dspen2005 Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 how sad... here we have a "cardinal" who, if this is true, has been excommunicated latae sententiae, ispo facto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamweaver Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 I'm hoping that this is either a bunch of horse manure or that the diary was stolen. When a cardinal gets excommunicated, its sad news. I don't see what he'd gain by leaking a diary to the media. He wouldn't even get publicity, since he remained anonymous. Whatever goes on in the conclave isn't my business either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 [quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Sep 24 2005, 12:03 PM']and i with both of you.... as well as laudate. i didnt read the article at all. i hate reading stuff like that because most of the time its just a bunch of bologna! [right][snapback]736231[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I read the article...no reason to believe it, though. Sounds like someone just trying to put a spin on things. It's definitely easy to have phony anonymous sources...and even easier to have phony anonymous sources who can't be revealed for very grave reasons...it's a sort of invincible defense for a made-up story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellenita Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 Why would someone keep a journal of something that's supposed to be secret anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 What is the big deal with this depiction of what happened? Sounds cool to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 [quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 24 2005, 11:09 AM']Be careful. This is slander/calumny. [right][snapback]736188[/snapback][/right] [/quote] or perhaps an irreverent jest. pay it no mind. It really is a shame that a cardinal would release this. I hope it was stolen, but if it was not and the cardinal willingly violated his oath of secrecy then I don't have much respect for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 I didn't read it. The Church attaches a seal of secrecy to it that is really not much different in nature to the seal of confession, with the breaking of it being excommunication. If a priest were to tell you something from a confession, it'd be the same thing. He'd be the one excommunicating himself, not you, but you still shouldn't promote the releasing of such sealed information. In fact, I think Catholic sites should refuse to even allow this content on their site (even posted on a phorum, I'd suggest editing it out IMHO). The only reason we need is that the Church attaches a seal of secrecy that ought to be respected. It's not like the account (though I didn't read it I can be pretty sure) incriminates anyone or anything, but it's just not supposed to be released by pain of excommunication from the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 24 2005, 02:18 PM']I didn't read it. The Church attaches a seal of secrecy to it that is really not much different in nature to the seal of confession, with the breaking of it being excommunication. If a priest were to tell you something from a confession, it'd be the same thing. He'd be the one excommunicating himself, not you, but you still shouldn't promote the releasing of such sealed information. In fact, I think Catholic sites should refuse to even allow this content on their site (even posted on a phorum, I'd suggest editing it out IMHO). The only reason we need is that the Church attaches a seal of secrecy that ought to be respected. It's not like the account (though I didn't read it I can be pretty sure) incriminates anyone or anything, but it's just not supposed to be released by pain of excommunication from the Church. [right][snapback]736332[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes, but at the same time, we have no reason to believe that it truly is the details of the conclave. Until the Church speaks out against it, while it may not be suggested, I think it is permissible, if for nothing else than for the laity to discredit the likelihood that it's authentic, which is why I read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoketos Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 Why would you write about how many votes any way? It seems an occassion of sin to do that. Seems to me a Cardinal would know better. My vote Horse mushy mud pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p-hawk Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 [quote name='p-hawk' date='Sep 24 2005, 09:50 AM']Umm, doesn't the Church have a right to know who this cardinal is? [right][snapback]736148[/snapback][/right] [/quote] When I asked this question, by "Church" I meant "those in the Church who enforce excommunication". This should not have been publicly disseminated by the journalist, either if it was entrusted to him by an offending cardinal or if the journalist filched it. I'm not going to speculate which of the two happened. On a related note, aren't there supposed to be no written records kept of the conclave? Shouldn't diaries of that time read something like: [quote name='madeuppcardinal']Breakfast was yummy. We had eggs benedict. The cook put a smidge of basil in the sauce. I participated in a Mystery all morning. Lunch was a little late in arriving. During the wait, the cardinal who sat across from me took a blank index card out of his pocket and made of it an interesting contraption I had never seen before. He called it "table-top football". I was almost a little disappointed when lunch came. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 just in case it is real, it shouldn't be spread. if I were in charge I'd edit out the info about the conclave just keep the story that a cardinal may have leeked information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 If its a secret, why are we posting it to Phatmass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 that's what I'm sayin! anyway, it's possible it's all a hoax, it's possible the diary was stolen if it was intentional, that cardinal needs to plead for forgiveness from the pope. this is one of those high-level excommunication things. same canonical status, if I'm not mistaken, as the seal of confession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Knight Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 I'm reading Catholicism for dummies and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and I find this very interesting, yet very wrong, he souldn't have revealed the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musturde Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 [quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Sep 24 2005, 02:23 PM']If its a secret, why are we posting it to Phatmass? [right][snapback]736379[/snapback][/right] [/quote] It's already public. We might as well not censor it. Whoever leaked it should be given his dues. I'm totally against censoring it because it's not going to be a huge difference on my beliefs as a Catholic. Let the media have fun with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now