Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ]

• Violent revolution is not and will never be part of Catholic theology. (NT) -- bfg, Tue April 19, 2005 20:35:05
  • Liberation theology isn't about violent revolution necessarily. That's merely the most extreme interpretation which is used to discredit LTand prevent Catholicism (and religion in general) from being used as the engine for social justice. I would think that you as a conservative of all people would understand how organized religion with a goal can be a catalyst for positive social change. (NT) -- DamnRam, Tue April 19, 2005 21:20:44
    • I agree that the Church is a very important vehicle for social change and Benedict XVI and JPII are on the same page. However, the Latin American liberation theologians explain LT in terms of violence and many of them, including Friar Boff, claimed that Christ's disciples fabricated the idea that Jesus' death had a transcendent, salvific significance. He and other LT'ers were silenced b/c they were engaging in heresy and there's no other way to look at it. This is against the most basic theology of the Church. (NT) -- bfg, Tue April 19, 2005 21:40:41
      • You're right! They were engaging in HERESY! John Paul was just too kind-hearted by giving them a slap on the wrist. The new Pope will have them burned at the stake! Gimme that old time religion! Hosanna! Amen! (NT) -- T. Torquemada, Tue April 19, 2005 22:37:45
      • My understanding of LT is as follows (more inside) -- DamnRam, Tue April 19, 2005 22:47:29
        • my sources were both Gustavo Gutierrez and Leonardo Boff. As for the practices that you cited, you're probably right but that's irrelevant to the issue of the heretical nature of Boff's writings. It runs completely counter to the most basic teachings of the Church. It's not an issue of driving out the unbelievers. It's a question of the nature of Christ. Why don't we just deny the Trinity while we're at it? (NT) -- bfg, Tue April 19, 2005 23:35:56
          • I don't think it was a question of driving out unbelievers but rather of staying in good graces with the right-wing governments in Latin America. I think if the Church wanted to it could have found another theological underpinning or even a formal endorsement from the pope for the LT movement but apparently chose not to. (NT) -- DamnRam, Wed April 20, 2005 08:29:19
            • I was referring to your previous post of the Crusades, etc. (NT) -- bfg, Wed April 20, 2005 08:34:48
              • I heard (but haven't been able to confirm) that Ratzinger said he would be quite comfortable with a smaller, purer Church. If he really thinks that then it suggests to me he is intent on driving out those who don't conform to his views on things. (NT) -- DamnRam, Thu April 21, 2005 12:21:04
                • That doesn't mean he's going to drive out. it means he's going let those institutions that have already drifted away and lost their identity to go their separate way. (NT) -- bfg, Thu April 21, 2005 12:35:14
                  • "Drifted away"? I would say still in the fold and still caring enough to be involved. The ones who have drifted away are now called Protestants or secularists. "Lost their identity"? I would say that organizations and persons which don't agree with every tenet of the Church can still be Catholic and have an identity as such. The Church has been wrong before, they will continue to make mistakes, and refusal to go along with those mistakes shouldn't mean that you are no longer a member of the institution. (NT) -- DamnRam, Thu April 21, 2005 15:50:14
                    • Very interesting article in today's NY Times about Catholic university at Louvain. Many of the issues/complaints cited by the students apply to the Church in the US. At the end of the article, Times cites a poll of students at that school from a few years ago -- only 16 percent said they believed in the resurrection of Christ, 12 percent in the Holy Trinity and 11 percent in the virginity of Mary. That's "drifted away". These are core beliefs of the Church and the new Pope will try to appeal to people to those who believe (or don't believe) like the poll respondents, but this is what the Pope was referring to. (NT) -- bfg, Sat April 23, 2005 12:30:23
      • And about the fabrication regarding Christ's sacrifice -- DamnRam, Tue April 19, 2005 22:50:31

  ---

• What drift from the Church? The Church is growing, rapidly in fact in many areas of the world. You have a Western perspective on things. The Church, however, is a worldwide institution. The Church is only losing ground in the nations in which materialism has become a god. That is more a condemnantion of the values of those nations than a condemnation of the Church. Given the values which have taken hold in Western society, I'd be concerned if the Church was rapidly growing in those countries. Europeans and Americans need to hear the message of the Church, not the other way around. (NT) -- JoltinJoe, Tue April 19, 2005 22:05:34
  • Hey, JJ, lets talk about something really important. Is Ratzinger a Sox or Yankee fan? (NT) -- Boston Ram, Tue April 19, 2005 22:26:53
    • If he's a man of God, he's a Yankee fan. ;) (NT) -- JoltinJoe, Tue April 19, 2005 22:30:00
      • But only when the Yankees aren't playing the Red Sox. (NT) -- DamnRam, Tue April 19, 2005 22:53:26
        • Popes typically root for the Cardinals or the Angels. (NT) -- John, Wed April 20, 2005 08:13:44
          • On the collegiate level, I'd suspect that Ratzo is a Holy Cross fan given that most of his views date back to the Crusades. (NT) -- RAMerican, Wed April 20, 2005 12:35:06
          • On the collegiate level, I'd suspect that Ratzo is a Holy Cross fan given that most of his views date back to the Crusades. (NT) -- RAMerican, Wed April 20, 2005 12:35:30
      • J2, I doubt that our new Pope would support an organization know as the Evil Empire. (NT) -- Boston Ram, Wed April 20, 2005 21:39:52
  • There is a major drift from the Church in most of the Western nations, including the United States. The fact that we're picking up converts in the third world (and priests that we can bring over here) is scant consolation for the dwindling church-going population and virtual non-existence of religious vocations in Europe and America. This isn't due just to Western decadence and materialism, but also to the fact that many reasoning people think that the Church's positions on things like priestly celibacy, the all-male priesthood, and artifical contraception are archaic. (NT) -- Ram'69, Tue April 19, 2005 22:54:10
    • I believe that you believe that due to the materialsitic influence of our society. But I'm not going to debate the point here. I'll only repeat that we in the West ned to hear the Church's voice, not demand that the Church hear our voices. (NT) -- JoltinJoe, Wed April 20, 2005 01:08:41
      • Joltin Joe, don't you think it's a bit presumptuous of you to suggest that "materialistic influence" shapes my moral views, when you've never even met me? In fact, I've devoted a 35-year career (with low pay) and a great deal of unpaid free time to community service. As for priestly celibacy, I feel that it should be an option, and that many would people feel that experiencing the fullness of family life would enrich their ministry and broaden their human perspectives. Married clergy were common in the early Church, as they are in many other religions today. As for forbidding the ordination of women, why should we continue a practice that is rooted not in some significant moral or intellectual differences between men and women--but rather in the cultural norms of bygone days? I do believe that priests should bear a resemblance to Jesus, but a spiritual one, rather than a mere physical one. More.... (NT) -- Ram'69, Wed April 20, 2005 20:16:52
        • Sorry, I didn't mean it the way you took it. I didn't mean to suggest that you are materialistic. In America, we all are exposed to materialistic influences, and those influences shape our opinions -- all of our opinions -- in some fashion or to some degree. We've all been influenced. That doesn't mean, in the end, that you are materialistic. I never intended for the comment to be taken that way. I'm sorry for the confusion. (NT) -- JoltinJoe, Wed April 20, 2005 20:46:16
      • ....As for artificial contraception, it seems to me that timing/limiting the birth of one's children, and taking individual or social resources into account in making such decisions, can be the expression of a deep personal responsibility--rather than the "irresponsibe hedonism" of which Cardinal Ratzinger once wrote. There is an old saying: "Roma locuta est, causa finta est" (Rome has spoken, the matter is closed.) When it comes to issues where the Church's position is rooted in deep moral principles (such as those on abortion), I have no problem with the "Roma locuta est" approach. But on matters where Church teachings simply reflect transient cultural norms, I see no reason why there shouldn't be dialogue and openness to different points of view. That's the kind of Church which Vatican II envisioned, and the kind which I hope will eventually re-emerge. (NT) -- Ram'69, Wed April 20, 2005 20:39:35
        • On that last point about openness to different points of view, I would hope that the AIDS epidemic that is ravaging Africa and other poor regions should cause the Church to reconsider its dogma as it pertains to contraception. Quite literally it can be the difference between life and death for millions, which should be the top priority for anyone who professes to be concerned about the suffering for the people who inhabit those regions. (NT) -- DamnRam, Thu April 21, 2005 10:37:18
    • In Latin America (which is what I was talking about specifically), the Church is losing worshippers all over the place. Many are going over to the Protestant/Evangelical/Charismatic denominations for a variety of reasons, and many of the rest are just falling away because they see the Church as irrelevant to their lives. I would say that the Church should understand how its voice is actually coming coming across and decide if that's how it really wants to be heard. (NT) -- DamnRam, Wed April 20, 2005 08:18:10