Tuesday, April 12, 2005

A false view..

By: Ed

Read Michael's post first.

Perhaps it is my fault for not being able to completely articulate the meaning behind Church teaching, but I feel as though I have answered these questions and my conclusions were far different from the post below.

Let me first explain that the Church does place high value on tradition, but that tradition is based on scripture. The idea that tradition is followed "with no reference to rationale" is simply ludicrous. If our values and beliefs were contrary to life (assuming the continuation of life and society can be attained by reasonable lifestyles) than the Church wouldn't have lasted so long. We would have followed the path of pagan religions into near obliteration. I say near because some old relics still continue. The truth is that our beliefs based on scripture are a mixture of faith and reason. The faith part is necessary because we do not always understand God's plan, but we do know what He asks of us and we continue as such.
Relatively sinless west?
I will be one of the first to defend this nation as great because of its freedom and many past works (though we have made mistakes), but to say our people as a whole are reatively sinless and enlightened is extremely arrogant. The vast majority of people hold on to their beliefs because its "their team"; not due to some enlightened view of the world. They fell into a group that accepted them and, again, that is "their team" now. Granted, some hold to enlightened views for unselfish reasons, but certainly not a majority or even a great deal of people.
False Analogy
The previous post stated "Is the ideal in the Catholic Church to refuse food to the starving, because the fed are picking and choosing which parts of the doctrine to follow?" Michael, I have quite a bit of respect for you, but this is without a doubt the most ignorant thing you have ever said.
How could you compare denying condoms to denying food? First, the Church considers contraceptives used during sex a sin. It doesn't say owning a condom is a sin (going back to our "you can use condoms for other things" debate). Eating isn't a sin when it is to keep you alive.
Lets take each example now in turn, as I find them so incredibly hateful and ignorant that they each require personal attention.
"If China were giving all the rice to the richest 5%, would the Catholic Church simply tell them to stop that and hope it will happen?"
Tell me what the Church IS to do in this situation. You seem to forget that the Church does not have an army (especially not to fight China). The Church can only preach what God has told us. I would say though, that if people are starving because someone is taking their food that it is probably a just war if they rebelled. War is not a sin when the motives are pure.
"Yet, the Catholic Church decides that it cannot offer aid, or allow some minor sin to better fight a worse"
How can we offer aid other than the countless missionaries we have sent with food to help those people and teach them? You can only explain that the frying pan burns so often and then its up to them to not touch it. Education is the key to helping them. I am also shocked that you would think allowing a sin to prevent another is just. That is how everything breaks down. It used to be that the majority of people were with the Church in not using contraception. Indeed, the majority of laws banning contraceptives were created by protestants. Then some groups said that extreme circumstances warranted contraceptive use. Then it became "if your not ready use contraceptives". Now all protestants and many Catholics think it is perfectly ok to use them. Sin should never be allowed or considered ok for any reason. All sin is an offense to God.
No, I believe the devil steps through when, because of Earthly desires, we allow sin to be justified. That is when satan laughs at us because we valued our bodies over our souls and God's Word. If the blood of innocents is on our hands than the fate of their souls is on yours.
The Papacy and women priests
I find your lack of knowledge about the bible quite disconcerting. I also don't see how you can make accurate judgments about scripture without knowing much about it. There were many educated women as well as men when Christ came to Earth. Secondly, the fact that you would assume anything about God's choice of disciples was coincidence is a plain affront to His devine nature.
Remember, God chose His own culture, time period, and Priests. To say His decisions were nothing but a product of His culture is to insult Him. First, because it means God couldn't go against peer pressure from His own creation, secondly because it means He was too stupid to choose our own (as you think) "more enlightened" culture to make it easier to ordain women Priests.
Going back to the idea of education, many Apostles were simple workers; fishermen. The only thing they were educated in was scripture because they were Jewish. This education was the same for females as they too were Jewish. Jesus chose men to be Priests. He didn't do it because of His culture. He already departed from His culture so much anyway that if He chose to ordain women, it wouldn't be much more of a problem. Does this mean Priests (and thus men) are higher than women? No. A Priest is simply a different path, as a nun is or a married couple.
I don't know where you get your ideas Michael, but they aren't what the Church teaches. We do not teach that the Pope is always infallible. He makes mistakes like any of us. It is true that a pope has only used papal infallibility twice and for good reason. The issues in question were splitting the Church apart because the pope had not given a deffinitive statement about it. The Pope finally, after much prayer and thought, give his statement and added that it was infallible so that people would stop fighting about it. It was the equivalent of a mother or father putting their foot down. The Pope is a man just like us and there have been bad Popes. Articles of faith always come out unscathed though.
The church is a pilgrim in a foreign land. This is not our world because our Lord is not of this world. When the Church changes to suit popular opinion the end is near; not for the Church, but for the world and those who say they are in the Church, but are really of the world.