The Self Contradicting 'catholic Church'

[Akalyte]

i'm talking about the Orthodoxy of the Church. Not the bad and heretical parts.

i'm talking about the Orthodoxy of the Church. Not the bad and heretical parts. They actually severed their relationship wioth God by choosing heresy and evil things.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1160604' date='Jan 10 2007, 09:56 AM']
That, Akalyte, is sad and makes my point.
The Church rejected 2 generations of holy straight men for homosxuals, but to sever a relationship with the Church of ordained homosxual men, we sever it with God? And we can't 'partially sever' our relationship with the Church because the Church says you have to accept the whole kit and kaboodle because It is the Body of Christ. Quite a conundrum, don't you think?
Hypothetically, if I had a gay Catholic son, should I tell him it's okay, become a priest, but make sure your boyfriends are over 18? As repulsive/extreme/unreal as that sounds, it seems to be the current message of the majority in the Church. Those that disagree with that seem to have little power within the Church. One little statement that priests shouldn't be actively homosexual brought loud cries of objection from within, didn't it?
[/quote]

Active or not is not the question. Homosexuals are not suppose to be ordained in the first place. That is the Church teaching. Priests are suppose to be drawn from well-balanced heterosexual males who would have the ability to perform the sex act.

[thessalonian]

Yet the ordaining of a homosexual does not invalidate the sacrament of ordination, nor the sacraments performed by him. It is not a matter of heresy to ordain a homosexual but a matter of discipline. There is no guarantee that a heterosexual priest is balanced.

I think this discussion should be setteled this way.

The Church says that capital punishment is allowable under some circumstances, without explicitly defining those circumstances.

Yet the Church NEVER says capitol punishment is required. It does not and has never condemned countries that have it and countries that don't. It recognizes the right of Governments to use the sword with regard to Romans 13. It has made statements throughout time according to circumstance.

Anomoly - Can you show me where the Church has ever condemned a country for not having capitol punishment?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1160815' date='Jan 10 2007, 05:52 PM']
Yet the ordaining of a homosexual does not invalidate the sacrament of ordination, nor the sacraments performed by him. It is not a matter of heresy to ordain a homosexual but a matter of discipline. There is no guarantee that a heterosexual priest is balanced.

I think this discussion should be setteled this way.

The Church says that capital punishment is allowable under some circumstances, without explicitly defining those circumstances.

Yet the Church NEVER says capitol punishment is required. It does not and has never condemned countries that have it and countries that don't. It recognizes the right of Governments to use the sword with regard to Romans 13. It has made statements throughout time according to circumstance.

Anomoly - Can you show me where the Church has ever condemned a country for not having capitol punishment?
[/quote]
What the x? Read the quote and link I provided. The Church (a high ranking Cardinal, official Spokesman for the Vatican) is condeming the use of the death penalty, denying that Iraq has any right to enact the death penalty, and calling the execution of Sadaam a CRIME.
You can't have it both ways. What is the justification to call the execution of Sadaam by the legitimate Iraq government, a crime?
Society has had the ability to incarcerate people for live for eons. The ability to incarcerate people is not something humanity has learned to do in the last 50 years, yet the Church's stance IS changing.
Is not the Church choosing who can or can't be a priest a matter of Faith and Morals? Is not dis-allowing condoms a matter of Faith and Morals? But look at the dissention within high ranking Clergy. The average poster on phatmass would say that's 'wrong', but what does the Church do about it? The Church does nothing because the internal politics of the Clergy is changing. It's about the human politics of the people within the Church Clergy, not consistent adherence to Dogma. Come on, masturbation is a mortal sin, sending one to hell, but the Church is slow and reluctant to implement preceedures to rectify the problem with priest scandal. After all that's come to light, look at how Fr. Dale's antics were glossed over, ignored, etc., until they blew up out of control. It's possible that if he wasn't so high-profile, he'd be transferred and running a parish in Costa Rica right now.
The Catholic Church has long lost it's credibilty as a moral judge because of it's antics. The only ones who believe it are the naive catholics that think the Church is infallible in all things and choose to believe it's lies and misrepresentations that the Church has ever made a mistake.
Face reality. Humans can commit whatever sin they want within the umbrella of any religious institution, including the Catholic Church. The Church does not have to (and often doesn't) follow it's own "Teachings". Given time, the teachings often change in practice by putting a different spin on some "unchanging" Dogma.
That's why there is not written 'Defined Dogma'. It would pin things down too plainly and generate questions that would undermine Institutional power and control. You can't have that because the Institution thinks it is GOD.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1160833' date='Jan 10 2007, 05:24 PM']
What the x? Read the quote and link I provided. The Church (a high ranking Cardinal, official Spokesman for the Vatican) is condeming the use of the death penalty, denying that Iraq has any right to enact the death penalty, and calling the execution of Sadaam a CRIME.[/quote]

Using the death penalty for revenge is not proper use of the death penalty. The statement you refer to is not covered under any doctrine of infallibility but there were problems with that execution.

[quote]You can't have it both ways. What is the justification to call the execution of Sadaam by the legitimate Iraq government, a crime?[/quote]

Was the killing of the Kurds a crime? Apparently you can have it both ways. A legitimate government did it? No, we cannot have willy nilly killing by governements and some of it is allowable and some is not. Killing for motives other than for the good of the society is in fact a crime. Now the question is was the killing of Sadaam motivated by things other than for the good of society? That is where I may disagree with the Archbishop but he is allowed his opinion.

[quote]Society has had the ability to incarcerate people for live for eons. The ability to incarcerate people is not something humanity has learned to do in the last 50 years, yet the Church's stance IS changing.[/quote]

How many escapes from prison by murderers have you heard of in the last 10 years? Does the Church require that all states have a death penalty. You did not answer that question. It's an important one to the discussion I think.

[quote]Is not the Church choosing who can or can't be a priest a matter of Faith and Morals?[/quote]

When you ask questions like this it is quite clear that you are just here to rant and not think and understand. Quite clearly you do not understand the difference between faith and morals and discipline. Can a man who has had premarital sex be ordained. Fr. Corapi is a pretty good priest. Augustine was a doctor of the Church. Sin does not invalidate someone from being a priest. In theory the grace of the priesthood and the Eucharist should allow a homosexual to overcome his tendancies if he is open to doing so.

[quote]Is not dis-allowing condoms a matter of Faith and Morals?[/quote]

Calling something a sin and ordaining someone who sins is not a difficult distinction to grasp dude. Try.

Apparently you think you are God and able to broad brush judge of all these things. The Church recognizes the struggle with sin. That is what you don't get. The church is a hospital for sinners. That is what you don't understand. Sin is not as easy as sin A is mortal all the time. You quite apparently don't understand conditions of will and consent.

Edited January 10, 2007 by thessalonian

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1159975' date='Jan 9 2007, 03:12 PM']
Urib2007 - stick with the original point of the post - the Catholic Church's stance on the death penalty. if you want to bring up your points - do so in separate threads please.
[/quote]

I'm only going to echo this once. I've moved the posts about the 10 commandments, etc., to another thread. [b]Keep on topic.[/b]

[thessalonian]

She's new IP, be easy on her. I hope that cmp didn't cast her out?

[IcePrincessKRS]

I wasn't just referring to Urib, I meant everyone, even the "oldtimers." Red made her post early on in the first page and no one paid attention to her.

[Anomaly]

thess,
Answer my questions without avoiding them by making false statements about my motives and what I know or don't know or claim I'm acting like God. It's you who is making God-like assertations by telling me what what my motives are and telling me what I don't know.
The real point is, the Church's 'consistency' is a fable in the context you wish it were. The point is, the Church's stance on the death penalty as not being about just punishment, but only as a last resort, is new. The Cardinal calling the execution of Sadaam is a Crime ignores pervious Church teaching that it the death penalty is an option to the State.

[Winchester]

I have to give points for putting Catholic Church in quotation marks. Very good; it has the tang of contempt, though the splash of the bait in the water is clear for the clumsy cast of your argument.

Sadly, you tangle up in a misinterpretation of infallibility. It's a good try, granted, but it doesn't make the cut.

NEXT.

[nighthaven]

Well me personally I believe he shouldn't have been executed. I'm just making a wild guess here, but perhaps the reason the Vatican offical called it a crime was because Sadaam never really recieved a fair trial to begin with. Sure he antagonized the court, and his loyalists killed with wild abandon, but still he deserved a fair trial without a predetermined vote of guilty. Justice is a basic human right.

As I've been reading this thread I am sensing a bit of dissent. Holy Mother Church isn't a democracy, never was and never will be. Sure there are mistakes and disagreements made by the clergy, but I'm sure The Messiah Jesus knew all this before he built his church upon St. Peter who he him himself would later deny Jesus three times. Perhaps instead of venting concerns about the clergy, you should go to church and recite the entire rosary for the intentions of the clergy; just griping accomplishes nothing.

Go with God and remember to pray and pray often.

[Anomaly]

You sense dissent? LOL!

And what do evidence do you have that Sadaam did not get a fair trail? Just a wild guess?

Thanks for the pithy, but irrelevant comments, Winny. Sarcasm usually is a poor substitute when you can't post with substance. Being 'witty' is not always a demonstration of 'wit'. Look it up.

[Kosh]

The church's teaching on the death penalty is just that it is an option when the good of society and the lives of those living around the captive may be better served/protected when the criminal is killed rather than in prison. A high-ranking terrorist whose followers might nuke the city to get him back, for example. (not saddam)

The cardinal or clergy or whatever obviously did not think Saddam met those requirements. Others might. THAT is not a matter for the church to decide, I think, unless justice obviously has NOT been done. But insofar there hasn't been any official church teaching from the vatican on that, so disagreements and differing opinions from the clergy do not mean that there is a contradiction in the church. Every clergy agrees on church teaching. Its just that they don't all agree whether or not saddam fits those requirements.



~Kosh

Edited January 11, 2007 by Kosh

[thessalonian]

[quote] The Cardinal calling the execution of Sadaam is a Crime ignores pervious Church teaching that it the death penalty is an option to the State.[/quote]

Your inability to comprehend my points is not reason to believe I've not answered the question. I note that you ignored the points I did make. I won't repeat them until you acknowledge them.

Edited January 11, 2007 by thessalonian

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1161294' date='Jan 11 2007, 08:59 AM']
But insofar there hasn't been any official church teaching from the vatican on that, so disagreements and differing opinions from the clergy do not mean that there is a contradiction in the church.
~Kosh
[/quote]
My gosh, Kosh, please read the link.
both Clergy referenced are 'Official Church Bureaucrats of the Vatican'. Hello. Cardinal Martino is the "President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace" and Fr. Lombardi is the "Holy See Press Office Director".
All you've got to do is read the Catholic News outlets and read the Catechism. They often don't jibe. Do it long enough, you discover how often it happens.
Typical of the 'apologists' here at phatmass. Attack me instead of reading the article and the Catechism and providing a factual and plausible defense for the Official Vatican spokesmen to clearly state:
1-Sadaam's execution was a crime.
2-The Church has always been AGAINST the death penalty.
Did the spokesmen qualfy his statement with any reason WHY the trial or Iraq government is/was illegitmate?
Did the spokesman qualify his statement with examples of the Church's "long" history of being against the death penalty in ALL cases?

The 3rd point is a bonus. Has the 'catholic church' been historically consistent in it's stance that death penalty is only an option if life imprisonment is NOT a viable alternative. If so, please demonstrate that Society has not been able to keep people imprisoned 50 years ago, or 500 years ago, etc. (Point being, society has always been able to imprison people).

Or you can just attack me as a ranting fool and never answer the questions. Not constructive, but it may serve as a nice Catholic pat on your Catholic back. If you're right, prove me wrong with evidence.

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1161303' date='Jan 11 2007, 09:23 AM']
Your inability to comprehend my points is not reason to believe I've not answered the question. I note that you ignored the points I did make. I won't repeat them until you acknowledge them.
[/quote]Your choice. Well I guess you won't have to repeat your silliness and we won't have to suffer reading them again.