Pope orders NJ laws to Conform to his Decrees

[smoothmoniker]

Any group has a right to define its own membership, particularly where membership in the group has certain essential tenets, a sine qua non of personal belief.

The Catholic Church is defined by certain beliefs, one of which is that the edicts of the Pope, when confirmed by the College of Cardinals, are the words of God. You may, and I do, disagree with the pronouncements of the Pope, but you may not do so and call yourself a Catholic. You have violated one of the essential, defining tenets.

It would be like joining the NAACP, and saying, “I want to be a member of your group, but I’m not really in favor of any of that civil rights crap. We should go back to separate drinking fountains and the 3/5 compromise.” In what sense am I a member of the group? I’m opposed to their defining purpose.

Kerry may consider himself a member of the Catholic Church, but his personal beliefs are contrary to those of the group that he professes to belong to. In what sense is he then a member? Why not just call a spade a spade and renounce his membership?

-sm

[OnyxCougar]

OK, but I look at it this way.

If a candidate gets elected on an "I'm a devout catholic" platform, and therefore asserts he is anti-abortion, anti-stemcell, etc, then they should stick with it.

If he is holding to the principles on his platform when he ran, then that's a different story, and should have been addressed then.

As far as Kerry, well, **if** he's a Catholic, he should be against those 3 things, or he is a hypocrite. He's just garnering votes.

I know, no suprise there.

You either stand up for what you believe in or you don't.

[Slartibartfast]

QUOTE]Originally posted by wolf


Actually, it isn't different. The Vatican City is a sovreign nation
[/quote]

And as american citizens, Catholics here are not allied with Vatican City or its leader in any political way whatsoever. The Pope wears two hats, the political and the religious. If the Pope ordered all Catholics in the world to form an army and invade Belgium, its not going to work at all because his word as a religious leader is listened to by Catholics when what he says has to do with religion and nothing else. The same as if he orders all Catholics to root for the Steelers, he can again be ignored because it has nothing to do with religion. He has no say over any of that. Maybe this kind of thing happened back in the Middle Ages, but it is long over.

I guess we should never have a Jewish president because he would be influenced by Israel. Some Buddhists are out because they follow the Dalai Lama, an exiled leader of Tibet. Don't Anglicans believe the King or Queen of England is the head of their church? That would be one more group. And then Catholics too of course.

It seems to me you have to look at the candidates very carefully and see where their loyalties really are. Just looking at their religion won't give you the answer to the question of whether or not they will be loyal exclusively to the people of the United States. If done right, a religious candidate can be true to their religion and yet still maintain American loyalty and representation of the people. I don't think this is easy, but it is possible. I wish I could point one out, but I am sure they exist at lower levels of government office. Kennedy might be an example of a president who falls into this category, but I don't know enough about his term in office to say this with certainty.

____
The spies from the Vatican are out there grabbing scarier shit than the nuclear secrets.
_____

and what might that be?


______
And they've never revealed the third and final prophecy of Fatima, either.
----------

If disseminating that information was significant to saving the souls of people, then they would have released it, or else the church would be going against its own basic stated purpose.

[tw]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
As far as Kerry, well, **if** he's a Catholic, he should be against those 3 things, or he is a hypocrite.

Any American politician that does not ban divorse is a hypocrite? In reality, many Catholics are saying the Pope is fallable - he is wrong - and that little people in the church are better Catholics than the Pope. IOW they say that little people represent the true Catholic Church - not some dictator called the Pope. After all, where in a relationship between a man and a god is the Pope?

These little people say their religious beliefs remains only between themselves and their god. Pope's job is only to facilitate that relationship; a consultant. Once the Pope oversteps those bounds - goes beyond an advisory position- then the Pope is wrong. The Pope is nothing more than a support function; to help good Catholics with their 'god relations'. Solution - let the Catholics elect the Pope either by electing their bishops or by direct elections. Or the Pope should just bite his tongue, stay silent, and therefore become a responsible world citizen.

Bottom line: according to the logic of OnyxCougar, then no Catholic can be permitted to hold an American political office. Catholics that hold political office would suffer a severe conflict of interest between two masters - the American people they work for verses a dictator in Vatican City. If OnyxCougar were correct, then no 'devote' Catholic could take the oath of office - without lying. According to OnyxCougar, all good Catholics could not uphold the Constituion of the United States.

Pope has no business interfering in "what is Ceasar's ...". When this Pope even violates that basic Biblical parable, then will god strike down the Pope? Of course not. Even god is smart enough to let others do as they wish. Even god is not so stupid as to interfere with the operations of a secular government - even the government in Vatican City.

Pope apparently is demented by a personal agenda; which happens when a man is in power for too long.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally posted by tw
No Pope has ever done this.

well clearly that's not so. even a cursory reading of church history shows that this is standard practice, with both secular and "Holy Empire" governments.

-sm

[Slartibartfast]

TW, dude, that's just not how the Roman Catholic Church works by its definition. It is not a democracy. If the people want the kind of change you are saying, they are going to have to jump ship and make their own religion. If they disagree so much then they are in the wrong place.

[tw]

Originally posted by smoothmoniker
well clearly that's not so. even a cursory reading of church history shows that this is standard practice, with both secular and "Holy Empire" governments.

Please cite an example of when "Pope orders Catholics to enforce church doctrine in secular governments at the expense of American liberties." When did the Pope interfere in American secular government activities. Not any other nation. American. Please post specific examples.

[tw]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast
TW, dude, that's just not how the Roman Catholic Church works by its definition. It is not a democracy. If the people want the kind of change you are saying, they are going to have to jump ship and make their own religion. If they disagree so much then they are in the wrong place.

Dude. Read the entire post before replying. Don't sample individual sentences and draw conclusions. If Pope has some secular governmental control of people in other nations, then Pope better damn well be democratically elected. Where, pray tell, did I even say the Pope IS democratically elected?

Please go back and first understand the context of that post. At no time did I say the Pope is democratically elected - stated or implied. Stated is that if THIS Pope wants to change the purpose and definition of the Church, then he better damn well be democratically elected.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast
TW, dude, that's just not how the Roman Catholic Church works by its definition. It is not a democracy. If the people want the kind of change you are saying, they are going to have to jump ship and make their own religion. If they disagree so much then they are in the wrong place.

It was until about 100 years ago when Pius12th IIRC, before he was pope, started writing cannon law. That's when the power of the church was moved from the people to the pope.

[Griff]

um... tw Dude I think you might have misunderstood his point. please continue.

[Slartibartfast]

Originally posted by tw
Dude. Read the entire post before replying. Don't sample individual sentences and draw conclusions. If Pope has some secular governmental control of people in other nations, then Pope better damn well be democratically elected. Where, pray tell, did I even say the Pope IS democratically elected?

You spent half your post leading up to saying that the laity of the church should elect bishops and the Pope as a solution to their discontent. I'm just pointing out that that's not going to happen because the church is not a democracy. Did I read you wrong or did you read me wrong?

Edit: added phrase 'and the Pope'

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast
Lapsed would be a better adjective for him to use. Maybe he should find or create a religion he can better believe in.

Or how about "recovering"? :p

[tw]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast
You spent half your post leading up to saying that the laity of the church should elect bishops and the Pope as a solution to their discontent. I'm just pointing out that that's not going to happen because the church is not a democracy. Did I read you wrong or did you read me wrong?

The point was that the church is violating what previous Popes would not have done - try to manipulate the government of the United States. Read the original post and read that newspaper article from NewsDay to appreciate the context of this discussion.

If the church wants to pervert American principles, then we should advocate a democratic election of the Pope with the intent of making that Pope subservient to the American people - the largest source of Church wealth.

Solution - let the Catholics elect the Pope either by electing their bishops or by direct elections. Or the Pope should just bite his tongue, stay silent, and therefore become a responsible world citizen.

Making the Pope democractically elected was how to attack an institution that would pervert the Constitution of the United States. Yes, this Pope is attacking fundamental principles on which the Government of the United States is founded. We are not a Catholic nation. Church doctrine has no place in American laws. To subvert that enemy of America, we should force that Pope to campaign for office - either conform to democracy and American principles; or get out of American's lives where he does not belong.

I consider a Pope trying to enforce his religious concepts on me as a direct attack to my American liberties. This Pope has instructed his ambassadors to attack our political leaders - include NJ governor McGreevey. Other attacks on American politicians by church bishops and Cardinals were also listed in that article.

Nothing would more threaten a dictatorship such as Vatican City then to have its leaders democratically elected. Vatican City and especially this pope fears democracy. But then such fears exist when top management has been it power too long. The pope should have resigned maybe 10 years ago.

[Undertoad]

Some people just can't pull off a "dude".

[Slartibartfast]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
It was until about 100 years ago when Pius12th IIRC, before he was pope, started writing cannon law. That's when the power of the church was moved from the people to the pope.

Are you referring to Vatican I in 1869 under Pius IX? To my knowledge, the Pope was always considered the head of the RCC. Please try to find me the reference you are quoting.

Below are some quotes that support the idea that the Pope is in charge, starting with Peter the Apostle.


St. Augustine of Hippo ("Sermon 131," 4th century A.D.)
"Rome has spoken. The case is closed."



Matthew chapter 16: (18)And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (19) And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.



And please bear with the wordiness of the quote below, I have tried to figure out a way to shorten it, but I finally decided it is better left whole. The last line addresses your point.

St. Thomas Aquinas ("Summa Contra Gentiles" 13th century A.D.)-

"Hence He said to Peter before His Ascension, 'Feed my sheep' (John xxi, 1) and before His Passion, 'Thou in thy turn confirm thy brethren' (Luke xxii, 32); and to him alone He made the promise, 'To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven' (Matt. xvi, 19). Nor can it be said that although He gave this dignity to Peter, it does not pass from Peter to others. For Christ instituted His Church to last to the end of the world, according to the text: 'He shall sit upon the throne of David and in his kingdom, to confirm and strengthen it in justice and judgement from henceforth, now, and for ever' (Isai. ix, 7). Therefore, in constituting His ministers for the time, He intended their power to pass to posterity for the benefit of His Church to the end of the world, as He Himself says: 'Lo, I am with you to the end of the world' (Matt. xxviii, 20). Hereby is cast out the presumptuous error of some, who endeavour to withdraw themselves from obedience and subjection to Peter, not recognising his successor, the Roman Pontiff, for the pastor of the Universal Church." -