On Tuesday's "Good Morning America," news anchor Chris Cuomo used the upcoming visit of Pope Benedict XVI to label the pontiff as uncompromising and assert that the Catholic Church sees the visit as "an opportunity for the Pope to come here and reinforce hard-line doctrine." Earlier in the segment, Cuomo described Benedict as "a hard-liner charged with protecting Catholic orthodoxy."
Cuomo also went on to claim that the Pope's goal is to strike a balance "between placating conservative followers and giving hope to liberals who seek social reform." The ABC journalist went on to mention the pontiff's background and note, "Born in Germany, Benedict's seminary studies were interrupted by World War II when, reluctantly, he says, he became a member of the Hitler youth and the Nazi army..." Cuomo provided no elaboration on that statement, but, as a New York Times AP report stated in April of 2005, then-Joseph Ratzinger was indeed reluctant about Germany's war:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓TRAUNSTEIN, Germany (AP) -- Blinds drawn, windows closed, Joseph Ratzinger huddled with his father and older brother around a radio and listened to Allied radio broadcasts, volume on low.
It was a small and risky act of defiance in this conservative Bavarian village deep inside Adolf Hitler's Germany. But the father wanted his sons to know the truth about the Nazis and World War II, says Georg Ratzinger, who like his brother drew strength from the Catholic Church.
The MRC's Matt Balan described Monday how HBO's Bill Maher slammed the Pope as "a Nazi." Tuesday's "Early Show" on CBS also provided skepticism about the Pope's visit.
A transcript of the segment, which aired at 7:14am on April 15, follows:
ROBIN ROBERTS: Now to the Pope's visit to America. He'll be arriving in Washington, D.C. later this afternoon. Thousands expected to greet him at the White House. Quite an opportunity for the Pope to introduce himself to an American audience. Chris has been following the story for us.
CHRIS CUOMO: Benedict XVI has been pontiff for three years but for many Americans he's still best known for the Pope who followed John Paul II.
FATHER JOHN WAUK (Pontifical University of the Holy Cross): I think that American opinion is still undecided about the Pope. The jury is still out.
CUOMO: His predecessor was something of a rock star among Catholics who managed to chip away at the iron curtain and win over the hearts of Catholic youth with his very public warmth. Benedict is a decidedly different pope. As Cardinal John Ratzinger, he served John Paul as defender the faith, a hard-liner charged with protecting Catholic orthodoxy. His passions, books cats, Mozart. Interestingly, he didn't take his cat to live with him in the Vatican but he did bring his piano.
WAUK: But what people say, they came to see John Paul II, and come to hear Benedict XVI.
CUOMO: Born in Germany, Benedict's seminary studies were interrupted by World War II when, reluctantly, he says, he became a member of the Hitler youth and the Nazi army, before being taken as an American prisoner of war. Here in the U.S., Benedict is perhaps remembered as the cardinal in charge of dealing with the church sex abuse scandal, who seemed at times defending the priests accused of wrongdoing.
(file footage)
JOSEPH RATZINGER: Always the temptation of human beings are present also for the priest. Always we have to accept it.
CUOMO: And controversy has followed Benedict in his role as pope. In 2006, the Pope set off a fire storm after making a speech in which he quoted a description of 14th century Islam as evil. He later apologized. But coming to the U.S. may present the biggest challenge yet for Pope Benedict. His goal, to unite a splintered American Catholic Church, striking a balance between placating conservative followers and giving hope to liberals who seek social reform.
FATHER KEITH PECKLERS (Pontifical Liturgical Institute): The American church is extremely important to this pope, and I think his trip to the United States will win people over.
CUOMO: It's interesting to hear "will win people over." It's not believed that the Pope is coming here to charm anyone. You know, it's interesting, for all of the talk about scandal here, the American church, the Catholic Church is actually growing. So, they see this as an opportunity for the Pope to come here and reinforce hard-line doctrine.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Unbelievable ...
April 15, 2008 - 13:49 ET by Dave PierrePardon the blunt words, but I'm astounded at the ignorance of the coverage by the MSM so far. MSMers like Cuomo are acting like buffoons.
"Hard-line"?? What does that mean? Like every Pope before him, the man is simply adhering to and preaching what the Church has always taught. Why are journalists like Cuomo so thick that they don't understand this?
+_+_+_+_+
Frankenlies.com: The truth about the lies of Al Franken
Definition of
April 15, 2008 - 17:20 ET by motherbeltDefinition of "hard-liner"...a Pontiff who will not dilute Catholic teaching at the insistence of liberals.
<sarc>
Chris Cuomo: another one like Mika B who, if he had a different last name, would be waiting tables in the network cafeteria.
Notice how the skeptical
April 16, 2008 - 08:08 ET by motherbeltNotice how the tone is set immediately:
Benedict's seminary studies were interrupted by World War II when,
reluctantly, he says, he became a member of the Hitler youth and the
Nazi army...
"he says".....I'm surprised he didn't use the phrase "he claims."
What does anyone expect when the commentary starts out like that?
The Pope & the illegal immigration issue!
April 15, 2008 - 14:25 ET by BrittanicusThere should be no discussion by the Pope regarding illegal immigration, nor should there be any compromise. The church should not intervene in any politics whatsoever other than issues of faith. Whoever crossed our national border without the permission of THE PEOPLE, must be deported. They can also return to their country of origin and then apply like any honest person who patiently waits in line.
Today! Now! YOU! Must decide the future of America? There will be absolute no chance to stop an Amnesty of immense proportions, once the new President takes office. None of the new presidential candidates can be trusted, thats why we must this new Federal law. NOW! The globalist open-border, free market ideal agenda is the free movement of cheap foreign labor, throughout the North American Continent.
Neither political parties can be trusted when it comes to the illegal immigration occupation of our country. More states are trying to enact strict laws for enforcement against predator employers. However, THE SAVE ACT has the teeth and packs the punch, to halt this pestilence overwhelming our wilting economy. Very few Senators and Representatives have THE PEOPLE' S best interest in mind. The Democratic hierarchy have specifically been pandering to special interest groups, and very few have offered to co-author THE FEDERAL SAVE ACT.
A Mr. Rubenstein, a former director of research at the Hudson Institute, a nonpartisan policy research organization, said U.S. taxpayers paid more than $9,000 for each immigrant in the country, a third of whom are believed to be in the U.S. illegally.
In addition, more than 37 million immigrants in the United States, both legal and illegal, cost the federal government more than $346 billion last year, twice as much as the nation's fiscal deficit, according to a report released yesterday. The loss estimates, the report said, included $100 billion in federal taxes lost "from the reduction of native incomes caused by immigrant workers." He also stated that even programs that are not usually associated with immigration, he said, have actually added financial burdens to the taxpayers.
More than 10 million immigrants have arrived since year 2000; it is estimated that nearly 6 million are illegal. All told, the group of immigrants now account for 38 million at the moment according to the White House's own census bureau.
America cannot afford to enact another AMNESTY? The ramifications are unthinkable on each states economy? Taxpayers will have to support even more illegal immigrants as the word gets out and millions more will pour into our nation. You must read the suppressed evidence of the consequences of the illegal immigrant occupation. Not found in the national press you can find the truth at these sites. NUMBERSUSA! LIBERTY POST! AMERICAN PATROL!
Keep calling your Democratic Congressmen today to co-author THE SAVE ACT! Toll free numbers include 18778516437 and 18662200044, or call toll 12022243121 AND REGISTER YOUR OUTRAGE at ongoing efforts to keep our country from enforcing its immigration laws!
Please copy and paste or otherwise freely distribute this information.
YOU CAN PETITION TO DEMAND COMPLETE THE BORDER FENCE HERE http://www.grassfire.net
Love your comment!
April 15, 2008 - 17:38 ET by SyriusBrittney,
Your comment-
"The Church should not intervene in any politics whatsoever other than issues of faith."
I totally agree.
How about everyone else?
Or should we only cherry pick the politcal issues we want the Church & its followers to support?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Authority and influence
April 15, 2008 - 19:14 ET by KC MulvilleThe church should not intervene in any politics whatsoever other than issues of faith. I can live with that. In fact, the Catholic church has agreed to that a long time ago.
There's a big difference between authority and influence. The bishops have legitimate authority, when it comes to faith and morals. (Yes, among Catholics.) They have no authority over other issues. If a bishop tells you that the designated hitter rule should be overturned, you can happily give him a raspberry without fear of being excommunicated. They know that, better than anyone. But that doesn't mean they can't persuade fellow citizens on public affairs. It's just that they have no authority on other issues. At that point, they have as much say as any other citizen.
They have no more say than anyone else, but no less.
Scalia...
April 15, 2008 - 19:21 ET by SyriusKC,
Scalia is a Catholic. He opposes abortion. He supports the death penalty. He even supports torture in some cases. Should he be excommunicated by the Church? Doesn't the Church involve itself in these issues?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Syrius...
April 15, 2008 - 21:51 ET by ncstevemThe Catholic Church has always taught that the state has the right to perform capital punishment as a means to protect its' citizens.
The previous pope spoke out strongly against it but that was his opinion. He never declared that the state could not enact the death penalty because as pope, he didn't have the power to change the Church's teaching.
Great question!
April 15, 2008 - 23:37 ET by KC MulvilleYou raise the other, less-discussed side of the church/state relationship. Everyone knows that the church can't interfere in the state, but we need to discuss whether the state can conflict with one's religion. We know that a bishop has no authority in the state, but we should also consider whether being a citizen in a pluralistic democracy conflicts with one's religion. I don't think it does, at least, if you do it properly.
No, I don't think Scalia should be excommunicated. Quite the contrary, I think Scalia plays the same role as Thomas More. He's a Catholic public official, and his job puts him squarely in the middle of the church/state relationship.
These are important distinctions. Scalia, in my opinion, makes them very well. Others don't make them so well.
Constituent representation and ...
April 16, 2008 - 09:48 ET by SyriusKC,
...your own conscience as an elected official becomes a compromise of sorts.
"The most obvious place to discuss this is with Catholic public
officials. Shouldn't all Catholic politicians just vote "Catholic?"
It's not that simple. The exercise of public office isn't the same as
making a personal moral decision. If you're a senator, you have a
responsibility to reflect and represent your constituents. You can't
mindlessly blow off non-Catholic public opinion and vote according to
your religion. That would be an abuse of your responsibility to represent all your constituents."
Some would solely represent their constituents wishes (the ones who voted for him) while others may feel its their duty to vote their conscience since the constituents voted them into office as a person who has the intellect and leadership to choose the best path. Most districts, states or the country for that matter have opposing views to a certain issue, the elected official must decide which is the correct path and still keep the voters satisfied with a compromise. Agreed?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Edmund Burke, call home
April 16, 2008 - 11:36 ET by KC MulvilleNote: Syrius, I think you’re a pretty smart person. If you were drawing me into an intellectual trap, this is precisely the way you’d do it. So, I’m a little cautious here. However, this is all part of the adventure of conversation. I don’t mind a little adventure now and then …
I’m not sure it’s an either-or thing. A modern politician has to do the best he can to maximize both. He has to represent his constituents, as well as bring his own convictions.
Remember, however, this is in the context of American church/state relations. I honestly don’t think that there’s anything in the constitution that conflicts with my Catholic values. The real problem is with some of the interpretations of the Supreme Court, especially about privacy and family life. Those directly conflict with my values. But I believe that those conflicts arose because the Supreme Court misinterpreted the constitution, not because they represented genuine American values.
So when it comes to being Catholic versus being American, I see no conflict.
No trap, KC.
April 16, 2008 - 12:52 ET by SyriusKC,
I agree with your points. It's all about balance and being able to understand the compromises. This conflict between the two parties has divided the country and needs to be mended by the people. We all live here and enjoy the life we have. I'd like to see more communication and compromise to make this country better. That's it. Simple, yet complex.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Hard-Line
April 15, 2008 - 14:29 ET by RexRuthlessThe hard line was not always what was taught. Read Vicars of Christ by deRosa, an ex-Jesuit.
Wasn't this pope picked in record time because John Paul II was a hard-liner who made sure that all new cardinals followed his and Ratzinger's line, a line of thought in contradiction to John, the XXIII?
Benedict, when he was head of the old Office of the Inquisition, renamed, of course, was the one who censured a leading theologian at Georgetown U for teaching, what IS church doctrine. The prof taught that Catholics were allowed to dissent from the birth control doctrine because it was not ex cathedra doctrine, but that Catholics were not allowed to disobey it, something manifestly true.
For this, Cardinal Ratzinger took away the theologian's official title, and, on this point, Ratzinger (the present-day pope) was wrong, and the theologian was right.
Gee, where does it say that Catholics can't get divorces? In the Bible? And, why, then, did the popes regularly give divorces to, say, Jews who lived in the Papal States if they were going to marry Catholics? Or members of the Kennedy clan who got "annullments"?
So Cuome got closer to the truth than anyone who disagrees.
Rex you might not
April 15, 2008 - 15:28 ET by Dan The Man 2Rex you might not understand what teh benchmark is and what may happen in teh world. To keep true to the Bible divorces are frowned upon and generally despised. The Bible is the standard and the CC holds it up as the standard. Personally I am part of the SBC believe the CC has strayed many times but that is here nor there.
The point is if we do not keep the standard and hold it up for all to follow then we become more secular which is what Cummo wants. A few years back teh SBC had to hold the Bible up as teh standard and teh more liberal memebers left as a result. But we are beholden to our theology and doctrines of teh SBC.
The SBC is better for it and we were also criticized for such conservative moves to protect our beliefs.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Damn those ex-Jesuits
April 15, 2008 - 15:40 ET by KC MulvilleI wouldn’t always trust someone just because he’s an ex-Jesuit. They’re pretty shifty fellows. (psst – I’m an ex-Jesuit myself)
I seriously object to the idea that JPII and Ben16 are on a “different line” than John 23rd. John 23rd was a wonderful pope, and he threw open the doors to the modern age, but if you’ll recall, JPII and Ratzinger were two of the chief leaders in the reform movement during Vatican II. Back then, they were the radicals. However, they were horrified by the side issues that Vatican II unleashed. When they updated the church’s attitude toward sex and marriage, for instance, they were frustrated because others took the “update” too far, and ran off with abandon. Their “crackdown” was a call to remain faithful, not to simply go wild.
The Jewish question goes back to an ancient rule in the church, called the Pauline privilege. Basically, when the early church first started, they ran into a problem. Husbands (or more often, wives) would convert to Christianity, against the wishes of their spouses. And remember, for the first 300 years of the church, Christianity was illegal. They were afraid that the aggrieved spouse would “rat” on the believer, and tell the authorities where the Christians were meeting, so the whole community would get arrested. The early church then decided that to protect the communities, they gave an exemption to believers who had non-Christian spouses – under very limited circumstances. Since the overwhelming majority of Christian converts came among the Jews, the non-believing spouses were usually Jews. That’s why, to this day, Jewish-Catholic marriages are among the easiest to dissolve. It isn’t because of bigotry; it’s really more due to history.
The Kennedy annulments? Yeah. You got me here. I don’t like them at all, but it’s not my call. Let me say, however, that they had almost nothing to do with the pope. The pope didn’t personally approve them. That was our old, dear friend, Bernard Law.
Thanks again KC.
April 15, 2008 - 17:36 ET by tracheostomy*taking notes*
Great stuff here.
Why is it called the "Pauline privilege"?
EDIT: Nevermind. Found it.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Marriage? Did someone say Marriage?
April 15, 2008 - 18:28 ET by SyriusTrach,
Christian fathers were opposed to the institution of marriage. You should dig a little deeper...
St. Augustine flatly stated that marriage was a sin. St. Paul damned marriage with faint praise, remarking that to marry was only better than to burn (1 Corinthians 7:9); but later followers of Pauline Christianity damned marriage altogether, according to the word of Jesus: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26) Jesus renounced his family, declaring that he had no relatives except the faithful.(Mark 3:31-35) St. Jerome interpreted this as a mandate to destroy marriage and the family. He was disgusted by motherhood: "the tumefaction of the uterus, the care of yelling infants, all those fond feelings which death at lasts cuts short." He said every man that loves his wife passionately was guilty of adultery. St. Augustine expressed disgust at feminine sexual and maternal
functions. He coined the saying that birth is demonstrably accursed
because every child emerges "between feces and urine."
Let's face facts there was no Christian sacrament of marriage until the 16th century. Catholic scholars say the wedding ceremony was "imposed on" a reluctant church, and "nothing is more remarkable than the tardiness with which liturgical forms for the marriage ceremony were evolved." It is perhaps not remarkable to find that these liturgical forms were not evolved by the church at all, but borrowed from pagans' common law.
For many centuries, marriage existed in limbo without a deity to solemnize it, having no place in canon law, which is why marriage remained so long under the jurisdiction of common law.
The Council of Trent decreed a person who even hinted that the state of matrimony might be more blessed than celibacy would be declared anathema - accursed and excommunicated. The earliest form of Christian marriage was a simple blessing outside of the Church's closed doors, so to keep the pollution of lust out of God's house. By 1215, it was granted legal status. Still, the Church maintained there were no marriages in heaven, according to Christ's statement in the scriptures (Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35). We might want to tell the Mormons! St. Thomas Aquinas assigned a "goodness value" of 30 to marriage, as compared with 60 for widowhood, and 100 for lifelong virginity.
Wait, wait, there's more...as for now, I'll allow you to digest it...
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
PJ? Oh, PJ!
April 15, 2008 - 19:42 ET by SyriusPJ,
Comments?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Sy: PJ, Comments?
April 15, 2008 - 19:52 ET by tracheostomySy: PJ, Comments?
Hehe. Nope. Ah, was I supposed to make any?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Syrius, I'm not going to
April 15, 2008 - 20:07 ET by motherbeltSyrius, I'm not going to get into every example you gave but I will just say this: The Catholic Church is not bound by every word that ever came out of someone's mouth, just because that person was later declared a saint.
Yummy!
April 15, 2008 - 20:13 ET by SyriusMB,
I'm going to enjoy this with some Chianti and Fava beans!
PJ, comments?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
See below. Still trying
April 15, 2008 - 20:16 ET by tracheostomySee below. Still trying to understand why you're enjoying this so much. Feast away.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Motherbelt: Syrius, I'm
April 15, 2008 - 20:17 ET by tracheostomyMotherbelt: Syrius, I'm not going to get into every example you gave but I will just say this: Every word and opinion that comes out of someone's mouth, just because he is later proclaimed a saint, is not infallible.
I'll agree with that. This is why whenever I make comments about this or that church issue, I (mostly prefer to) concentrate on soteriology only.
To me, marriage is a peripheral issue that can be freely discussed, and I really don't have a hard-line on it either way. . .at least not yet.
I'm still looking at all the input submitted. So far, the only thing I've ever heard a Catholic assert on this issue was (paraphrased), "The only reason Luther started the Reformation was because it was all about sex."
Therefore, the information that KC has provided is most welcome. I haven't come to a conclusion on it yet, but it's far more reasonable and far more sane that what I've been getting as of late.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Syrius seems to think that,
April 15, 2008 - 22:59 ET by motherbeltSyrius seems to think that everything saints have said over the years, about marriage or other issues, should now be the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Might be a little tricky if any of them had differing opinions....
But on the other hand, I don't think he believes even half of what he spews. He just does it to be contrary and create controversy.
MB: But on the other
April 15, 2008 - 23:15 ET by tracheostomyMB: But on the other hand, I don't think he believes even half of what he spews. He just does it to be contrary and create controversy.
He claims he's trying to "enlighten" us and "raise awareness" and all. So when we tag along for the ride for a bit, and after awhile happen to ask where he's taking us, all you end up with is silence or a lot of static.
As to the subject about RCC authority/infallibility, I'm feeling like that one little kid in the schoolyard and the bigger kids are playing "keep away" with me.
PJ (chasing Catholic): Doctrinal infallibility?
:toss:
PJ: Agh! Papal infallibility?
:toss: (mocking laughter)
PJ: "pant-pant" Ex-Cathedra?
:toss:
PJ: Wha? Who's got the final say on a doctrinal change and when? Who's holding the ball?
*surrounded by a dozen Catholics in the schoolyard with hands behind their backs and smiling*
I don't like this game anymore.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
For you it is better to
April 15, 2008 - 23:17 ET by Dan The Man 2For you it is better to understand than burn in Hell. You have no idea of what was said or why or what it meant. You sir are ignorant. Paul said it was better to marry than not to if you are going to sin. He basically said if you cannot keep your hands off then get married and get a room. Your other "quotes" are worse so Ill let this one be a spanking for all.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Christian marriage
April 16, 2008 - 00:12 ET by KC MulvilleThe original generation of Christians believed that Jesus was going to return - immediately. They just took it for granted that Jesus was going to come today, maybe tomorrow, next week at the latest. (Of course, with my luck, he'll appear tomorrow, just to spite me. If that happens, sorry guys.)
And why didn't the church have more ceremony about marriage? Think about it. All of the other sacraments were brand new. Even baptism had only been a recent innovation in Jesus' time. But marriage has been around since the dawn of humans. There were already plenty of marriage laws and restrictions and taboos associated with marriage. Why would the church "invent" marriage when it was so common already? The Romans already had plenty of laws about marriage, and believe me, the Romans weren't going to tolerate the Christians having their own ideas about marriage. All the church had to do was admit it was a sacrament. But since there was no way the church was going to trump Roman laws anyway, what was the rush?
Yeah, we should have been quicker.
KC: "The original
April 16, 2008 - 00:42 ET by tracheostomyKC: "The original generation of Christians believed that Jesus was going to return - immediately."
Yeah. And Christians were starting to slack off (since it's all over soon anyway, why work?). Thus, Paul had to deal with this issue by writing 1 Thessalonians; chapter 5 in particular.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Exactly
April 16, 2008 - 01:22 ET by KC MulvilleThese were real people, some heroic and some sinful, but most of them were just like most of us. They had their beliefs, but they were just trying to get through the day, you know? They did what humans do. And remember, Christianity was illegal for nearly three hundred years. That's longer than the United States has been in existence. Think about that. Then, maybe some of the early church's goofy-ness might make more sense. All things considered, the early Christians weren't so bad. They were just human.
Uh-uh ...
April 15, 2008 - 16:21 ET by Dave Pierre1. "Wasn't this pope picked in record time...?"
I doubt it. He was selected on the fourth round of ballots.
2. "a line of thought in contradiction to John, the XXIII"
How about naming one of these so-called contradictions? I doubt there's any.
3. "Pope ... divorces to Jews"
The Catholic Church does not recognize non-Catholic weddings as sacramental (though they may be valid). However, the Church looks at individual circumstances; they do not wish to deny someone who desires to live in full communion with the Church.
4. "members of the Kennedy clan who got 'annullments'"
I agree with you on that, but the popes had nothing to do with that. That would have been handled locally.
5. "I was raised Catholic ..."
Then if you were born anytime after 1955, you probably don't know much of anything. My catechesis was horribly weak growing up. It was only as an adult that I really began to learn, study, and get to know my faith.
6. "[I] lived over a decade in Italy."
Ciao.
Rex, you're wrong...
April 15, 2008 - 17:10 ET by ncstevembecause the Church's teaching against artificial birth control is in fact an infallible teaching. Ever heard of Humane Vitae?
Guess you didn't learn much about the Church during all those years in Italy.
ncsteven, I think you're mistaken
April 15, 2008 - 20:33 ET by Cool ArrowEncyclicals are not "ex cathedra".
♣ a seal
Cool...
April 15, 2008 - 21:44 ET by ncstevemit's not necessary for an infallible teaching of the Church to be declared 'ex cathedra'.
I generally don't like Wikipedia, but here's a good explanation of the topic of the Infallibility of the Catholic Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church
steven
April 15, 2008 - 23:09 ET by Cool ArrowThere is still debate as to whether the issue of artificial birth control is infallibly settled.
All that is written in encyclicals is not necessarily infallible, though I'm fine with it being declared so.
♣ a seal
That wiki link above takes
April 15, 2008 - 23:21 ET by tracheostomyThat wiki link above takes me around and around all over the place. I followed the link to papal infallibility, and then to the magisterium. There, I found the dispute page, and. . .
"I've corrected the erroneous claim that the ordinary teachings of the magisterium are infallible. This is a common point of confusion. The ordinary and universal magisterium, despite the name, is not actually a part of the non-infallible ordinary magisterium; it is a part of the infallible sacred magisterium."
Why do I get the feeling that I'm being rolled? Maybe because I am? But I cannot conclude that without being accused of being "anti-Catholic" or a "hater."
Therefore, I'll keep holding out for anyone to explain it for me better than the wiki link. It just goes from one vague assertion to the next; settling nothing.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Thanks, Trake
April 16, 2008 - 00:29 ET by Cool ArrowI tried for 30 minutes to follow the Wiki logic and didn't come up with anything definite other than what is spoken "from the throne".
If this birth control thing is all so settled, I can think of one way the Church could clear up all the questions. I don't think this issue has been ruled upon under the endorsement of infallibility.
♣ a seal
CA: I tried for 30 minutes
April 16, 2008 - 00:35 ET by tracheostomyCA: I tried for 30 minutes to follow the Wiki logic and didn't come up with anything definite other than what is spoken "from the throne".
And not necessarily a literal chair either, just to keep you on your toes. =)
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
No stone unthrone
April 16, 2008 - 00:50 ET by Cool ArrowAfter last night I came to the conclusion it's better to be inquisitive than combative on matters dogmatic.
I don't believe in Papal infallibility, but others have every right to embrace it if they wish.
I'm Not Catholic
April 15, 2008 - 14:59 ET by deerjerkydaveI'm not Catholic but I think I like this Pope. He takes traditional positions: he's pro life, he's pro traditional marriage, he's pro family. I guess according to ABC this makes him a hard liner.
So if someone is pro-abortion and pro gay marriage does that make them a hard liner to the left? Not according to ABC. To them a hard liner to the left would be a communist. Even still, leftist dictators get a boat load of sympathy from ABC. Castro anyone?
So You're Not Catholic
April 15, 2008 - 15:09 ET by RexRuthlessAnd that might mean that your positions as a Protestant were the very ones that many Catholics would like the pope to adopt, such as divorce and the use of birth control.
Liking this pope because he inflames liberals is not an informed response. "Liberal" in the Catholic realm is quite right of center.
Or do you disagree with Martin Luther?
How Conservative?
April 15, 2008 - 15:17 ET by RexRuthlessJust how conservative is a pope that thinks we have too much money and who thinks we should accept all the illegals who show up and who opposed the Iraq war?
Get the pope off the pedestal, Conservatives.
Rex the CC members are
April 15, 2008 - 15:32 ET by Dan The Man 2Rex the CC members are Christians and as such hold dear Christian ideals. Well at least part of teh CC are Christians and teh Pope certianly is a Christian. His doctrine may differ slightly and theology even less but the core beliefs are pretty much teh same.
From your comments I take it you are not Christian?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
A Lapsed Catholic Who Lived In Italy Speaks
April 15, 2008 - 15:48 ET by RexRuthlessFrom my comments you should understand that I was raised Catholic and lived over a decade in Italy, and I have studied the history of the Church rather well.
What I take from many of the comments here is that you all resemble the libs in that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
So, you like the pope, but you won't convert to Catholicism and you won't agree with him about Martin Luther or whoever your Protestant founder was, but, you will insist that I got this wrong.
I grant that you may have
April 15, 2008 - 16:10 ET by Dan The Man 2I grant that you may have been raised by Catholic parents but that does not mean you are Christian. Do you happen to know the Bible's definition of being a Christian? I say teh Pope is protecting the religion as the CC wants it to be. The Pope as I see it controls what the CC is and if you dont like it tough.
The Pope is not my enemy, he stands for many of the ideals I do.
I say again you don't know or understand teh Bible and in your latest post would peg you as atheist and a hostile one at that. Especially since you did not mention being a Christian or in the CC, just having studied the CC and being raised by Catholics.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
bless you Dan the Man
April 15, 2008 - 18:16 ET by bulbasaurI agree with you 100%.
This Pope is indeed a good man. I'm an observant Catholic and I am delighted we have this learned and courageous man speaking for us.
And yes, there are Christians and non-Christians in every Church. I believe this Pope is a real Christian.
We are asking what you are
April 15, 2008 - 18:14 ET by bulbasaurI am an observant Catholic.
Everyone else is freely revealing their religious committment.
You seem unwilling to state yours clearly and unambiguously, yet you continue to make inflammatory statements.
Please, tell us all clearly what your religious affiliation is so that we can assess your motivations. You said you were "raised Catholic." That sounds like a dodge. What are you NOW?
I like this pope
April 15, 2008 - 20:35 ET by Cool ArrowHe was saying the right things even before he got off the plane today.
♣ a seal
Oh, I don't see the problem Scott..
April 15, 2008 - 15:52 ET by Gary HallOh, I don't see the problem Scott.. I'm sure that if Chris Cuomo was talking about Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, he'd introduce him in much the same manner:
And I'm quite sure that if Cuomo was introducing Bill Clinton it would go like this:
And finally, if Cuomo was introducing former VP Al Gore to express his views on rendition and torture, surely he would say:
See, Chris Cuomo treats all of his guests with fairness. (;~/ gary
Libs are afraid of the Pope
April 15, 2008 - 15:57 ET by QueenMumLibs are afraid of the Pope because he's "different". You know - that xenophobe thing? How ironic.
I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.
Why Don't You Convert?
April 15, 2008 - 16:13 ET by RexRuthlessCuomo probably went to Catholic school and knows more about the pope that what I see you non-Catholics demonstrating.
Just because he is a lib, doesn't mean he is wrong about everything.
Let's ask this pope if he thinks that other pope was right when he said, "Freedom of Religion in Protestant countries. No Freedom of Religion in Catholic countries."
So, you like the pope, but you won't convert to Catholicism and you
won't agree with him about Martin Luther or whoever your Protestant
founder was, but, you will insist that I got this wrong.
You got this almost right
April 15, 2008 - 16:37 ET by Dan The Man 2You got this almost right "Just because he is a lib, doesn't mean he is wrong about everything"; he is wrong about most of the important stuff. And you still don't get it, the Pope is arbitor of all things Catholic and if you dont like it then leave. I respect the Pope's authority when it comes to his doctrine and theology even though I disagree with it.
Apparently you have deep rooted fears and resentment for the CC. Get over it.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
The Pope will not change
April 15, 2008 - 17:58 ET by mjgThe Pope will not change what the Catholic church has been for over 2000 years. It's part of the dogma.
Rex,
April 15, 2008 - 16:43 ET by tracheostomyRex: Cuomo probably went to Catholic school and knows more about the pope that what I see you non-Catholics demonstrating.
1. I really want to see exactly what it is that "non-Catholics [are] demonstrating". I don't want to be wrong on the facts. Please tell me.
2. Is it totally necessary for me to go to Catholic school to do this, or is there a chart online I can read somewhere that illustrates, "Popular fallacies about the pope." Because I'd like to actually consult it avoid them whenever possible.
Rex: So, you like the pope, but you won't convert to Catholicism and you
won't agree with him about Martin Luther or whoever your Protestant
founder was, but, you will insist that I got this wrong.
Just as you say I don't understand the Pope, I see you don't understand Protestantism either. It was founded on a set of beliefs that actually pre-date Luther. Martin Luther was not actually the "founder" per se, but more the agitator.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Poor Cuomo Family
April 16, 2008 - 00:33 ET by Ole_SargeDenied the Eucharist because they are not practicing their Catholic Faith. Maybe some of these folks DO have a bone to pick BECAUSE they were raised in the faith and KNOW they are going against that faith and figure the "next life" doesn't matter much right now.
The Cafeteria is closed!
I'd say,
April 16, 2008 - 02:30 ET by gfrrmanthat it was a blessing that the Pope "became an American prisoner of war". Consider the alternatives. And, those that didn't "reluctantly become members of the Nazi Youth or Army" didn't pan out so well, huh? Wonder what 'ole Chrissy Cuomo would have done? The Pope IS alive today.....selah!!
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER