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 ]

• I would say "it's a good thing" that Ratzinger was not successful in eliminating dissent, or as I would phrase it "other viewpoints". Catholic colleges need to be true to their identity as religious-affiliated institutions by teaching what the Church wants, but as institutions of higher education they should also allow for exploration of other viewpoints. To me that is what separates academic integrity from indoctrination. (NT) -- DamnRam, Wed April 20, 2005 20:12:11
  • That's fine but the point I was trying to make is that people have been claiming that as a Cardinal quashed dissent. All people have to do is look at universities in Europe and the US to see that's not the case. There's no lack of dissent, especially @ ND. BTW, to whoever asked above, I just saw an interview w/ Cardinal Dulles. He was quite complimentary of Pope Benedict and didn't voice any criticism of Ratzinger's role @ the CFTDF. Had an interesting analysis of differences between JPII (a Thomist) and Benedict (an Augustinian). (NT) -- bfg, Wed April 20, 2005 21:35:43
    • I think the bottom line is we need to give the new pope a chance to perform for while before we form our opinions of him. His role now is much different and I predict he will not be what many think he will be. Just a gut feeling. (NT) -- Rambacker, Thu April 21, 2005 09:52:11
      • I agree. I think the new Pope is going to surprise a lot of people. (NT) -- bfg, Thu April 21, 2005 10:13:58
        • The scope of responsibility for a pope is so profound that it can cause a priest to look inward and ultimately reveal qualities that were heretofore unknown. Let's hope and pray that is the case. (NT) -- Rambacker, Thu April 21, 2005 11:16:40
        • I'm still concerned with Ratzinger's seemingly doctrinaire qualities, with his emphasis on ecclesiastical discipline rather than on Christian charity, and by some of his past comments like calling other Christian denominations "deficient". But, I agree that--as Rambacker says--we have to give him a chance. History is filled with examples of people growing and changing once they're in a new position of authority. I hope that will be the case with the new Pope, and I hope that you're right in thinking he is going to surprise a lot of people. (NT) -- Ram'69, Thu April 21, 2005 11:31:36
          • I've got to go to a meeting so I'll throw out this bomb and let you guys have fun w/ it but why is it that so many are talking about the new Pope changing yet no one talks about a reexamination and changing by wayward Catholics to return to the orthodox teachings of the Church? IMO, many people have adopted a new version of "Rome has spoken, the matter is closed". For many, it is now "I have decided and the matter is closed". I'm outta here. (NT) -- bfg, Thu April 21, 2005 12:40:43
            • If the orthodox teachings of the Church don't make sense in a modern context (prohibiting condoms in the age of AIDS, for example), then why should "wayward" Catholics put their lives at risk just to satisfy the litmus tests imposed by an obviously out-of-touch institution? And in regards to the child molestation scandals, how can the Church expect anyone to give them the same level of respect when they turned a blind eye to what was happening for decades (centuries?), and then attacked the accusers, and then tried to minimize the significance of all this, and are now closing parishes to help pay for the damages that resulted, and even now have Cardinal Law heading up his own basilica in Rome? The problem is that the flock needs a more sensible shepard, not that the shepard needs a more docile flock. (NT) -- DamnRam, Thu April 21, 2005 17:01:49
              • I agree w/ some of your comments re: the molestation scandal. What happened in the Church was nothing short of a modern day Judas. The people, especially kids, were betrayed. However, that doesn't really answer the question of why the faithful shouldn't reexamine their/our views. It seems like we expect others to reexamine their views and revise them but no one dares to challenge people who don't agree w/ the orthodox teachings of the Church. (NT) -- bfg, Fri April 22, 2005 07:37:18
                • But that's just begging the question of why they don't agree with the orthodox teachings of the Church in the first place. Instead of telling them they should just disregard their own misgivings, the Church should give them the benefit of the doubt and address the reasons for those misgivings. You can't "challenge" people to get with the program if they believe the program is corrupt. This is much larger than just the child molestation issue (which isn't over yet, by the way). Even now, for instance, the Church is actively shielding a Rwandan priest (now living in a Church compound in Florence under an assumed name) who was already tried and convicted (one of three Rwandan priests) for his role in the murder of 2000 Tutsis in the Rwandan massacre, and a South American priest who was complicit in the executions of alleged "leftists" during the Dirty War (he would extract their confessions, then tell the soldiers it was okay to shoot them). (NT) -- DamnRam, Fri April 22, 2005 09:39:04
                  • People are smart enough to distinguish between the acts of men and the moral teachings of the Church. You seem to imply that b/c some clergy (a very small number) have failed to live up to the Church's teachings then it's OK for Catholics to hold beliefs other than the Church's teachings. While it might creat doubt, it doesn't give them a free pass to, as Catholics, hold views which are contrary to the teachings of the Church. (NT) -- bfg, Fri April 22, 2005 10:05:02
                    • A priest who smokes and drinks a little too much has a minor personal failing with no bearing on the authority or teachings of the Church. When the Church as an institution over a period of decades allows its priests to commit horrendous acts and then protects those perpetrators, that creates a lot more than doubt - it severely erodes their credibility and moral authority. Being a person of faith in an age of instant communications and mobility is a matter of trust and choice, especially since the Bible can always be read directly. Catholics have every right to ask questions of those who demand their obedience; leaders have the burden to prove they and their message are worthy of the followers' trust. (NT) -- DamnRam, Fri April 22, 2005 11:05:21
                      • Another interesting article in Sat Times shows how Ratzinger has become more involved in review the abuse allegations and some of the real movement in these cases is due to his intervention. I think we will see even more work on this in the coming months and credibility in the Church is going to be slowly restored. At the same time, the obedience and trust that you site should be in the teachings and not as much in the persons. Do as they say; not as they do. (NT) -- bfg, Mon April 25, 2005 16:02:54