Religion

[ASadAmerican]

Sorry for the misspelling of his last name. It is Law not Lay,
Cardinal Bernard Law was forced to resign as archbishop of Boston in 2002 over the abuse scandal. He was blamed for allowing priests known to have sexually abused minors to be moved from parish to parish instead of being sacked. It was bad enough that Law had been “rewarded” by the appointment as Archpriest of St. Mary Major in Rome, but to see him preside at the important Mass mourning Pope John Paul II yesterday gave the impression that the Church valued him more than the victims.

[VX]

I'm new to this forum. My first post here but joebialek is someone I've posted with in the past..... don't remember where or when.

Pope Benedict XVI is the ideal Pope. I'm not Catholic. I'm not even a Christian, but I think the new Pope could be a deciding factor in making or breaking Catholicism in the USA. At the very least, his influence could succeed in making a stronger but perhaps smaller imprint in America among the truly faithful.

Too much liberalism has crept into Christianity and in particular into the largest Christian denomination on earth. The new Pope is perhaps more conservative than John Paul was. This can only bode well for the true believers, while leaving many secular Catholics on the outside looking in.

If Pope Benedict were a younger man, I could envision that he would have the time and would make the effort to try bringing all Christians back into the fold of the RCC as it was/is meant to be.

[Richard]

As a conservative (much to the right of Attila the Hun) and as a Catholic, I have to shamefully admit that I am a progressive as far as the Catholic Church doctrine is concerned.
The dictionary defines conservative as one who adheres to traditional beliefs and values.
If you go back to the "founding fathers" of Christianity, especially the Apostle Paul, the interpretations made, by the RC Church, of early scripture is too often, in my opinion, questionable or downright wrong. The dogma regarding baptism, the sacraments of confession and the eucharist, among others, were significantly altered and revised, in medieval times. The alteration and revision, to my thinking, was designed to support the Church structure as opposed to try and interpret scripture in an honest manner.
It seems to me that many to most Church teachings, today (espeically in regard to birth control, celibacy, women as priests, etc) are based on loose ground, theologically. For example, adherence to the RC Church's teaching on abortion seems to be necessary in order to receive holy communion. Paul never said a person must be worthy to partake...this has been a misinterpretation for centuries.
When I present my "corrupted" views to my conservative, Catholic friends, I am always charged with "going to the Catholic cafeteria". In other words, I am trying to pick out the Church doctrine with suits me, and rejecting the rest. The problem is, the old curmudgeon clergymen and scholars of the middle ages also went to the cafeteria, revising and picking out scripture to support their preconceived values which, all too often, were desgined primarily to support the Church (and keep the money rolling into the coffers).
I think the overall problem is that, in order of priority, the Catholic Church's 1st priorty is the Catholic Church. Their 2nd priorty, and I think a very distant 2nd, is God.

[Patriot]

That's an interesting take, Richard. Not being Catholic myself, but nonetheless, historically aware of the Church, I must concur with you on the point regarding adaptations in church doctrine to suit the needs of the day.

But, as it currently stands, the needs of our day require a glance to the rear, if you will. I think the Church did the right thing by appointing Ratzinger in order to offer solidarity, both structurally and spiritually, to worldwide adherents.

Believe me, we live in an age in which values have been entirely abandoned for pleasure and pastimes-- what remains of traditional "good" hangs by a few sparse fibers in this ever-decadent world. There's nothing wrong with opting for strong leadership to curb the excesses of the undisciplined, and shall I say, riff-raff, within the Catholic church. In fact, I welcome it. This is probably the most beneficial appointment to pontiff that we have seen in centuries, given the current state of international and clerical affairs.

[Richard]

I have to honestly say, Patriot, that I disagree with your 2nd paragraph..and wish a more progessive Pope (if there was such to choose from) would have been elected.
I very much respect and agree with your 3rd paragraph.
Richard

[Patriot]

Richard:

In my second paragraph, I had written:


^{But, as it currently stands, the needs of our day require a glance to the rear, if you will. I think the Church did the right thing by appointing Ratzinger in order to offer solidarity, both structurally and spiritually, to worldwide adherents.}


I can see how you'd disagree with it. In fact, most individuals who consider themselves "tuned in" to current affairs would disagree. But, I was speaking more from a religious viewpoint-- from the perspective of Church heirarchy, a "glance back" is evidently necessary in an age which is on the cusp of bidding a permanent adeiu to some of the foundational church teachings.

[TNRighty]

Richard,

I'm not a Catholic and won't pretend to have any sort of educated opinion on the Catholic faith, however I am very skeptical of anyone who uses the word "progessive" to describe their views. Perhaps in this case my judgement is misplaced, but when I hear the word "progresive" tossed about I immediately think "secular" or "socialist".

Perhaps your use of the word is truly meant to characterize a more modern form of thinking, which in many cases I believe is justified. But as far as religious morality is concerned I agree with Patriot in the sense that before we can move forward with any grasp of purpose we must take a look in the rearview mirror at what has made our institutions strong. I think traditional faith and family is timeless. Right and wrong is timeless, and we must be extremely cautious as to how much we let fickle relativism obscure the teachings of our religious doctrines.

[MO]

I think it would take some severe mental gymnastics to assume God would appove of abortion. I don't think the Catholic church should change it's core values. It has to be a rock people can grab hold of, not a loose one that is falling with them.

[Patriot]

Mo:


I'd be a bit cautious on that particular line of argument only because the opposition tends to cite instances of Old Testament violence when the Lord commanded the Israelites to slay infants of the enemy. What kind of God, they ask, could wreak such havoc and disallow the right of a woman to choose?

I don't think any human can speak for God per se; the acts of violence in the Old Testament were singular events of divine mandate. However, a logical syllogism is available for Christians to use when defending the pro-life argument, on the basis that it is God who gives life, and God who takes life away.

1. The Ten Commandments say directly, "Thou shalt not murder." (Exod20:13)

2. Christ repeatedly iterated the value of children.

• Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such are the kingdom of heaven (Lk.16:18)
• It would be more profitable for him if a millstone were hanged about his neck and he cast into the sea, than that he should be a snare to one of these little ones (Lk17:2)
• The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them (Is11:6)

So, it would seem that children are given high priority in the Kingdom of God. Humans themselves are not endowed with the right to snuff out the life of a child (aside of a divine mandate to do so, which has not been given any time ad-hoc to the Ten Commandments).

[Richard]

In reply to TNRighty, I too have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "progressive".
To illustrate: I would like to get rid of the 16th admendment..no federal income tax. I would allow a state tax up to 5%, but no more. I would allow a national sales tax to support the one ligitimate function of a federal government, supporting and maintaining a military. The national tax would be no higher than 7%.I would mandate that no local property taxes be greater than 0.5% of the property market value.
I would get rid of most government regulatory bodies. (especially the IRS, OSCHA, the EPA, and a host of others.).
I would like to see the ACLU, Sierra Club, and most special interest groups have much less power and access to polititions. I would sell off most of the government-owned land to private citizens, with the exception of military bases.
I would remove most laws, on the books, written after 1900. I would allow women to vote, but hesitantly.
I would get the UN out of the US, and the US out of the UN. I would limit all immigraton , into our country, to very old allies, such as Great Britain, Canada, and Australia. Any illegals would not be allowed to remain on our soil..whatever it would take to do so.
I would have a Medicare and Medicaid system, but run by a private enterprise with no government corruption. The pool or revenue for working people could help support health care and incomes of those retired. I would keep the county hospital and health care systems for the poor, but with tighter regulation. I would give disabled citizens tax breaks, but eliminate the current welfare system altogether.
I would eliminate our abysmal public school system..a system which seems to only be able to brainwash kids and do very little in the way of educating them. I would replace it with coummunity supported home and neighborhood schools.
I would get all civil rights legislation off the books..especially the affirmative action legislation so we could have a truly non-discriminatory system for hiring people. I would remove all infrigements in purchasing firearms, and allow all citizens to carry concealed weapons.
In short, I think the above would bring on an unprecedented growth of prosperty and happiness, and we would truly be the envy of the world. But, come to think of it, I guess that would be progressive. Well then, forget the whole thing!

[TNRighty]

AMEN Brother! If thats your definition of progressive, then you can me a progressive any day!