Yes, I agree, yet in those days obedience was

expected and was in many ways needed to help keep order. In today's world we cannot conceive of such a life, yet Galileo lived in a much different time and he literally pushed the Church into a corner and said "come out fighting." The Church had just come off the evils of the Reformation and was not in the mood to have another scandal, though they got one anyway.

[lakercub]

156. Good thing too

It was a badly needed scandal.

[Jacobin]

174. Um, since when is science considered 'the state'?

Church had no choice?

Utter and unadulterated bullshit.

The soothsayers have no fucking business whatsofuckingever making any kind of pronouncements about science. At least, we don't have to listen to these forking idiots anymore if we don't want to.

They need to stick to their soothsaying.

What utter crap.

[patrick317]

178. Galileo is

not alive today!

[Rex]

163. Good! No one tell him IT is just another version of evolution.

There is an innate intelligence behind the design of the Universe! Just look at the creature in Aliens! Acid for blood! Oooohhh. How handy is that!?!

[darkism]

190. "Roman Catholic scientist" ?!

:rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray::rofl::spray:

[donco6]

193. Pope already believes man rose from dead.

And that when speaking ex cathedra, he's infallible.

I say, who cares what he thinks?

[patrick317]

194. Real Catholics care what the Pope thinks.

[donco6]

198. Hmm, sorta like "real" Muslims care what OBL thinks.

And "real" Christians care about what Pat Robertson thinks.
And "real, Bible Believing" Christians care about what Chuck Swindoll thinks.
And "REALLY, REALLY real Christians who are about their families" care about what James Dobson thinks.

Pfft. Keep it. "Believers" such as these contribute nothing valuable to the world.

[patrick317]

212. The Pope is Jesus' chosen leader for His Church...

Catholics must listen to the Pope.

[donco6]

293. Or . . . ?

Or, they are not real Catholics and only real Catholics go to heaven, so they all go to hell?

I reiterate - Pfft.

[DrunkenMaster]

199. that is YOUR problem, sucka

the rest of us like to think for ourselves.

[cap]

207. real catholics are pissed off at this crap...

These kind of fairy tales belong to the fundamentalists not to us. We were all happily brought up on Galileo and a belief in evolution (vetted by Teilhard de Chardin). Opus Dei and the ninnies who want to whip themselves were way off in their corners and definitely not part of the public discourse and had no influence on the church.

Jesuits rule! They wouldnt permit this intellectual laxity.

[LostinVA]

250. I'll say it again -- The Jesuits will go bonkers about this

And it wouldn't surprise me if they and their Black Pope flirt with schisming over this.

[cap]

277. no the wily Jesuits wont do a schism...

they are too clever.... they've survived centuries of nonsense...and they will survive more.

But they will go bonkers and wreak all kinds of havoc, for sure.

[LostinVA]

278. The Jesuits can really go bonkers

It may be quite exciting to watch!

[VegasWolf]

280. Yes, but the Jesuits are a hell of a lot smarter than Bill o'Rilley's

Dominicans. The world would have been much better off if only O'Rielly had had a decent education.

[cap]

284. the nuns whacked O'Reilly's head one too many times.

[VegasWolf]

287. Hah! I had my knuckles rapped more times than I can count! nt

[CatholicEdHead]

203. Yes, we listen to what he says but do not check our brain at the door

Josef Ratinger (BXVI) was and still is a college professor. His writings are deep and do not make for good sound bytes. There is much room for disucssion and doubt in his writings.

[patrick317]

209. I never said we check our brains...

In fact, Catholics are called to have a well formed conscience, yet if we go against formal teachings of the faith, then our conscience is faulty.

[CatholicEdHead]

221. I will refer you to the late Bishop Raymond Lucker's Pastor Letters

In that he talked about "One Faith and Many Theologies". "Formal Teachings" as you say is very broad in today's world.

[patrick317]

223. In today's world is a phrase that really means nothing regarding

the Catholic faith.

[CatholicEdHead]

238. Really? Then all Catholic Theologicans are in perfect unity?

I think not. Let me a use an obvious difference for many DUers, Jesuits vs Opus Dei. They are both Catholic but are quite different in which parts of the theology/dogmas they focus on. That is what that phrase means. Even local parishs can vary like night and day. The church is not, has never been, and never will be uniform in belifs. The key is to recgonize those differences as a strength in diversity of opinions.

[patrick317]

241. No, anyone rejecting teachings of the faith is in dissent with

the Church, not a good place to be.

[CatholicEdHead]

251. Ok, simple quiestion then

Who is dissenting and in which ways Jesuits or Opus Dei? By your assertation only one can be correct. Your opinion is only one theology, which even in this example there are many theologies in the faith.

The church, like life is a mix of different shades of grey and not black and white.

[patrick317]

255. The Jesuits admit they dissent. That is your answer. They know

they are sometimes in dissent with the Pope and the Church. Opus Dei never is.

[CatholicEdHead]

262. So, back to the "letter of the law" to get into heaven?

That is what you stated. That the ideal is a closed society like Opus Dei, and not a society of the Jesuits who are more in the world and you infer would be a type of "unclean" Catholic?

Was this really the ideal of Jesus in the NT? To follow the laws to the letter means you end up excluding others. You did agree with me above that we do need to be "of the world", which is what the Jesuits (and other Catholic groups focus on.

When talking about "Catholic Identity" you have to tread carefully.

[patrick317]

269. Opus Dei is open and is most definitely in the world, and yet

they are fully obedient. It is possible to be in the world and be obedient. The Jesuits choose to be in the world and to be disobedient. That is a choice.

[cap]

272. Not true.... not all the Popes have backed Opus Dei...

I cant believe any Pope would sponsor such a bunch of whack jobs that preach the submission, beat themselves, forcibly separate their devotees from their families...but apparently, they are doing so now.

There has to be a special penance for the Popes who sponsor such evil... more than what the laity gets for eating meat on Friday!

[VegasWolf]

253. Patrick! Still at it! Here is a question that bothered an old V1 Catholic

like myself. In the bad old days of the church, I was taught that unless one was catholic one could never get to heaven. Even at 13, I found this absurd. Since other major religious institutions consider Jesus a mere prophet, then what is necessary for a poor soul to do in these V2 days in order to get to heaven. I must say, I am surprised at your fortitude in bearing up all day long in defending your opinion. I am not sure what to make of you.

[patrick317]

259. The path to salvation has not changed.

One must love God, love His neighbors as he loves himself, and obey all that Christ gave to His Church.

The statements that one cannot be saved outside the Church is still true, because God's saving Grace comes only through the Church and the Divine head of the Church is Christ, the judge and savior of every human who has lived or will live. No-one gets through Heaven without first going through Christ. The Church has always held that if a person is truly invincibly ignorant of the need for Christ, they can still be saved through the mercy of God--yet is a more diffcult road.

[VegasWolf]

261. So, do the Jews and Muslims, for example, still go to Limbo as I was

taught? Also, what about the people who died before Jesus was born? Are your fingers tired from typing yet?

edit: sorry, you did answer my question about people born before Jesus. The question of Muslims and Jews still stands. Sorry for the mixup.

[VegasWolf]

273. Patrick, why can't Jews and Muslims go to heaven if that is their belief?

[cap]

286. well, speaking of limbo... they are trying to drag the unbaptised

babies out of limbo...

It's a strange world though if you leave the Jews and Muslims in limbo but drag out any old unbaptised baby. We have no guarantee that the unbaptized baby would have been Catholic.

[LostinVA]

305. Limbo doesn't even exist anymore in RC doctrine

So -- where do the Muslims and Jews go??? Hell? That is sooo Pre VII...

[cap]

320. no... it still exists for the unbaptised unborn..

maybe I am wrong about where the Jews and Muslims are going these days ... glad to hear that they can go to heaven... but there has been a conference lately around the unbaptized unborn. saying that all those fetuses just cant be left to hang around in limbo for all eternity (see Dante's Inferno) and that they've got to figure out give them a soul and human status to get them to heaven.

If a women in labor isnt going to deliver a child that will live, they get the priest in there PDQ to get the little one baptized. You cant baptize a dead body.

I think In vitro fertilization is really gumming up the works with all those frozen embryos not with souls. When some of those embryos die off, what happens to them? Heaven, limbo, or hell? They didnt get baptized. What happens to spontaneous abortions? Should women get their bloodied underwear blessed, just in case there is a soul in there?

[Matariki]

243. Can someone explain "Intelligent Design" to me?

Unless I am misunderstanding what "intelligent design" is, I don't get why anyone would get their panties in a knot that the Pope believes the universe was created as opposed to happening of it's own accord. It's what he's supposed to believe. He's the head of a religious organization.

Now, teaching it in school is a whole other thing.

What I can gather, it's proponents say is that the complexity of nature points to an "intelligent cause or agent" (from wikipedia). It seems to differ from fundamentalism in that no one seems to be claiming that the world was created in 7 days or is just 5000 years old or some shit like that.

[LostinVA]

254. Why is he supposed to believe ID because he's religious?

Many Christian denominations believe in Evolution -- including the Church. It's taught as fact in Catholic schools and colleges. Believing in God doesn't mean you can't believe in Evolution. ID isn't the same as saying, "Hey, God got all of this going. Isn't that cool?" It's saying science doesn't exist -- magic does. God is not about the layman's definition of "magic." That is actually flirting with blasphemy.

[Matariki]

274. Is intelligent design considered the OPPOSITE of evolution?

From the info I could find it looked as if it doesn't counter science or evolution. Just purposes that there is, well, an 'intelligent design' behind it.

Not arguing. I just know very little about it.

[LostinVA]

306. It negates many tenets of Evolution

[Matariki]

314. could you be more specific?

Are there specific statements/writings that negate evolution - or do you mean that the concept as a whole negates evolution?

Do proponents of intelligent design say that, or is that the interpretation of it's detractors?

thanks.

[VegasWolf]

316. The essence of many people's complaints is that ID is just warmed

over Creationism with a little dressing of science behind it. Religious fundies want the bible brought front and foremost in the world and they care little about anything else. My problem with ID is that it by definition requires a , well, Intelligent Designer, for lack of a better word. If one is religious, then this Intelligent Designer is obviously god. But it is not science. A math analogy, suppose one had an equation for ending world hunger. A long formula but with a glaring hole right in the middle. Until the hole can be filled with the linking equation, the world remains hungry. Plugging the hole by saying that god will fix this part up, as ID attempts to fill in evolution's holes, simply helps no one. The world still remains hungry even though god's name is used as a filler. For me, the idea of a god is a nice bit of mental masturbation, ie makes some people feel good, but doesn't solve real world problems.

[Matariki]

318. I understand that many people think it's code for creationism

But that comes from it's detractors. What I'm trying to get is an explanation of what the proponents of Intelligent Design think - not what it's critics think. I really have never seen anything where evolution is denied. Do they? I see a lot of people get very upset by the idea, yet when I go to read about it, it seems innocuous - It seems like an attempt by spiritual people to both acknowledge the spiritual and not deny scientific truth. Or not treat the two as an either/or thing.

I also understand it would naturally be the view of religious and/or spiritually minded people to believe that there was some design and meaning to existence. Some divine force behind creation - that's the nature of spirituality and religion. One could hardly fault the Pope for that stance, I would think. I mean, his job is being the head of a religion. That doesn't mean I agree with him btw. I just understand that it would be against everything he is, to deny that 'god' created the universe. So it comes as no surprise, nor is it offensive to me that he says that. I find it preferable to him saying the world was created in literally 7 days, like Fundamental Christians. But mostly, I don't give a fuck what the pope says.

Please don't read my post as an apology for Intelligent Design. I think the actual issue is whether this should be taught in schools. And that should be an obvious and resounding NO.

[ihelpu2see]

248. I am a Catholic and was proud of Pope John when he supported Darwin

but this, if it comes to be true, this will be the final straw in my very thin faith in the church

[LostinVA]

260. You're not the only one -- my mom was ranting to me about this

an hour ago.

[cap]

268. aww c'mon hang in there...

the severed hand doesnt heal the body... Although I cant blame you for leavin'. The Church does try your patience. A friend mine in the Episcopal church says that everytime this happens about half a dozen Catholic ladies start showing up in his Church thoroughly disgusted. He wants to send them back... he thinks they're needed in the Church (Roman Catholic, that is).

[lvx35]

276. Why do they need an interventionist God?

Why don't they just say that "the will of God manifests through evolution and other natural laws"?

[VegasWolf]

279. Well, it does seem from Pope Benedict's perspective, that he does

want to keep god in the loop somehow. Can't fault him for that, he is just doing his job. I just hope this doesn't trickle down to backwards states here who still believe that Jesus rode a dinosaur to preach to the masses.

[LibertyorDeath]

281. The premise that because of somethings complexity

it must of been designed by a higher intelligence or power
is

1)completely retarded.

2)ridiculously egotistical.

3)faith based thinking

4)non scientific

5)All of the above

[VegasWolf]

285. I know! I know! Brightly rasising hand in class! nt

[cap]

290. Patrick, when the Church hands out the Christian Coalition voting guides

are you going to be pulling the R lever like they want you to? hmmm... just wondering...

Complete Obedience to the Church seems to dictate that you will be voting R. The Christian Coalition does not back Democratic candidates. How do you feel about denying the Eucharist to Catholic pro-choice politicians? Or are you just the meat on Friday patrol? You know, a single issue voter.

[Algorem]

294. hell,god can't even apparently design a decent dress for a guy

[cap]

303. you mean we need queer eye for the straight pope?

sorry, couldnt resist.

[minnesota_liberal]

296. Good news!

With the global reach of the Catholic church, the rest of the world can share in the stupidity of theocratic knuckle-draggers in the U.S. At least in science, our (students') test scores will finally improve - at least in comparison to everyone else.

[noonwitch]

298. Why can't people just accept Genesis as symbolic of spiritual creation

And evolution refers to the physical development? Is it that difficult to understand that there is a difference?

[ozone_man]

329. Mind and body are one.

"Spirituality" IS part of physical development. Where Christianity went wrong is in trying to separate the two.

[plasticsundance]

299. While Patrick is trying to ressurect the Church of the Middle Ages

I would like to offer a book folks at DU might be interested to read. It's called Why Darwin Matters: the Case against Intelligent Design by Michael Shermer. I've really only just scanned through the book, because I'm still in the middle of reading All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle Eastern Terror by Stephen Kinzer.

I am also reading, much to the chagrin of Patrick, the play Caligula by Albert Camus.

Here are two reviews for Why Darwin Matters

From Publishers Weekly
Shermer (The Science of Good and Evil), founding editor of the Skeptic and Scientific American columnist, thoughtfully explains why intelligent design is both bad science and poor religion, how a wealth of scientific data from varied fields support evolution, and why religion and science need not be in conflict. Science and religion are two distinct realms, he argues: the natural and supernatural, respectively, and he cites Pope John Paul II in support of their possible coexistence. Shermer takes the "ten most cogent" arguments for intelligent design and refutes each in turn. While on the mark, the arguments' brevity may hamper their usefulness to all but those well versed in the debate. Looking for converts, Shermer offers a short chapter entitled "Why Christians and Conservatives Should Accept Evolution" (i.e., it "provides a scientific foundation" for their core values). His overall message is best summarized when he writes, "Darwin matters because evolution matters. Evolution matters because science matters. Science matters because it is the preeminent story of our age, an epic saga about who we are, where we came from and where we are going." Although there's not much new here, Shermer's wit and passion will appeal to many but won't convince believers. (Aug.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist
The publisher of Skeptic magazine was once an enthusiastic Evangelical Christian, but his ardent pursuit of a scientific education induced reconsideration. Now he staunchly advocates discriminating religion from science and in this book concisely defends evolutionary theory from the almost exclusively -Evangelical--Christian-backed concept of intelligent design (ID), aka creationism, aka creation science--the name changes whenever a suit over having public schools teach the idea as science gets shot down by a high U.S. court (the ID movement always appeals mere state-court decisions). Shermer debates ID often, and he expertly marshals point-by-point explanations of why evolution is worthwhile science, why ID isn't science at all, why ID criticisms of evolution are irrelevant, why science cannot invalidate religion, and why Christians and conservatives ought to accept evolution. His orderly presentation makes the book something of a reference manual on evolution, and only the historically minded will smile at his citation of congruence between evolution and Adam Smith as reason for conservatives to embrace evolution, for Smith's capitalism is a branch of classical liberalism. Ray Olson
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Amazon.com

[LostinVA]

307. GREAT book -- I've read it!

[pinniped]

300. Dino egg parks for everyone. We are saved.

Heretics, please pick up your stakes and report for burning detail.

[DoYouEverWonder]

301. The Pope prepares

to take humanity back to the Dark Ages.

Why does these so called disciples of Christ hate science so much?

[Amonester]

309. Here is why: it's takes to much "hard werk" to study and learn.

Besides, mudering innocents and using free (for them) cannon fodder to take over the world and dominate it doesn't require any real efforts: just 'knowing' how to lie, and they don't even have to 'sound' credible at all too. All they have to do is to lie, and reap the 'easy' billions that R coming their way right after...