New Pope Thread

No. His views on evolution are essentially identical to his predecessors.This document is the most recent statement of the RCC covering the evolution issue (paragraphs 62-70) and was endorsed and approved by former Cardinal Ratzinger. Long ass link shortened by AdminJarA clear indication that it's better to do your homework and learn the facts, rather than making decisions based on feelings.This message has been edited by paisano, 04-20-2005 08:22 AMThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 04-20-2005 11:22 AM

I'm really starting to wonder about the relevance of this thread. This is, after all, the EvC forum. I've tried to address the views of the new Pope on that topic, which, as far as I can tell,are similar to if not identical to his predecessor's.As to the other topics being discussed, I am somewhat puzzled as to why an American non-Catholic would be concerned about the new Pope's views on those issues. After all, ther is no coercion to become a Catholic.It also appears some posters are displaying a pattern of being misinformed as to actual Catholic doctrine. For instance, ignorance or coercion may indeed in some cases be mitigating factors, decreasing the level of culpability of a sinful act, contrary to a previous assertion.I don't expect non-Catholics to be in agreement with, or pleased with, all or even any aspects of Catholic moral teaching. This would be naively unrealistic. It would, however, be helpful if they were fully informed as to whether what it is they are criticizing is in fact the case.

Your points are valid, as far as they go. What puzzles me is how some non-Catholics in the Western world are dismayed that the new Pope isn't going to change Church policy on certain issues to their liking. It fails to take into account:1) that the Church, being a large and worldwide institution may see these pet Western issues as quite low on the priority list,2) that the Church is not even going to consider modifying its stance on issues it considers matters of infallible dogma,3) that the Church , when changing its stance on matters that are not infallible dogma and thus in principle, subject to change, is still historically very slow and gradual. For instance the vernacular Mass was suggested at the time of the Council of Trent in the mid 1500s, and determined to not be in conflict with Catholic dogma at that time, but of course, was not actually implemented until the Second Vatican Council in the mid 1960s.

A vote for a pro-abortion candidate DUE to his/her support of abortion would be material cooperation in evil. A vote for such a candidate IN SPITE of his/her position on this issue would not necessarily be so, as then- Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out. I'd certainly like you to support this assertion with additional evidence. I'm really not quite sure what you are alluding to here. Hated ? not by me at least. I'm sorry if anyone hates you, that's a terrible thing. A minority ? True enough- but then, advocates of a theocracy are also a minority. Probably I'd be wasting his time. I'm sure he is familiar with the Catechism and has studied Aquinas. Vielleicht ein bisschen besser als Ihre verstaendnis der katholische Theologie

I think the point that a lack of birth control "threatens our future" is certainly debatable (subreplacement fertility seems rather the larger threat, IMO of course).However, putting that aside for the moment, I think for non-Catholics to think that the selection of a new Pope would lead to such a change was always rather a forlorn hope.

I am unaware of any jurisdiction that does not permit someone to quietly decline to participate in the POA if they so wish. If you can produce evidence to the contrary, I shall stand corrected.Mr. DeLay is no more (or no less) a poster child for his party than Al Sharpton is for his. I do not share Mr. DeLays sense of priorities or views on the proper relation of civil and ecclesial authority. I would suffer as much under a Fundamentalist Protestant theocracy as you would.Like it or not, a majority of US citizens are at least nominally monotheistic. Under the constitution, those individuals who are not, must certainly have their rights protected. However, I fail to see a right, express or implied, to never have to encounter theistic discourse in the course of one's life. Tolerance of other cultures should not entail annihilation of one's own - and this goes both ways. Not all of us theists bite, y'know.

I'm not familiar enough with the legalities of the case to know for sure, but I do not recall Mr. Newdow being legally forced to recite the POA (much less adopt a monotheistic religion), simply that he found two words of it offensive.As to that, it has always stricken me as somewhat akin to a vegan who cannot abide meat being cooked in other apartments of the building she lives in.The Constitution does not entail catering to every individual's hypersensitivities. Even on utilitarian grounds, this should seem unworkable.

You are correct that this teaching is mostly honored in the breach, however, it remains equally unrealistic to expect that the election of a new Pope would lead to it being changed. After all, the eschatological teachings of the Church are equally "unrealistic" to those that are skeptical of them - yet these are not subject to change. Birth control may or may not be - theologians debate this- however, if it is to change it will mbe done on the Church's timetable, which is historically slow and conservative.In the meantime, for those who cannot abide the teachings of the RCC, there remains the option to become non-Catholic.

I'm not going to turn this into a debate on demographics - that would be off topic. However I have evidence to do so, should I wish to. Your mild invective is no more than self-gratification.

It is my understanding that Mr. Newdow's ex-spouse, who had custody of the daughter, had different opinions regarding theism and how the daughter should be exposed to it. Mr Newdow is entitled to his views, however IMO has inflated a garden - variety cutodial dispute into the Brave Rationalist vs. the Oppressive Theocracy. Quite so. However, if one is going to take an unpopular stand on principle, one must be prepared to accept the reasonably forseeable consequences -ask Martin Luther King. Students SHOULD be able to opt out of the POA without opprobrium - but kids are kids.It's unfortunate that some theists seem to feel they must coerce others into their belief system - but that's life. And there is intra-theist coercion, but a polite "No thanks, I'm Catholic" seems to work with the young men on bicycles who visit me periodically.

I was thinking of "Letter from the Birmingham Jail". What's offensive is that you would think I would think the above. But let's both calm down.

I'm afraid you're simply mistaken about this. Human population growth follows a logistic curve, not a monotonic exponential.

No. The point I was trying to make was that MLK assumed the consequences of civil disobedience (arrest by the corrupt Southern authorities of the time) willingly and without complaint, in pursuit of his campaign to improve civil rights. The only malice here is in your immediate , unwarranted assumption that I was alluding to his assassination, or worse, that I somehow thought such a crime was justifiable.Would it have helped if I had used "Gandhi" or "Thoreau" instead of "MLK" ?I shall take care to be extermely explicit in the future if my posts are going to be maliciously misconstrued in this fashion.

Well, therein lies the debate. Is the plateau of the logistic curve being approached ? Are population levels at this plateau sustainable ? Interesting debate topics, with sound arguments on both sides, but no firm conclusions (except in the mind of Paul Ehrlich and his acolytes, perhaps). But we are getting off topic.

There is always abstinence. Yes, I can almost hear your "hah". However, it is a materially possible (if difficult) option.Unrealistic ? Yes, many think so. But, as I've said, the Church teaches much else that many think of as unrealistic. Should it change to suit these individuals, or reamin the same to suit the millions of members that at least try their best to follow along ?If the Church were to permit contraception, would that remove your issues with it ? Somehow I doubt it, but please do refute my doubts if you wish.