Catholicism is a religion. It is not a political party.Actually the best comparison to any political entity is by an anti-type. That is Catholicism can be understood as being what political entities can never be. Protestant churches act as political institutions. It is when I understood that that I realized that they could never give me what I was trying to get from them -transcendent truth. Catholicism is about grace building on nature. Politics is about the clash of human ideas.
I agree. The proper political analogy to Catholicism would be something like "Western Democracies", a political ideology not a political party.
On the other hand the Conservative Bishops like Cardinal Dolan in the United States are a political faction within the church. His battles Carol Keehan about who speaks authoritatively on the matter of Catholic healthcare is a political battle for control.A political faction is precisely what bishops like Cardinal Dolan are not. Bishops teaching in unity with the pope are a gift of God. Carol Keehan is not a bishop and she is not really in unity with the pope in her teachings. Equating the two is losing track of the truth and just looking at the issue as a political debate. We can't do that. God gives us leaders. We need to follow them.
So we don't find something that will please the largest number of people. We pursue the truth of God as revealed by Jesus and clarified by His church.You seem to see some problem here. We look to them for leadership and they give it. Did the bishops actually say traducianism is a part of the deposit of faith or are you putting words in their mouth? You have to be careful there. But yes, they would be the ones to clarify such matters. I have a suspicion that you are trying to impose and either/or on them and they are not accepting that.
The people we are discussing are the vatican authorities and the Bishops. They are the ones doing the "clarifying". They have to make the choices between alternatives. They have to resolve "apparent conflicts" between one aspect of the deposit of faith and another. They are the ones that recently had to decide after centuries that Jesus didn't really reveal the doctrine creation and instead was actually preaching traducianism.
We don't persecute anyone. We believe sex is ordered towards procreation and that sodomy is a distortion of sex. the question is whether or not that is true.Actually it is about truth. The state can and does ignore the church. In fact, the state is abusing its power to try and force the Catholic bishops to change their teachings. It is doing that precisely because the Catholic church is right. If it was wrong nobody would care what it teaches. But the truth of what she says is confirmed by people's consciences. They know it. So they want to stop it with force. All the coercion is by the state against the church.There has been no coercion the other way at all. So you are living in a fantasy world.
No its not. By and large that it is not the question at all, no one cares much what the Catholic church believes is the order of sexuality. The question is the church actively engaging in activities designed to use state pressure to make the lives of gay people worse. Support for expulsion from the military, bans on adoption, bans on teaching, bans on receiving partnership benefits, no protection against employment discrimination, etc... If it were not for churches using state power to coerce people to their religious views, this whole argument would be far far less heated.
Tradition is actually on the side of a truth first, evangelism second approach. Catholics were just not following their own tradition for a time.I think you are misunderstanding here. I was not defining tradition here. I was saying that what the protestants were doing in the 70's is very much in keeping with the totality of Catholic tradition. So when the Catholics started doing it more recently they were becoming more Catholic. Sure they were looking more like evangelicals too. That is not that important.
That's an arbitrary definition of tradition. It turns tradition into whatever you want it to be. I'm going to use an objective definition: whatever Catholics were doing is the Catholic tradition.
The definition "whatever Catholics were doing is the Catholic tradition" is a bit problematic. Catholics can fall into sin. That does not make that sin part of Catholic tradition. There is often a distinction made between tradition and Tradition. I don't like that because capitalization does not really work for me to make a word different. But there is sacred tradition. That is historical Catholic teaching weighted by authority. The teaching of the council get greatest weight. Then authoritative pronouncements by popes. then doctors, saints, bishops, etc. But then individual teachings are weighed by how long and how strong the church has believed them. Something that has been reiterated by many popes over many generations would be stronger than something taught by one pope in a less authoritative manner and not really brought up again. We do have the notion of infallibility but that is really just the highest peak of this hierarchy.
So saying "whatever Catholics were doing is the Catholic tradition" ends up putting Hans Kung in the same category as Cardinal Ratzinger. Both did what they did as Catholics. Both were celebrated by some Catholics and ridiculed by others. But one was endorsed by the magisterium and one was criticized by the magisterium. So even though both strands of thought were part of Catholicism one is part of Catholic tradition and one is not. It becomes even clearer as time goes on. Who get canonized? Who gets quoted in official church documents? These are all important clues as to which ideas are being embraced by the church and which ones are being left behind.
For example on the Church's relations with the Jews. Antisemitism was a very old error. Just being old does not make it part of sacred traditionSo you get the example. That is great. The cheap shot at Popes Pius IX and Pius XII is unfortunate. Pope Pius XII has been attacked more recently so I have done some reading and I know the accusations of anti-Semitism against him are horse-pucky. My guess is the same is true for Pope Pius IX.
Anti-Semitism the belief that Jews are genetically defective so that baptism is not fully effectual in making them part of European civilization, I'd say was mostly opposed by the Western Rite Catholic church. Yes there were Catholics who believed in the Aryan Christ, but it I wouldn't consider this part of mainstream Catholicism. Particularly if you consider the personal anti-Semitism of Pius IX and Pius XII, the fact that they didn't really do very much I think indicates how inhospitable Catholicism was to a racial religion.
If you replace "antisemitism" with being "anti-judaic" then I'd say of course it was part of the tradition. And this is a good example to work because we are both opposed to it so there isn't any disagreement about the actual policy. The bible itself screams anti-judaic theology:The New Testament says Judaism is to be rejected in favor of Christianity. No surprise there.
Hebrews: Judaism is the burned out dead husk of a formerly valid religion
John: Jews are used as the symbol for those who knowingly reject the wisdom of God / light.
Paul: Judaism as an ethnic covenant has passed and via. rebirth in Jesus gentiles are entitled to the promises of Old Testament.
Replacement theology was part of Catholic theology precisely because it was a consistent teaching of the church. Pius IX felt justified in using state power in Italy to persecute his Jewish population because of tradition not in spite of it. After WWII the Catholic complicity in the Holocaust was a major source of embarrassment. So the teaching changed a little but the emphasis changed a lot. The tradition was, and still is, anti-Judaic.I am surprised you seem to swallow every anti-Catholic legend out there. You can think critically about the Catholic church but you can't think critically about this. Seems a little slanted to me.
I think it was pretty much a disaster for Nancy Pelosi.If I declare that the earth is flat and acknowledge that NASA disagrees with me does it follow that I didn't make a fool of myself? But it is worse than that. If she said the NY Times believes something and the NY Times editorial board disagreed with her then nobody would say that is OK because she knew they would disagree. That would make it worse. Somehow she feels she can disagree with the church hierarchy about church teaching and not get that she is rejecting the Catholic faith. She should just admit that the Catholic faith is pro-life and she rejects the Catholic faith. That is honest.
I don't see that as being a disaster for Nancy Pelosi, why because the church hierarchy disagrees with her? She acknowledged this disagreement in the original statement.
The USCCB are to put it bluntly, lying. The definition of abortion changed. Their implication that the definition of abortion was consistent with the one in the middle ages is simply false, and provably false. One just has to read the very passages she points to in speeches on this topic. As for "uninformed" I have yet to hear any matter of factual knowledge we possess today that was not present in the middle ages that substantially changes the theories of that time.The definition of abortion changed. But what is called an abortion now was called contraception then. But both abortion and contraception are immoral. So what the USCCB says is true. Pelosi is confused. I thinks she wants to be confused. She wants to be able to throw up her hands and declare the issue to be so complex. It is not. The Catechism clarifies matters quite nicely. Again, we have a living magisterium. Catholics are not supposed to just declare their interpretation of scripture and tradition to be right. They are supposed to take leadership from their bishops and pope.