mmm I've already registered that you can't really call yourself
catholic and disagree with papal infallibility, and I kind of agree. I
was raised catholic and still go to mass at rare intervals, but I
don't do confession and communion and all that.
I don't think you can expect moral guidance, on m
> Brian wrote:
> We both know the common deal breaker in this...the weakness of the human
> animal. The sad part is, the church has their solution (abstinence), science
> has their alternative (condoms), and yet the people are pretty much ignoring
> BOTH of them.
>
Touche!
~~
Isn't organized religion, by its very definition, "abdicating the right to
think for yourself on ethical issues" ?
If you are Catholic, you follow the ethical teachings of the Pope. If you
are Muslim, you follow the ethical teachings of the prophets in the Q'ran
(sp?), if you are...etc etc.
hmm and he knows the mind of god on such issues as abortion, gay
marriage and contraception? I don't think so. Moral authority is one
thing, abdicating the right to think for yourself on ethical issues is
another. I think papal infalliblility was very convenient for the
church in medieval times, is
> That's a great point and almost convincing, but I guess I just can't
> get over the point that by taking a stance you know there's a
> percentage of people that will die because of it.
>
> If we take the philosophy out of it and look at it actuarially, I bet
> we could say this:
>
> 1.) All thing
> Brian wrote:
> >
> Wellthe church really can't come out and say that, and I don't think
> they should. They teach what they believe is the correct and moral
> actionif you choose not to follow that, the church can't really be
> giving you advice on the best way to live in sin.
>
That's
>
> For me, I can't live with that. If I can stop it, I'll stop it. The
> same goes for birth control. While it'd be nice for everyone to be
> perfect they're not and if my actions condemn millions to death then
> maybe I'm the immoral one despite my high moral ground.
>
> The needs of the many
> Brian wrote:
> Jesus would be the ultimate arbiter of morals, to a Christian. Now, a
> Catholic believes that the Pope is the human embodiment of Christ, on earth.
Good points, but it all seems arbitrary. That is, I understand that
you have to take a moral stand but when does that stand need a
>
> But faith and morals themselves sometimes seem dangerous. For example
> the AIDS in Africa thing. On the one hand you can say that it's the
> Pope's job to say, "condoms are wrong, birth control is wrong." If
> people are so weak that they break this moral truism (if you agree)
> then they d
> Brian wrote:
> When I think of it in these more focused terms, it's not quite the monster
> it first appears.
>
But faith and morals themselves sometimes seem dangerous. For example
the AIDS in Africa thing. On the one hand you can say that it's the
Pope's job to say, "condoms are wrong, birt
Papal infallibility is the ONLY reason you don't participate in the church?
When I first heard the term, I was up in arms.some old weirdo can't be
wrong? What the hell!? But the more I learned about it, the more it seemed
to make sense.
Think about it, he's the leader of the Church, he's co
Yes, true and true. I don't participate in the Church over exactly
this issue. But yes, it is still dogma, and yes infallibility only
applies when speaking ex cathedra.
Dana
On 4/20/05, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pope's are only infallible when speaking "ex cathedra", or "from the chair
> of
Pope's are only infallible when speaking "ex cathedra", or "from the chair
of Peter". The decree must also be on the subject of "faith and morals".
It's a common misunderstanding that Catholics believe ALL teachings of the
Pope to be infallible. I don't think it's a very common practice for a Po
true dat
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 11:26 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Other papal news stories we get to look forward to
there is no "bring back papl infallibility" -- they are and have been.
If you believe,
there is no "bring back papl infallibility" -- they are and have been.
If you believe, of course.
Dana
On 4/20/05, John Stanley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First crap as pope.
> Boxers or tighty-whities? A CNN exclusive.
> Popes favorite snack cake.
> How many years will this old man rule before
First crap as pope.
Boxers or tighty-whities? A CNN exclusive.
Popes favorite snack cake.
How many years will this old man rule before he begins drooling and pissing
himself? You decide.
Bring back papal infallibility? The pros and cons.
Of course me posting this actually increases the amount of t
16 matches
Mail list logo