Except you don't know how Opus Dei operates. The article can do nothing but speculate upon Opus Dei's constitution when they don't even take the time to translate it into English from Latin, its really not that hard to find a Latin scholar if they are interested enough to. There's plenty of freedom within Opus Dei. First, off you have to choose to join. Second, its not about political ideas, but rather spiritual ideas. They have one goal, to make you a saint. I've been studying these guys for a while and they are ok. Just another order within the church. Your characterization of them as a Cult group is unfair. And for what its worth, the main problem I see within Opus Dei is that they are growing so fast. Mother Theresa's order experienced this as well, which made it possible for some fanatics to slip through to higher levels in their order. This will happen in any religious order, just look at the Franciscans, Jesuits, etc. Did you read the reply by the Opus Dei priest? I think he was basically dead on, saying that the article never really addressed the specific charism of Opus Dei and instead just kind of made conjectures and half truths seem like something it wasn't. That was the main sense I got when reading through the article. There is a huge battle within the church (mainly in America and Europe) between liberals and conservatives. Opus Dei is more conservative. The Jesuits are more liberal. There will be tension when one of them writes an article about the other. This is why I'm glad Benedict is Pope. He will lay down the law on what is church doctrine and what is anathema. You need that if you are to have unity within a church. It does nothing to one's freedom to have your church make a declarative statement on dogma. I just read over what I wrote and I worded it poorly, they were one of a few groups able to keep masses and the Church alive in a facist regime. Sorry for the confusion. And they weren't Franco sympathizers, Franco was out for this man's life. So are you taking back that stuff you said about them being facist cult members or are you just trying to say good people can be facist cult members. If the latter, I think I've done enough to exonerate them of the charges. At the least, I hope you can view them a little more objectively now.
When have the Popes tried to influence specific elections? 44 million dead since '72 due to abortion (the number is actually probably higher now). Doesn't seem like much of a debate to me. I don't really see how the church is going to end poverty. Christ says, "You will always have the poor." Poverty isn't as much a spiritual problem as war and abortion and other instances of church dogma on morality are. When did JPII cherry pick issues? He declared the Iraqi war unjust. But you know what, sometimes war is just. Abortion, is never just. Death penalty, depending on where you are, can be just (not in America though as the JPII taught, but in an uncivilized nation, a vicious man can easily get out and wreak more havoc). You are making no distinctions between issues, or as was popular, you're not approaching these issues with nuance. That's just flat out wrong, email me your address and I'll dig up a Catholic voter's guide that has many things about poverty, war, and the death penalty. A voting guide isn't really going to change the priest sex abuse scandal. Bottom line is American and European seminaries are weak and have let a lot of weak priests slip through the cracks. No American election is going to have any effect on that. If anything you should be jazzed Benedict will most likely do something to clean them up.
I went to a Jesuit college, and left admiring them greatly. But it wouldn't shock me entirely if they break from the church entirely, should it become too conservative. And that would be a truly great loss for the Catholic church. The Jesuits, generally, are an extremely bright group of educators that are intellectually nearly irreproachable. I'm not speaking with hyperbole. When I was at BC, there was talk of the school breaking from the Catholic church over the ex accord eclesiaste (sp), a doctrine that gave increased control over hiring of religion professors to the Bishop, and took control away from Catholic schools. The most powerful Jesuits at BC openly talked of breaking with the church, as a couple of smaller schools have already done.
Jesuits cannot hold a flame to the Benedictines and Cistercians. BC might sever ties but the Jesuits won't. They'd be ruined.
yup, we got it pretty sweet huh! i think the deal is, if you confess to a priest and are truly sorry you can go to heaven, but st. peter might make you hang out in "purgatory" for a bit, depending on how long your list of sins is. purgatory is neither heaven or hell, but some kind of middle ground where you basically serve time and do further repentance for your earthly sins before being accepted into heaven.
I don't understand the argument. We have enough food to feed the world people, but the systems (government, institutions, people) don't make it happen. How is that not a failing of will or moral or spirit than any of the other issues discussed that the church can weigh in on. Also, I would think wars have directly or indirectly killed more than 44 mil in that period, but don't have the figures. Let's just take 1 more issue. Currently there are over 2 mil people per year dying in sub-Saharan Africa due to AIDS with estimates for 67-83 million deaths in that region alone by 2025. A high percentage of these will be children exposed from their mother and girls/women who have no control over their sexual behavior. So on a global scale it at minimum should be equally on the radar as abortion, and that is if you believe human life begins immediately at conception. The fact the Catholic hierarchy can't even figure out its own policies on promoting effective prevention in the area (e.g., condoms) is pretty telling. I liken it to one of the previous Pope's view that using the smallpox vaccination (and all vaccinations) was wrong because that is solely god's domain. I was bringing this up more so from the American conservative bishops. Still I don't remember cases where bishops considered (or discussed) denying communion to politicians that supported this war, or the death penalty, etc. No question some issues (abortion, gay marriage) have got a lot more face time and forcefull plays from the Vatican and officials here (cherry picking). So nuance is allowed for a 1st strike war and death penalty (as you seem to take liberty with church doctrine) but not abortion (or when a person becomes a person). Guess it does not matter if a girl is raped and the resulting "baby" is a few days post sperm-egg fusion. Doesn't matter if the delivery will likely lead to the mother's death. Seems like selective moral relativism on church doctrine to me. Which is fine, provided you grant others similar nuances. A conservative Catholic voter guide that was distributed in the Phx area churches did in fact mention abortion and gay marriage as the issues of the day (suggest these are the issues good Catholics should not bend on). There is some reference to it below: From the Arizona Daily Star New pope made waves with abortion memo John Paul II showed the world just how potent a political force the papacy can be. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was making political pronouncements long before Tuesday, when he became Pope Benedict XVI. As John Paul's doctrinal watchdog, Ratzinger last summer weighed in on the U.S. presidential election. The German prelate issued a memorandum saying that it was not necessarily sinful for Catholics to vote for politicians who support abortion, as long as other reasons exist for backing that candidate. But Ratzinger provoked howls of protest by writing that Catholic politicians who support "the grave sin" of abortion should be denied communion if they show "obstinate persistence" and fail to respond to counseling. Some angry Catholic lawmakers, including U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva of Tucson, fired off a letter to a top American cardinal saying that denying communion to Catholics based on political beliefs would have "the effect of miring the church in partisan politics and allowing the church to be used for partisan purposes." The debate intensified further over a conservative voter guide for Catholics that said being anti-abortion was among five "non-negotiable" issues for Catholics to consider as they decided whom to support. The others were euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning and gay marriage. (DS--no mention of fighting against the Iraq war (or war in general), poverty, the death penalty as ¡°non-negotiable¡± issues huh?) Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted allowed the guide to be distributed in his diocese's churches, but Tucson Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas did not. Instead, Kicanas adopted a view that more closely reflected the position of the man who just became his boss. "It's not a sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate if it's because you are supporting that candidate for a wide range of reasons," Kicanas told the Arizona Daily Star last September. ¡ñ Contact reporter C.J. Karamargin at 573-4243 or ckaramargin@azstarnet.com.
This is why I'm glad Benedict is Pope. He will lay down the law on what is church doctrine and what is anathema. You need that if you are to have unity within a church. It does nothing to one's freedom to have your church make a declarative statement on dogma. This is precisely the point. The emphasis is on laying down the law and unity, making declarative statements in the belief that this should be done when the issues are not clear. In communist groups they use the same rhetoric. It is called democratic centralism and can lead to great success as the devotees seem so **** sure of themeselves. Though these groups never appealed to me I have had several friends who have been in them and have told me in detial how they operate. You are not free to criticize the group ever to outsiders and risk trouble if you do so within the group when an issue has been decided. If you are banned other members are forbidden to ever associate with you or be friends with you. When a person has invested a great deal of their life in a cause it is difficult to change course and if you are then going to lose all your friiends and coworkers it is even harder. This is a very potent control mechanism. I supspect that Opus Dei uses similar tactics. Certainly such groups as the Moonies and Scientology do. Stating you are free to join won't cut it and you yourself before felt pressure to join. Whether Opus Dei is like this I don't know for sure , but there seems to be a lot of moderate people claiming they are and iI don't think those in the group or perhaps even those too close can see the truth. Good people do join cults whether religious or political.
Pope john Paul talked a good talk with regard to eliminating world poverty, unnecessary illness. So does Bush. Have we forgotten "compassionate conservative". It is not enough to talk about it or urge peopel to pray about it or to give private charity. History has shown this. These guys are not that dumb. John Paul II and I'm afraid the new pope consistently errored on the side of the oligarchs and their death squads in Central America. When death squads kill community organizers and union members who are trying to get workers or peasants more money so they can feed themselves, no amount of pious rhetoric, can make up for this. John Paul II and many conservative church people claim that religion and politics don't mix, yet they engage in politics on the side of conservatives. They made their choice to essentially ally themselves with the Christian Right to empahsize abortion and homosexuality rather than increased wages, and health care for the poor. Ratzinger according to the NYT was supportive of the idea that Kerry should be banned from communion which had poltiical implications.
I used the term "progressive" for lack of a better term, because as some have pointed out, we will never see the church reverse itself on points of dogma. However, if you consider a spectrum of catholic belief, with Ratzinger representing the hardline conservative side, there is also a more liberal catholic contingent, who's practical ideology/theology is closer to the belief structures of the laity (i.e. women in the clergy, married priests, etc.). When I used the term progressive I was thinking more along these lines.
I completely disagree that this is the focus of the Christian Right -- these are just the issues that make the papers. I belong to an independent evangelical church. I have never seen the church organize anything that had to do with condoms, abortion or homosexuality. But right after the Tsunami 200 people from our church (including 20 doctors and nurses) dropped their daily commitments and went to one of the hardest hit areas, on Wednesday nights I help mentor young kids going through high-stress family situations (messy divorce, death etc...) while there parents meet to talk about their issues. We have partnered with a small inter-city church and help provide programs for the families their. We meet once a month and just help clean up their neighborhood (among other things). Yes, I would say I belong to the Christian right -- but loving my neighbors is the focus. Besides a few visible, loud people who do not represent me -- I think your comment is way off base. We send 1000's of dollars overseas but not one cent is delegate to any of the things you say is our focus.
yeah, but how'd you vote? you're evil. and did you mention Jesus Christ while you did those things? if so, you negated all the "good" you did!
Just a side note... -------------------- New pope intervened against Kerry in US 2004 election campaign WASHINGTON (AFP) - German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican theologian who was elected Pope Benedict XVI, intervened in the 2004 US election campaign ordering bishops to deny communion to abortion rights supporters including presidential candidate John Kerry. In a June 2004 letter to US bishops enunciating principles of worthiness for communion recipients, Ratzinger specified that strong and open supporters of abortion should be denied the Catholic sacrament, for being guilty of a "grave sin." He specifically mentioned "the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws," a reference widely understood to mean Democratic candidate Kerry, a Catholic who has defended abortion rights. The letter said a priest confronted with such a person seeking communion "must refuse to distribute it." A footnote to the letter also condemned any Catholic who votes specifically for a candidate because the candidate holds a pro-abortion position. Such a voter "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy communion," the letter read. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=696&e=7&u=/afp/20050419/pl_afp/vaticanpopeus
Briefly Dscar- Condoms are not the be all end all of AIDS. Proper teachings on chastity are the only way to really make a difference. Some research I did (cut and paste from another website) www.catholic.com : "Condoms have a substantial failure rate for AIDS transmission. The risk of fatal infection is quantifiably significant. Among heterosexual couples studied using condoms in which one partner was infected, 30 percent became infected within the year" (M. Fischl, "Evaluation of Heterosexual Partners, Children, and Household Contacts of Adults with AIDS," Journal of the American Medical Association 257 [1987]: 447–449). "Condom use was not significantly associated with protection against infection" (Padian, Windlestein, et al, "Male-to-Female Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus," Journal of the American Medical Association 257 (1987): 788). "There are no clinical (human) data supporting the value of condoms in preventing the spread of a range of diseases including . . . human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the precursor of AIDS" (Lawrence J. McNamee, M.D., Brian F. McNamee, M.D., AIDS: The Nation’s First Politically Protected Disease. National Medical Legal Publishing House, 1988, 102–113). "Sayings such as ‘the way to get AIDS is from unprotected sex’ should be avoided since they imply that ‘protected’ sex is safe. It is not" (W. Shepherd Smith, Jr. "Another Point of View: AIDS, HIV and Sex Education," AIDS/HIV News, January/February 1992, 12). That said point two, in brief: Once again, wars can have an element of justice in them. I felt this one was not completely just. Others did too. When voting, I went for the lesser of two evils. Denying life to the unborn constituted the greater of two evils for me. But I don't think this answers your question and I feel like it is a very good question. I think the distinction occurs in this. Here is the JPII's teachings on politicians: "John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them." I think the difference occurs in the law. What law do these politicians support, life or death. As far as the war goes, thats not really law. The church also says: "The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic's duty to be morally coherent." So I think the difference is this, in the case of the Iraq war, all the facts were not known by politicians and such, and still are not known. We were led to believe that they were a direct threat based on shady intelligence. That said, I know many, such as I, who have reversed their stance on the war. Still, as a matter of prudence, we are know there, and must do all in our power toi secure life. Once again though, war is not always evil. Fighting Hitler in WWII was a moral duty against evil. Capital Punishment, since I have to go to work now and must fire this thing off quick, has a long history, but here's a good article by Cardinal Dulles on the church's teaching: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html So umm...what else, ok you mentioned abortion as always being wrong. There is one instance, if the baby is stuck in the Fallopian tubes, where if birth were to happen, both mother and child would die. In this instance, the attempt to remove the baby from the Fallopian tubes will result in its death. However, the intent is not to murder the child, but rather to save the child and mother's life. There are many more instances like this that I'm not sure of the church's teaching on, but if you do a little research yo will find your answers. Ok gotta go to work. It's been nice having a civil discussion on the sacred with you guys.
Perhaps you should look at some sources that are not 12-15 years old. Most clinical trials of recent condom use have shown HUGE (85-99%) reductions in HIV transmission. (for instance, http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/Network/v21_2/NWvol21-2cndmsHIVAIDS.htm) Perhaps your older sources made these findings because condom technology was different in the 80's and before or simply because people are better educated on how to use condoms properly. I can't respond to your theological arguments, but I think it's a suspect claim for you to state that condoms are not valuable tools in the fight against HIV transmission.
In this like most things, education is the key. When one has been properly educated as to the proper uses of condoms, rates of transmission drop to nearly zero. The best example is the homosexual community, which saw AIDS transmission rates drop drastically after the AIDS education wave in the late 80s. IIRC, Magic Johnson and his wife are still together, presumably still have sex (with condoms), and she has not been infected with HIV after a decade. Anyone who claims that proper condom use does not stop HIV transmission has an agenda and is not being honest.
I don't think i'll ever understand the church's stance on contraception. No matter how it's explained to me...I just think...yeah...but that's just dumb.
benedictxvi@vatican.va email him and tell him what you think. The Vatican has set up an email addy for the Pope.
Good article about contraception. Dr. Smith used to teach philosophy at my school. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html
