Christians Are Second-class Citizens Of Islamic Republic Of Pakistan.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1537062' date='May 22 2008, 08:37 AM']And do you think the pope would support the persecution and killings of 'non-believers'?

you're refereing to an abuse of religion, not religion itself.[/quote]

Ever heard of the USCCB?

"Support" is such a strong word. It's much easier to remain quiet and allow people to choose whether they'll obey Church teaching on the sanctity of human life. If they don't, it's no big deal.

It's unlikely that a pope would support persecution (though I'm pretty sure that some popes have), but it's very reasonable to believe a pope would turn a blind eye to such things. Most of our bishops throughout the world are following this policy, and I suppose most Catholics follow their example.

And while I'm well aware of the distinction between authentic religion and the abuse of religion, shouldn't it be the abuse of religion that concerns us when suggesting that Catholicism should be a state religion? It's not a question of whether religion is abused, but how severely.

Edited May 22, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Didacus]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1537214' date='May 22 2008, 10:16 AM']Ever heard of the USCCB?

"Support" is such a strong word. It's much easier to remain quiet and allow people to choose whether they'll obey Church teaching on the sanctity of human life. If they don't, it's no big deal.

It's unlikely that a pope would support persecution (though I'm pretty sure that some popes have), but it's very reasonable to believe a pope would turn a blind eye to such things. Most of our bishops throughout the world are following this policy, and I suppose most Catholics follow their example.[/quote]

Do explain USCCB as you see it.

You are making red-herrings. The fact that the papacy would NOT be quiet on injustice such as abortion is the whole point. That's like saying; we can hire a janitor to sweep the floor, but he doesn't sweep floors.

Suppose all you like, but mere suppositions, as discriminatory as they may be, will not provide any enlightenment of your point of view.



[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1537214' date='May 22 2008, 10:16 AM']And while I'm well aware of the distinction between authentic religion and the abuse of religion, shouldn't it be the abuse of religion that concerns us when suggesting that Catholicism should be a state religion? It's not a question of whether religion is abused, but how severely.[/quote]

Concerns of abuse in reiligion equates to abuse of goverment regardless of the system you refer to.

I for one have more trust in men dedicated to the point of self-sacrifice (not getting married for example) and making it a life choice than people who are elected simply because they are popular and then are given open license.

How many americans would volunteer to be president if they had to give sexual intercourse and private possessions all together?

In my opinion, and granted it is simply my opinion, there is far more concern to doubt the sincerity of elected individuals than that of bishops and cardinals.


Now we are sawing off topic. Maybe you'd like to start a new thread.

I remain a papist in principal.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1537234' date='May 22 2008, 12:38 PM']Do explain USCCB as you see it.[/quote]

What does the USCCB look like to you?

[quote name='Didacus' post='1537234' date='May 22 2008, 12:38 PM']You are making red-herrings. The fact that the papacy would NOT be quiet on injustice such as abortion is the whole point.[/quote]

What makes you think the papacy will necessarily speak out against abortion?

[quote name='Didacus' post='1537234' date='May 22 2008, 12:38 PM']Concerns of abuse in reiligion equates to abuse of goverment regardless of the system you refer to.[/quote]

That's why the checks and balances of a democracy like America's work so well: instead of trying to change the hearts of political leaders to make them selfless, it adapts to their selfishness so that the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court are always working in some sort of tension among one another.

It's much like how capitalism uses selfishness to advance the common good. Socialism fails because it tries to accomplish what can only be done by grace: making people selfless.

Are you suggesting a democracy with Catholicism as the state religion?

[quote name='Didacus' post='1537234' date='May 22 2008, 12:38 PM']I for one have more trust in men dedicated to the point of self-sacrifice (not getting married for example) and making it a life choice than people who are elected simply because they are popular and then are given open license.[/quote]

That would be nice, if it were the reality. In practice, not all priests and bishops are celibate. If you give bishops political power, you throw a huge incentive out there for secular men to play the religion card in order to grab that power for their own ends. Celibacy will be the least of their concerns, much as chastity is the least of many politicians' concerns today.

[quote name='Didacus' post='1537234' date='May 22 2008, 12:38 PM']How many americans would volunteer to be president if they had to give sexual intercourse and private possessions all together?[/quote]

Again, celibacy won't stand in the way because the wolf in sheep's clothing won't care.

[quote name='Didacus' post='1537234' date='May 22 2008, 12:38 PM']In my opinion, and granted it is simply my opinion, there is far more concern to doubt the sincerity of elected individuals than that of bishops and cardinals.[/quote]

Yeah, maybe... politicians are more transparent because their motives are obvious. Bishops and cardinals often have mixed motives and they can't always say what they actually believe. But that aside, bishops today are primarily concerned with the spiritual care of their flock (at least in most democratic Western nations... not so much in South America). Plus, the graces of ordinated are ordered toward spiritual leadership. I just don't see how granting bishops political rule is a responsible use of that grace or the people he should be serving.

Just remember that there is no St. Constantine. He knew that politics was no place for the holy.

[StColette]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1537681' date='May 22 2008, 05:12 PM']What makes you think the papacy will necessarily speak out against abortion?[/quote]

uh? not sure what to say here

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='StColette' post='1537693' date='May 22 2008, 06:18 PM']uh? not sure what to say here[/quote]

The pope is not required to speak out about anything. The only thing that cannot happen is a pope teaching ex cathedra anything that's against the doctrine and morals of the Church, and only because the Holy Spirit protects us from that happening. But, when it comes to his personal opinions, he could be completely pro-abortion or pro-choice.

Edited May 22, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[StColette]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1537710' date='May 22 2008, 05:41 PM']The pope is not required to speak out about anything. The only thing that cannot happen is a pope teaching ex cathedra anything that's against the doctrine and morals of the Church, and only because the Holy Spirit protects us from that happening. But, when it comes to his personal opinions, he could be completely pro-abortion or pro-choice.[/quote]

Considering that abortion is a matter of faith and morals, for a pope to not speak out against this matter would be danger to the well being of the body of Christ. If a Pope would not speak out with authority on this matter then it could put anyone in danger of not knowing the abortion is wrong or that the Church does not have an opinion on the matter or even that the Church may justify such a thing. A pope could be endanger the salvation of many souls if he were not to speak out. And considering that the Holy Spirit guides the conclave that elects the pope, I would say that having a Pope with pro-choice leanings would be impossible. Just as the Holy Spirit protects the Church when a Pope speaks ex cathedra, He also protects the Church when choosing a Pope.

Edited May 22, 2008 by StColette

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='StColette' post='1537751' date='May 22 2008, 07:16 PM']Considering that abortion is a matter of faith and morals, for a pope to not speak out against this matter would be danger to the well being of the body of Christ. If a Pope would not speak out with authority on this matter then it could put anyone in danger of not knowing the abortion is wrong or that the Church does not have an opinion on the matter or even that the Church may justify such a thing. A pope could be endanger the salvation of many souls if he were not to speak out.[/quote]

I totally agree.

[quote name='StColette' post='1537751' date='May 22 2008, 07:16 PM']And considering that the Holy Spirit guides the conclave that elects the pope, I would say that having a Pope with pro-choice leanings would be impossible. Just as the Holy Spirit protects the Church when a Pope speaks ex cathedra, He also protects the Church when choosing a Pope.[/quote]

Well... they are still sinners, and some were [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes"]very good at sinning[/url]. I'm sure that the Holy Spirit at least attempts to guide the conclaves in their elections, but just like with us, listening and responding to what the Holy Spirit is saying is the key.

I personally believe one of the fruits of the Reformation is that Protestantism serves as a check against Catholicism's power within Christianity. Of course, there are many curses from the Reformation too, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the era of "bad popes" ended with the era of Luther and Calvin.

Edited May 23, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Apotheoun]

Not only are Christians second class citizens in Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, etc., but the Turkish government, in addition to persecuting Christians in general, is continuing its efforts to destroy the Ecumenical Patriarchate by not allowing the opening of the Orthodox Church's seminary.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1537710' date='May 22 2008, 03:41 PM']The pope is not required to speak out about anything. The only thing that cannot happen is a pope teaching ex cathedra anything that's against the doctrine and morals of the Church, and only because the Holy Spirit protects us from that happening. But, when it comes to his personal opinions, he could be completely pro-abortion or pro-choice.[/quote]
This is false. A Christian, the pope included, is duty bound to prophetically proclaim the truth at all times. The immoral nature of abortion is not a "private opinion," it is an absolute moral truth; and as such, Christians are bound in conscience to work to prevent the murder of the unborn.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1538046' date='May 22 2008, 10:32 PM']This is false. A Christian, the pope included, is duty bound to prophetically proclaim the truth at all times. The immoral nature of abortion is not a "private opinion," it is an absolute moral truth; and as such, Christians are bound in conscience to work to prevent the murder of the unborn.[/quote]

Yet quite a few popes lead publicly sinful, essentially non-Christian lives. They never declared any doctrine, but obviously only because the Holy Spirit prevented it.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1538121' date='May 22 2008, 08:26 PM']Yet quite a few popes lead publicly sinful, essentially non-Christian lives. They never declared any doctrine, but obviously only because the Holy Spirit prevented it.[/quote]
If a pope privately believed that abortion was morally acceptable, he would be a heretic.

That said, every pope is a sinner, because every human being -- except the Holy Theotokos and a few other individuals mentioned in scripture -- is a sinner.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='StColette' post='1537751' date='May 22 2008, 11:16 PM']Considering that abortion is a matter of faith and morals, for a pope to not speak out against this matter would be danger to the well being of the body of Christ. If a Pope would not speak out with authority on this matter then it could put anyone in danger of not knowing the abortion is wrong or that the Church does not have an opinion on the matter or even that the Church may justify such a thing. A pope could be endanger the salvation of many souls if he were not to speak out. And considering that the Holy Spirit guides the conclave that elects the pope, I would say that having a Pope with pro-choice leanings would be impossible. Just as the Holy Spirit protects the Church when a Pope speaks ex cathedra, He also protects the Church when choosing a Pope.[/quote]

[Didacus]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1537681' date='May 22 2008, 04:12 PM']What does the USCCB look like to you?


What makes you think the papacy will necessarily speak out against abortion?


That's why the checks and balances of a democracy like America's work so well: instead of trying to change the hearts of political leaders to make them selfless, it adapts to their selfishness so that the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court are always working in some sort of tension among one another.


Are you suggesting a democracy with Catholicism as the state religion?[/quote]

I have no idea what USCCB refers to. sorry, don't get out much.

It is the duty of ALL who profess the Catholic faith to speak out against abortion - the Pope first and foremost.

The checks in America work well? That's debatable, borderline laughable.

A democratic republic gving right of Veto to the papacy (in lieu of a 'Governer General' in Canada for example) would be sufficient.



Technically speaking, I'm a Democratic-Monarcho-Papist with a leniant on Distributism-type economy.
We're a rare bread of political allignment, but we have free T-shirts!

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1538123' date='May 22 2008, 11:29 PM']If a pope privately believed that abortion was morally acceptable, he would be a heretic.[/quote]

Is that impossible? I looked up some information on it. Apparently there's never been a heretical pope, which kinda surprised me considering the behavior of a few. Should we believe that Pope John XII privately believed the Church's teachings on morality and the sanctity of life?

[quote name='Didacus' post='1538455' date='May 23 2008, 07:59 AM']I have no idea what USCCB refers to. sorry, don't get out much.[/quote]

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

[quote name='Didacus' post='1538455' date='May 23 2008, 07:59 AM']The checks in America work well? That's debatable, borderline laughable.[/quote]

The purpose is to avoid any particular individual or government entity from becoming too powerful, and in that regard, it works pretty well. It's not a perfect system, but it's a system that works through imperfection.

[quote name='Didacus' post='1538455' date='May 23 2008, 07:59 AM']A democratic republic gving right of Veto to the papacy (in lieu of a 'Governer General' in Canada for example) would be sufficient.
Technically speaking, I'm a Democratic-Monarcho-Papist with a leniant on Distributism-type economy.
We're a rare bread of political allignment, but we have free T-shirts![/quote]

I just wonder if you aren't forgetting history. Our ancestors came here specifically to escape the political rule of a church, to have religious freedom, and a government that would protect that freedom. Giving a secular government such close association to any religion (even atheism/agnosticism, as one could argue is becoming the case in Europe) opens the door to abuses and persecution. We have to remember, also, that not all popes are wonderful like Benedict XVI.

Edited May 23, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[StColette]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1538121' date='May 22 2008, 10:26 PM']Yet quite a few popes lead publicly sinful, essentially non-Christian lives.[/quote]

I think we all at one time or another are guilty of publicly sinning, but that doesn't stop one from speaking out against abortion. There was a time in my teenage years where I did some things, even in public, that were very sinful, but that never stopped me from speaking out against abortion. Just because one is a sinner it does not disqualify one from speaking out on what is right and what is wrong.