Like I know from nothing about this papal succession stuff, but might not Poland be unamused by the prospect of a German succeeding John Paul II?

Ratzinger probably is more likely than any single man to become the next Pope. That only puts his odds about 20%, though.

I'm pulling for him or Arinze. Preferably Arinze.

The Church rose as Rome fell, and as Europe decays into disaster Christianity will return there too.

Even in France, the home of Macchiavellian amorality, there are some glimmerings of reconsideration: http://www.policyreview.org/apr05/lehmann.html

I agree with the good cardinal about departing from the idea of a popular church. We took a giant towards "the world" if you will as a result of Vat2 (and particularly the aftermath in which the radicals shoved a whole bunch of crap down everyone else's throat).

Paul VI and JP2 did a good job of pulling away from "the world". More needs to be done. "

There needs to be much weeping and gnashing of teeth among the "theologians" at American Jesuit universities and the like.

Reform and renewal will in the end come the way they've always come in the Church, via new orders of clergy. Already orders like the Priestly Fratertnity of St. Peter are making headway. Opus Dei of course. And smaller orders too, like the Society of St. John Cantius here in Chicago, which is producing several priests a year recently w/ more in the pipeline. Mustard seed indeed.

OJ,

All of the Third World Catholic population taken together probably could muster about $1.98. All those fancy buildings, robes, artwork, meals, entertainment and hush money don't come cheap. The main source of funds for the RC Church is the US along with the European taxpayer. When that state subsidy, which can be as high as 7.5% of income in Germany, ends, the RC Church will end.

bart:

Marxism was wrong. Life isn't economic.

Not to mention that there are a few dozen African kleptocrats with fat Swiss bank accounts who might argue with Bart's thesis.

David,

They don't share their cash with their wives or concubines. Do you seriously think they're going to share it with the Church? And how much of their cash comes from the World Bank and various wrongheaded aid programs from the developed world?

When Houphouet-Boigny decided to build Our Lady of Yamousoukouro in Cote d'Ivoire at a time of falling cocoa prices, he bankrupted the country and it still hasn't recovered some 20 years later.

Life may not be about economics but the RC Church is. Those fancy cathedrals didn't build themselves, those thousands upon thousands of fancy statues and paintings didn't carve and paint themselves. It all cost money, lots of money, extorted from or swindled from the peasants of Europe, money that could have been better used improving the lives of ordinary folk rather than fattening clerical waistlines. I don't see the Church in any great rush to sell the buildings and the art and perhaps feed some starving Africans, do you? But there is no shortage of funds to give old JPII a royal sendoff that would have embarassed Kublai Khan.

bart:
'Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.

And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.'

It would be better for the Church to have less money and more faith.

So Ratzinger wants to destroy the Church in order to save it?

Before "der Panzerkardinal" (his actual nickname) descends into his bunker and forces the Church to assume a fetal position and hide in a dark corner, would somebody please tell him that wars (especially cultural wars) are not won by cowardly retreats.

Yes, his predecessors would consider him a coward. The Church met the challenge of rapacious Vikings and savage pagan barbarians by sending heroic missionaries to convert them. Against the Islamic jihad it elevated the House of Charlemagne and created the HRE. Against the Turkish assault on Europe the Papacy organized coalitions that won victories at Lepanto and Vienna. It converted whole continents during the age of exploration and Jesuit missions came within an ace of converting all of China and Japan. Under Communism, the Church fought and flourished under the very noses of the commissars and eventually helped bring down the longest and most evil tyranny (as measured by body counts) in human history.

Against the forces of modernism, Ratzinger wants to turn tail and run? He wants to take his ball and go home because the rest of the world won't play the way he wants them to? Such a move would certainly make the Church "pure" - and as small and irrelevent as the Amish or Hasidic Jews. It would stifle all discussion and make the Church intellectually stagnant and more organizationally sclerotic than the old Soviet politiburo. Such a cowards Church would play no role for good on the world stage.

Jesus promised us that the Church would stand forever, even against the gates of Hell. However, He didn't promise how healthy it would be or what kind of shape it would be in. Ratzinger's Church would survive (we have Christ's promise on that), but it would survive as a living fossil forever living in a dead past.

As for the mustard seed, that is not what Jesus intended at all:

Mark
4-30 And he said, "With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it?
4-31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth;
4-32 yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade."

The smallness of the mustard seed refers to it's humble origins. To return the Church to a mustard seed would be in direct contradiction with Christ's vision of it's eventual greatness. Christ wants his Church to be the "greatest of all shrubs", not a tiny seed.

And tiny it will be. If all Catholics who use condoms are condemened than 90% of Catholic couples are destined for Hell. And Bart is quite right, without American and European money the Church could not function or perform global acts of charity. PJ, its all well and good to say that the Church should be poorer, but who is going to feed, clothe and teach the poor of the world that are currently being cared for by the Church (with American and European money)? The RCC is rich in fixed assets (art work, real estate, universities, etc.) but has always had cash flow problems. If the Church casts out Americans and Europeans they had better be prepared to have the largest garage sale in history and auction off its treasures. Otherwise, it won't be able to pay the Vatican's light bills or buy candles for the alter at St. Peters.

To all of you who would support Ratzinger in this I say: be very, very, very careful what you wish for.

Daniel -- "Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?"

What you are talking about is the U.N.

Daniel:

It's perfectly normal for the heretic to think the institution doomed because he disagrees with it...but terribly silly.

Randall, you missed the point entirely. Charity is a necessary function of the Church. Though supposedly Judas wanted the money for the poor (actually he wanted it for his own purse - and apt description of most religious leaders), wanting to help the poor does not make anyone a Judas. If Americans, Europeans and their money are cast out, how will the Church continue its world wide charities?

OJ, I never said the RCC was doomed. I specifically said that we have Christ's promise that it would endure for ever. Ratzinger would transform the Chruch into a stagnant fossil, but it would survive. And you really should stop calling people who disagree with you heretics, otherwise you'd have to do so to JPII because of his opposition to the liberation of Iraq.

Now, does somebody on this site have the werewithal to actually address my points and try to refute them either logically or factually? Or does the use of ad hominems define the limits of your intellectual capacity?

The Church doesn't actually have an Iraq doctrine.

And Daniel would just change the rules to include everyone, no matter what they believed.

The Pope, and not western liberals, is correct on sexual matters.

Yes, Christ promised that the Church would endure. He didn't say it would thrive at all times.

Ratzinger is right: cut bait on Western libs.

The Pope didn't oppose the liberation of Iraq, btw.

It's not intellectual but spiritual capacity that Ratzinger addresses.

If you believe that Church doctrine should be diluted to make fat cats in the U.S. happy and pony up, then the verse I quoted is most certainly appropriate.

It's the Church of Daniel Duffy--egoism run amok.

Jim and OJ, JPII's opposition to the liberation of Iraq as voiced by by Cardinal Soldano, the secretary of state, Cardinal Martino, the Vatican’s permanent observer at the United Nations, and the former nuncio to the United States, Cardinal Laghi. Given the authoritarian, tight-fisted control JPII maintained over the Papacy and the Curia, these men could not have spoken so without his approval and blessing.

Jim, Papal oppostion to ABC has nothing to do with morallity, its about preserving infallibility and authority of the Holy See. Pope Paul VI's own theological commission overwhelming recommended that ABC be allowed for married couples. This proposal was shot down by Karol Woltya and others who feared that it would contradict previous Pope's oppostion to ABC, leaving infallibility in tatters. The fact that the Church allows NFP shows its stand against ABC to be nothing more than hair splitting, hypocritical sophistry fit only for Vatican ivory towers and not the real lives of loving couples. I can and I do use "the primacy of the informed conscience" to reject this part of Humanae Vitae. And since 90% of Catholic couples agree with me, the teaching is invalid as it violates the sensus fidelium.

OJ, your snide comment about egoism only services to illustrate your intellectual inability to counter my arguments either logically or factually. Pity, I was hoping for a challenge. Besides, if I'm an egoist, so are 90% of Catholics.

Randall, Americans and Europeans aren't blackmailing the Church - the Papal heirarchy is blackmailing them by threatening to cast them out over non-issues like the wearing condoms. Before you or anyone else responds, please take the time to read "It's time to end the hypocrisy on birth control": an essay by Kathy Coffey from the June 1998 issue of U.S. Catholic.

(see http://www.uscatholic.org/soundboard/1998/jun/bc2.html)

General question: why are all right-wing Catholics so nasty, bitter, snide, judgemental and mean spirited (AKA "Donohue Syndrom" named after that fine gentlemen who runs the Catholic League and who believes that there is a Jewish conspiracy running Hollywood)?

I am late to this party. I thought the Spengler piece was excellent. I am willing to bet that Ratzinger will not be elected Pope. Enter as a pope leave as a cardinal is an old italian saying. BTW, executive talent is not the same as intellectual talent.

daniel:

Yes, the Pope's position on Iraq had nothing to do with violating Catholic orthodoxy.

daniel duffy says: "And since 90% of Catholic couples agree with me, the teaching is invalid as it violates the sensus fidelium."

John Paul II said: "It is a mistake to apply American democratic procedures to the faith and the truth. You cannot take a vote on the truth. You must not confuse the sensus fidei ((sense of the faith)) with 'consensus.'"

I think I'll lend a bit more weight to the latter's pronouncements...

At least I finally got you to admit that the Pope really did opposed the liberation of Iraq.

Care to logically or factually address my other points? Or are your debating skills limited to snide comments more fitting for a school yard?

What are your points? He opposed war? Shocking in a religious leader...

b,

To qoute Henry Cardinal Newman "I'll drink to the Pope, but to my conscience first".

To quote from the essay I sited (which I urge you and others to actually read):

It's high time we admit reality: no amount of railing or threatening from popes or bishops seems to affect people's decisions on the use of birth control made in good conscience. On this issue, people have learned to trust their own intuitions, faith understanding, and life experience. On other issues, they may let the church tell them what to do, but on this one they stand firm. Let's applaud their maturity instead of berating them for a supposed "defection."

Indeed, "defection" is the wrong word to use for such a rare and clear consensus, such a powerful demonstration of the sensus fidelium, the "sense of the faithful." Thirty years ago when Pope Paul VI issued the encyclical Humanae vitae, which condemned the use of any means of birth control other than the rhythm method, over 600 theologians signed dissenting statements. And ever since, the polls have consistently shown that the vast majority of the Catholic laity disagree with their church's official position and practice birth control in good conscience. To cite just two examples: A 1992 Gallup poll showed that 80 percent of U.S. Catholics disagreed with the statement "Using artificial means of birth control is wrong." And a 1996 study conducted by Father Thomas Sweetser for the Parish Evaluation Project found only 9 percent of Catholics who consider birth control to be wrong.

Is it really worth destroying the Church over condoms?

My point OJ is that you denied that he opposed the war in Iraq. So take your man-pill and admit you were wrong.

Now, what about all my other points? Are you capable of addressing them, or am I wasting my time?

Of course he opposed the war. What does that have to do with being a Catholic heretic?

What point? Are they all that inane? I know you think the Church is wrong about abortion being immoral. Is that the general quality of your moral reasoning?

The RC Church certainly has the right to make up whatever rules it wishes no matter how loopy they are, so long as non-members aren't affected. If one doesn't like the rules, he should leave.

In Judaism, there is a series of denominations for people of differing levels of observance. And because authority is congregational, not hierarchical, there are tremendous variations among synagogues inside each denomination. There are synagogues in the American South which hold services on Sunday and others where nobody wears a skullcap. Maybe, Catholicism needs to move in this direction, allowing local parishes more leeway, or perhaps creating an American Catholic Church which reflects the views of the vast majority of parishioners on matters like clerical celibacy, birth control and abortion.

The Pope's opinion on Iraq was of no more importance to me than that of the Satmar Rebbe, who ordered his followers to vote for the Hildebeest, or the Dalai Lama or any of the countless other swindlers in the religion biz.

Two asides. First, the College ain't electing a German Pope, no other European could deal with it. Second, you would think the Catholic Church would be media-savvy enough to keep William Donohue in a dungeon somewhere, far away from TV cameras and microphones. He's like a bad stereotype from the 1930s. If you're trying to convince people that the bad old days of the RC Church ended with Vatican II, then he's exactly the wrong guy to put on stage.

daniel:

"my conscience first" Good one! No egoist you.

So what is the critical percentage of American Catholics who get to determine what the Catholic position should be? What if 60% support cloning (a made up number...)--should that become Church doctrine?

Given that there are ~50 million US Catholics, and ~1 billion worldwide Catholics, do you really believe that ~4% of all Catholics (the 80% of American Catholics who disagree with the Church on birth control) should have the final say on the Church's stance?

b:

No, he thinks whatever he personally believes should be doctrine.

bart:

And Judaism will be gone in a couple generations. It's not a sensible template.

oj,

They've been singing that song since grandpa was a pup. I remember reading articles as a kid claiming there would only be a million Jews in America by 2000. There are over 6 million.

If Reform were to make its laws concerning intermarriage more liberal while making its politics more Zionist, they would thrive. By doing things in a bass-akwards way they are slowly committing suicide. Another more heretical notion would be to allow people to be Messianic Jews or form some merger between Christianity and Judaism. This would recognize the reality of intermarriage and not see it as a threat but instead as bringing more people in. I am sure I am not alone in that my parents would infinitely prefer me to marry a nice Italian girl to an Orthodox Jewish one.

Orthodoxy is booming in a way not seen in centuries, because the Orthodox community is large enough and affluent enough to train professionals and scholars without compelling them to compromise with the outside world. For the first time in world history, you can get a solid education in just about anything without having to give up on Orthodoxy. You can also have a large enough clientele without doing so either. This phenomenon began seriously in the late 70s when Cardozo Law School opened up. Yeshiva and Touro serve much the same function for Jews that BYU does for Mormons.

Judaism is changing here. In fact, the template for the change can be seen in Australia, perhaps the only nation in the world with a significant Jewish community and essentially no history of serious anti-semitism. There was a period of significant intermarriage, with lots of folks dropping out or converting, but today the community(over 100,000) is the most vibrant it's ever been.

Are they all that inane?

Again with the insults. Perhaps you're just not capable of reasoned argument or skilled debate.

I know you think the Church is wrong about abortion being immoral.

That is a lie.

I have never thought abortion to be anything but immoral. You do understand that there is a difference between wearing a condom and having an abortion?

And while we are on the subject, the Church (though it has always considered abortion to be sinful) has not until very recently considered it to be homicide. Prior to the late 19th century, the RCC adhered to Augustine's concept of ensoulment which didn't occur until the end of the first trimester. Abortions performed before ensoulment (while considered sinful) were not considered to be murder. The Church is always changing its stance on moral issues. For example, prior to JPII"s recent classification of feeding tubes as ordinary means of preserving life, they were considered extraordinary and Catholics were not bound to their use.

"My conscience first" are not my words but are a quote from Henry Cardinal Newman (you really need to improve your reading comprehension), one of the great philosophers and apologists of the Church. Was he an egoist? If so, then I am proud to be an egoist for I am in excellent company.

And while we're on the subject of ego, how is the driving need to control and dictate what goes on in other Catholics' bedrooms anything but an exercise of ego and pride?

And your snide comment about wanting my personal beliefs to be doctrine shows a complete ignorance on your part of the sensus fidelium.

b, An overwhelming rejection is neither a poll nor a vote, it's the sensus fidelium rejecting a teaching and making it invalid. While there are no poll numbers for the Third World (for obvious reasons) it seems likely that those millions suffering abject poverty in slums and dying from AIDS might just welcome a revision to Rome's opposition to condoms. As developing countries develop, the status of women will improve (it always does with increased wealth). The grandaughters of today's Third World women will also reject Vatican opposition to ABC as they achieve standards of education and economic opportunities equivalent to women in the West.

Now then, will somebody please pick up the gauntlet I've thrown down before you and at least attempt to refute my points either logically or factually?

Sorry, I actually didn't mean abortion but homosexuality.

Since the issue of infallibility has come up on this thread, I highly recommend an editorial in today's NY Times by historian Thomas Cahill (I also recommend his "How the Irish Saved Civilization" and "Desire of the Everlasting Hills"):

(see http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/opinion/cahill.html?ex=1270353600&en=e877d0584923bbeb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland)

Cardinal Law insisted that the church knows the truth and is therefore exempt from anything as undignified as dialogue. Cardinal Law, who had to resign after revelations that he had repeatedly allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to remain in the ministry while failing to inform either law enforcement officials or parishioners, must stand as the characteristic representative of John Paul II, protective of the church but often dismissive of the moral requirement to protect and cherish human beings.

Instead of mitigating the absurdities of Vatican I's novel declaration of papal infallibility, a declaration that stemmed almost wholly from Pius IX's paranoia about the evils ranged against him in the modern world, John Paul II tried to further it. In seeking to impose conformity of thought, he summoned prominent theologians like Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx and Leonardo Boff to star chamber inquiries and had his grand inquisitor, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, issue condemnations of their work.

It is nearly impossible to find men who subscribe wholeheartedly to this entire catalogue of certitudes; as a result the ranks of the episcopate are filled with mindless sycophants and intellectual incompetents. The good priests have been passed over; and not a few, in their growing frustration as the pontificate of John Paul II stretched on, left the priesthood to seek fulfillment elsewhere.

Sadly, John Paul II represented a tradition of aggressive papalism. Whereas John XXIII endeavored simply to show the validity of church teaching rather than to issue condemnations, John Paul II was an enthusiastic condemner. Yes, he will surely be remembered as one of the few great political figures of our age, a man of physical and moral courage more responsible than any other for bringing down the oppressive, antihuman Communism of Eastern Europe. But he was not a great religious figure. How could he be? He may, in time to come, be credited with destroying his church.

Daniel:

Good writer, no theologian.

daniel:

With all due respect, could you clarify what are your points that you wish to have refuted? In your first post, you diss Ratzinger for not wanting to face head on the Church's difficulties in Europe, and then you say that the Church will be destroyed unless it comes around to your position on condoms. So your whole point is that the Church take your position on matters of sexual morality, or be destroyed. Well, first, the Chuch doesn't work that way, and never has. The day it does they should rename it the Roman Anglican Church. And as for your predictions of destruction, the demographics seem to refute your assertions fairly strongly.

The Duffyian Reformation: Buggery & Rubbers or Oblivion!

Daniel Duffy: Yes, we all bow to your great intellect, we're all stupid here. Go away and share your wisdom with those who can appreciate it. Well, go away anyway.

OJ, You mean I lack your crazed obsession with wanting to commit mass murder by butchering all Gays (by your own admission an obsession resulting from the trauma of being buggered in your frat house). BTW, when are you going to let us know where you stand on others who deserve the death penalty in accordance with Leviticus, such as those who pick up sticks on Saturday. And hong low are you going to tolerate that abomination unto the Lord that is shellfish eating?

b, my point isn't that the Church should conform to my postion on sexual morality but that it conforms to that of the sensus fidelium.

And as for your predictions of destruction, the demographics seem to refute your assertions fairly strongly.

b, Are you saying (and hoping) that 3rd World birthrates will keep their women poor, ignorant and oppressed so they won't ever reject Church teaching like Western women?

You rather radically misunderstand the meaning of the sensus fidelium. You're talking about the inability/unwillingness of some people to conform to what they know is morally right, not a disagreement by the majority over what is right or wrong.

As mentioned above, 4% of worldwide Catholics perhaps do not reflect the whole, and even if they did, all that really matters is what God thinks. And if you don't wish to look to the Vatican for guidance about that, exactly how and why are you Catholic?

inability/unwillingness of some people

90% is not "some" people.

b, The pope is not God. Which is why the "primacy of the informed conscience" lies at the heart of Catholic theology (thank you St. Thomas Aquinas). You can dissent and remain a good Catholic.

As for why I stay Catholic, Chesterton said it best, "The severed hand cannot heal".

In the meantime, I'll be praying for a miracle and hope that the conclave chooses another Papa John XXIII.

>You can dissent and remain a good Catholic.

About what issues? Anything?

But there is no primacy of the debased conscience, which is what you're arguing for.

daniel:

Yes, it seems possible to learn from the contrasting examples of America and Europe and for the Third world to avoid the catastrophic path of the latter, which you advocate for.

The bulk of European Catholics as well as large numbers of Latin American ones hold similar views to most Americans, in some cases, even more 'progressive.' The democracy argument goes nowhere. The RC Church is what it is, a hierarchical vestige of a feudal age long gone and unlamented by serious people. If you can't accept its teachings, it would seem the obvious thing to do is to leave, or to effectively ignore it as the 97% of French and the 99% of Italians and Spaniards and Belgians who are nominally Catholic manifestly do, if election results matter.

OJ and b, you both need some education concerning the "informed conscience". Now listen to teacher:

Catholics should always keep in mind the concept of an "Informed Conscience" as formulated by Thomas Aquinas in his "Summa Theologica". We are free to question, debate, argue or otherwise disbelieve any and all non-infallible Church doctrines. Last time I check there were only two infallible doctrines in all of Church dogma, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. An "informed conscience" is an absolute necessity for the individual Catholic since over the centuries the church has been in favor of the following:

-Burning heretics (burning witches was a Protestant thing).

-Torturing people by the inquisition.

-Waging holy wars against Muslims.

-Committing genocide against the Albigensians (among others).

-Promoting the corrupting sale of indulgences, a major trigger of the Protestant reformation.

-Claiming until quite recently that there is no salvation outside of the church (at least we no longer have to believe in moral absurdities like Mahatma Gandhi burning in hell just because he was a Hindu).

-Opposing the lending of money at interest.

-Warning against the dread heresy of Americanism.

-Though it has tried to mitigate (whenever it could) the abuses of slavery it never opposed it as an institution, and when slavery died it did so without benefit of clergy.

-And though individual Popes have protected and sheltered Jews whenever possible, the church on the whole has until this century always persecuted Jews or connived at their persecution (JPII apologized for such sins).

In short, Church dogma is subject to change and has often defended or promoted morally repugnant behavior (I know OJ that you approve of most of the above, but normal people find them to be evil, made worse by the fact that they were done in the name of the Prince of Peace). Can anyone in their right mind consider the Borgia Popes to be infallible or exemplars of moral behavior? It shows a complete misunderstanding of the concept of "informed conscience" if you equate it with being in mental lock step with Vatican dogma. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica intended quite the opposite. Informed conscience is intended to be a moral safeguard against such dogmatic abuses.

Informed conscience is a get out of dogma free card, provided certain rules of use are followed:

a. The reasoning is thorough and the result of long study and prayer.
b. It is not for selfish reasons but for moral reasons that a conclusion is arrived at.
c. It does not directly contradict the word of God (i.e. no amount of IC could justify cold blooded murder).

A good Catholic is not a sheep. I'm proud to say that I belong to a religion - not a cult. As such, I'm allowed to use the brains God gave me
and not blindly follow like a programmed robot. To be an unthinking and unquestioning believer would be to surrender my dignity as a human.

OJ, why is it depraved to not want a dozen or more kids? To qoute one of the participants in Pope Paul's commission on birth control, ""Is contraceptive sex irresponsible when I have already borne ten little responsibilities?"

To quote from Coffey's essay:

How much better do parents understand their own families, with all their warts and blessings, than, with all due respect, do clerics who have never paid a tuition bill or worried as a sick child's fever mounts at 2 a.m. Is it any wonder that most married couples ask how celibate males can dictate an intimate choice to the mom or dad who is hard pressed financially or spent emotionally? It strikes many Catholics as bizarre that a position that seems hopelessly out of touch with the realities of their lives is now (along with the question of women's ordination) the litmus test for becoming a bishop!

BTW, how many kids do you have?

Yes, yours though is not informed, just indulgent.

the Third world to avoid the catastrophic path

So you hope/prefer that the 3rd World remains poor, ignorant, backward and oppressed?

And if this is the only environment where Church teachings can survive, what does that tell you about those teachings?

It's not depraved not to want a dozen kids. It's depraved not to be able to restrain yourself well enough not to.

So OJ, how many kids do you have? How depraved are you?

"Last time I check there were only two infallible doctrines in all of Church dogma, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Virgin Mary."

Um, the only things that a Catholic must believe, without question, are that Mary was born without original sin and that her body was raised to heaven? No wonder the Protestants think we Papists worship Mary. Methinks there must be something about her son in there somewhere...

Three so far.

OJ, in the real world in real families with real kids, the parents are usually too exhausted and frazzled at the end of the day to be "depraved". Restraint isn't even a factor.

So how many kids do you have?

I have three too. So I guess we're equally depraved.

Except my wife is a stay at home, full time mom not a career oriented woman like your wife the doctor. Which makes us a much more traditional Catholic family than yours. And of course we would never be tempted to not have kids for the sake of my wife's career, our family is her career.

What does the number of kids have to do with it? Oh, wait, were you saying you required birth control?

b, Even though it has not been formally declared in ex cathedra to be an infallible doctrine (which goes a long way to exposing the silliness of infallibility), to not believe in Christ's divinity would violate the third rule of exercising the informed conscience.

So what exactly is the difference between the Daniel Duffy Catholic Church and any random Protestant denomination?

Daniel Duffy lectures OJ and the readers of this post on his great wisdom. Any challenge to his wisdom is rejected as an ad hominem attack. I find this method of argument quite wearisome. It is also not exactly practical in that the stupid masses will naturally resent the lectures of the all-knowing Daniel Duffy and reject his great wisdom.

Daniel - Your Catholicism is heterodox. I have time for one point only: Teachings are only regarded as infallible when the Church is confident they have been revealed by God - for only God is infallible; the Marian dogmas are unique in that the revelation is thought to have occurred through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to two thousand years of faithful Christians, rather than through the Scripture as most revelations were made. But all public revelations are regarded as infallible.

So what exactly is the difference between the Daniel Duffy Catholic Church and any random Protestant denomination?

b, Well for one thing, I believe in the neccessity for Good Works as as well as Faith. When it comes to being a Christian, I believe you have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

Now tell me, whatis the difference between your brand of Catholocism and the Pharisees condemned by Jesus? After all the scandals (with more to come as Chruch finances are made public) can anyone consider the Chruch heirarchy to be anything but a white washed tomb or a cup only cleaned on the outside?

Your Catholicism is heterodox

If your brother's crazed desire to murder homosexuals and burn witches is an example of orthodoxy, then I am proud to be a heretic.

If choosing to exercise the primacy of the informed conscience when it comes to morally repugnanrt Chruch teaching, in accordance with the guidance set down by St. Thomas Aquinas and Henery Cardinal Newman, makes me a heretic then so be it. But then 90% of Americans are heritics, including my own parish priest (we discussed birth control in confession and he urged me to use my conscience - even most of the clergy knows that the ban on ABC is claptrap).

Earlier in the thread I asked why are all right-wing Catholics so nasty, bitter, snide, judgemental and mean spirited. The answer is simple. They are a tiny minority, isolated and ignored within their parishes and diocese. They wish to make up in shrillness what they lack in numbers.

I like to think of myself as a Catholic without the hatred.
A Catholic without the bigotry.
A Catholic without the misogyny.
A Catholic who is actually a Christian.

What does the number of kids have to do with it?

OJ, while you'll never win the title of Miss Congeniality, that remark earns you the title of Miss Disengenuous. ABC is all about limiting the number of kids. So is NFP for that matter, though the Chruch hides behind the sophistry and double talk of "spacing the children".

Bob, you have a rather poor understanding of the term ad hominem. Such a logical fallacy involves attacking the source of a statement or claim rather than the factual basis or logical argument made by the claim itself. Let me provide an example. The following is a quote from another thread here at this site:

A few years ago, it seemed quite probable that Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston would have to face trial for his appalling collusion in the child-[abuse] racket that his diocese had been running. The man had knowingly reassigned dangerous and sadistic criminals to positions where they would be able to exploit the defenseless. He had withheld evidence and made himself an accomplice, before and after the fact, in the one offense that people of all faiths and of none have most united in condemning. (Since I have more than once criticized Maureen Dowd in this space, I should say now that I think she put it best of all. A church that has allowed no latitude in its teachings on masturbation, premarital sex, birth control, and divorce suddenly asks for understanding and "wiggle room" for the most revolting crime on the books...Anyway, Cardinal Law isn't going to face a court, now. He has fled the jurisdiction and lives in Rome, where a sinecure at the Vatican has been found for him. ...[Update, April 4, 2005: And to add injury to insult as well as insult to injury, this wicked old fugitive will, in the coming days, be a part of the holy conclave that assembles to decide on the next Pope. Could anything be more disgusting?]

Now to avoid an ad hoiminem, you would have to show were the above statement is factually wrong or logically in error. Feel free to do so.

The quote is from Christopher Hitchens (who unlike JPII supported the liberation of Iraq). When presented with the source, OJ refused to even read it. His response is a clasic example of an ad hominem.

daniel:

Would you ask Mary Lincoln what she thought of John Wilkes Booth's acting?

daniel:

So it's quite easy to not use birth control and not have 20 kids, no?

daniel:

If you'd rather be a heretic then don't you need to stop whining about the Church? It isn't your concern anymore.

OJ, how does not wanting to kill gays make me a heretic?

Were St.Athomas Aquinas and Henry Cardinal Newman heretics?

Are 90% of American Catholics hereretics?

If John Wilkes Booth were making a declarative statement or argument, Mary Todd Lincoln would be commiting an ad hominem by attacking the man instead of the factual or logical basis of his statement.

If you're an adherent to the SSPX (see my post on the Holland thread) then you are the one who is officially a heretic, excommunicated and damned.

daniel:

You said you were a proud heretic.

OJ,

My statement was as follows:

If your brother's crazed desire to murder homosexuals and burn witches is an example of orthodoxy, then I am proud to be a heretic.

Again, your lack of reading comprehension prevented you from understanding that this was an "If/The" statement. I am a "proud heretic" only if killing gays is orthodoxy.

Since you dodged my questions and points in a cowardly fashion I'll repeat them:

OJ, how does not wanting to kill gays make me a heretic?

Were St.Athomas Aquinas and Henry Cardinal Newman heretics?

Are 90% of American Catholics hereretics?

If John Wilkes Booth were making a declarative statement or argument, Mary Todd Lincoln would be commiting an ad hominem by attacking the man instead of the factual or logical basis of his statement.

If you're an adherent to the SSPX (see my post on the Holland thread) then you are the one who is officially a heretic, excommunicated and damned.

daniel:

So now you say you aren't a heretic but an orthodox Catholic?

Yes, as orthodox as Thomas Aquinas, Henry Cardinal Newman, 90% of American Catholics and my own parish priest.

Are you orthodox? If so, can you point out where killing gays is in the catechism? I must have missed that part.

And I'll ask again, are you an adherent of SSPX and therefore excommunicant and damned?

No, I'm a Baptist. We make no pretense that the Pope has to conform to our views.

Well if your an adherent of Jack Chick or Bob Jones you'll believe that I'm going to Hell just for being Catholic - and this whole discussion has been accademic.

But it does explain your ignorance of Catholic theology.

Nope, just think you're very confused about morality.

OJ, Yeah I'm real confused about the morality of commititng mass murder by killing gays. Please explain that to me.

Sin has consequences.

daniel - Can it be that you think oj believes in killing gays? Do you have a sense of humor?

You say you are a Catholic without hate, yet you foam at the mouth when the Lefebvrists are mentioned.

OJ, Bob:

Mr. Duffy has raised thoughtful, articulate, and well sourced points.

I was hoping for some enlightening counterpoints.

Instead, your ad hominems and willful misreadings are completely unworthy and unbecoming, and strongly suggest you have no counterpoints.

Mr. Duffy:

I am impressed by your restraint.

What point? He can't conform to basic morality so Catholicism is wrong?

PJ, I don't think OJ would enjoy killing gays, I know he would. From a thread last January entitled, "Icon of the Interior Life":

(see http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/019475.html)

...(P.S. I noticed that you expunged from the archives our last exchange. You remember, gladly killing gays if only the law would allow it? Winston Smith of Minitruth would be proud. I also noted that you've blocked my postings from home. Neither act speaks well of your courage)
Posted by: dan duffy at January 14, 2005 08:27 AM

Here's your prior obsession-fest:
http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/017878.html
Posted by: oj at January 14, 2005 08:56 AM

Review the archive OJ, you'll see that our discussion about gladly killing gays if the law would only allow it (beginning with the death by stoning required by Leviticus) has been expunged.
Posted by: dan duffy at January 14, 2005 09:11 AM

Dan:
I remember that exchange. You are quite right--it is gone. I wonder why that would be?...
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 14, 2005 09:31 AM

Jeff:
As you know we don't take down posts, though we do sometimes close comments when they become inappropriate.
If it makes you feel better I'll repeat what I said then: it's perfectly moral and healthy for a society to purge itself of homosexuals, witches, adulterers, etc., and if our society still enforced its moral laws so rigorously as to stone miscreants I'd happily join in.
Posted by: oj at January 14, 2005 09:45 AM

For some reason PJ, I don't find that funny in the least.

So what exactly is the difference between the Daniel Duffy Catholic Church and any random Protestant denomination?

b, Well for one thing, I believe in the neccessity for Good Works as as well as Faith. When it comes to being a Christian, I believe you have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

Of course, Protestants also believe you have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. And Catholics don't believe that Good Works can substitute for Faith. Faith leads to good works in this world and salvation in world to come; but it is the saving grace of God, by way of Christ, accepted by means of God's gracious gift of faith, that is the sole path to salvation. So Mr. Duffy has failed to identify a point on which he differs from Protestants, unless it is one on which he also differs from Catholics.

PJ, I'm not foamimng at the mouth concerning Lefebvrists or the SSPX. I am reporting accurately what the Church has decreed (the fact that I can use them to expose your brother's hypcorisy is a nice extra).

You are merely shooting the messenger.

daniel:

But we don't. Now we sit around and wonder why they think it's okay to molest children. It was a better society when we punished evil and protected innocents.

But we don't.

Non sequetur, OJ.

The issue is your intent and desire, not whether the law will let you act on them. Besides, sin and evil are in the intent, not the action.

PJ, are you now convinced that your brother would like to commit mass murder by killing gays?

He doesn't believe in Good Works either, since he espouses making up your own morality.

daniel:

Everone shares the desire. Being a decent member of society means restraining your desires.

Jeff Guinn: It is too tiresome to go through all of Daniel Duffy's "thoughtful, articulate, and well sourced" comments so I'll just go to his next to last one where he said:

"Again, your lack of reading comprehension prevented you from understanding that this was an "If/The" statement. I am a "proud heretic" only if killing gays is orthodoxy.

Since you dodged my questions and points in a cowardly fashion I'll repeat them:"

So, he calls OJ both cowardly and stupid in 3 sentences. Yet, he is "thoughtful, articulate, and well sourced" and we use "ad hominems and willful misreadings". Spare me your lectures too.

Daniel - Looking back, I can't speak to oj's past comments, as I disagree with them. However, you might at least acknowledge that in the http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/017878.html post, oj is proposing that legal punishments may be the most loving course toward gays, as generations of the Church thought it was (see Aquinas and many others), and as we still believe to be the case for violent criminals.

As Jesus said when asked about another cruel Mosaic law, God permitted the establishment of such laws due to our hardness of heart. If we were not hard of heart, these questions would not come up. And as oj has repeatedly asserted, he views life as a comedy, and the chief comic element is the contest between God and our ignorant hardness of heart. Perhaps you should try to see things from oj's perspective and look for the comedy in the dilemma faced by gays, which appears so tragic to people not of oj's perspective.

Jeff,

Thank you for your kind remarks. I'll probably spend a few centuries in Purgatory for this, but I can't help but enjoy watching these two get hoisted on their own petards and as they twist and turn and try to wiggle out traps of their own device.

In short, no, I don't believe oj would like to commit mass murder by killing gays.

daniel:

Trap?

legal punishments may be the most loving course toward gays

Legalized murder is loving?

which appears so tragic to people not of oj's perspective

People who dont' share OJ's perspective are usually refered to as:

Normal People
Sane People
Good People

Now that you've finally familiarized yourself with your brother's views, care to explain to me why this blog should not be categorized as a "hate site"?

pj:

Indeed, the point is that if we punished homosexuality people wouldn't much engage in it, just as they don't murder much because we punish it.

I don't believe oj would like to commit mass murder by killing gays

PJ, what part of:

and if our society still enforced its moral laws so rigorously as to stone miscreants I'd happily join in.

don't you understand?

daniel:

Of course it is--we don't enforce morality because we hate men but because we love them.

Bob, my patience was wearing thin at that point. You are free at any time to refute my arguments. Unfortunately your intellectual capacity seems limited to making snide comment about my wisdom and intellect.

Oh well, if that's the best you can do....

daniel:

what is Bob supposed to refute? You just keep saying you disagree with Catholic morality or that you agree withn Marxist critics of the Church. That's self-refuting.

Bob:

Your very first comment was merely to invite Mr. Duffy to leave. You have yet to address anything he has brought up.

By the time Mr. Duffy made that comment, he was returning fire.

One of the issues you might take up is whether the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is any more worthy of slavish adherence than the one against eating shellfish, for just one example.

In addition to asserting mass murder of homosexuals should be a goal of society, OJ also believes there is such a thing as witches, and they should also be burned.

After all, the Church said so.

OJ:

Informed conscience, and papal infallibility, for two.

The distinction without difference between AFP and NFP for three.

If you prefer, a la MoveOn.org, an echo chamber within which you drink your own bathwater, ad hominems and willful misreadings are a good way to go.

Jeff:

It's now possible to eat shellfish and maintain health. Homosexuality is unhealthy by definition as well as immoral.

anonymous - Again, I can't speak for oj. However, I note that there have been no reports of mass murders of gays in the vicinity of Hanover NH, which counts as empirical evidence against the proposition that oj wants to see mass murder of gays. Further, there are logical steps missing between the premise (oj's statement you quote) and the conclusion you ask me to endorse. Murder is a killing contrary to divine law, and oj only stated support for lawful killings by a recognized authority ("society enforcing moral laws") and may (by his reference to Mosaic law and moral law) have implicitly stipulated the clause "and only if in accord with divine law". In the absence of any agreement by oj that your statement represents his views, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I will certainly agree that oj is being provocative here while dancing around a definite statement of views.

Let me add that in my view, there are no circumstances in which the killing of gays would be justified or lawful.

It's now possible to eat shellfish and maintain health.

Tell that to my wife who gets a violent allergic reaction to shellfish - as did the poor Israelite whose death propmted the Levites to declare shellfish eating an abomination unto the Lord.

BTW, when are you going to take on those evil bastards that pick up sticks on Saturday?

That was me PJ, in my haste I didn't sign my post (it also accounts for my poor typing)

I note that there have been no reports of mass murders of gays in the vicinity of Hanover NH

Remember your catechism PJ? Sin and evil are in the intent, no actual action is necessary.

I will certainly agree that oj is being provocative here while dancing around a definite statement of views. ...Let me add that in my view, there are no circumstances in which the killing of gays would be justified or lawful.

Feel free to sit your brother down and have a heart to heart with him over this issue.

daniel:

Then it would be a sin for her to eat it for the same reason homosexuality is immoral.

Jeff Guinn: I don't have any obligation to refute anything. I'm not Catholic, I'm not even Christian. My first comment(and second for that matter) tried to point out that Duffy's argument style is not calculated to convince anyone and is tiresome. I think that other than you, that is the consensus of the faithful on this site.

Duffy in his SECOND comment said: "Now, does somebody on this site have the werewithal to actually address my points and try to refute them either logically or factually? Or does the use of ad hominems define the limits of your intellectual capacity?"

He is calling everybody stupid right off the back, well before I said he should go. Look at his comments, practically every one brags about his great intellect and attacks his opponents as stupid. When he has appeared before here, he did the same. So, if I am attacking him, it is with good reason. He is rude and offensive and I feel no obligation to respect his views. If this bothers you or him, I could care less.

OJ, It would be a sin only if she ate shellfish on purpose with deliberate intent to harm herself. If she accidently ate a shrimp in a salad, there would be no sin.

Evil and sin are in the intent.

Like the intent to mass murder gays.

Yes, you said she knew she was allergic. Gays deliberately harm themselves every time they engage in sex.

Who said anything about mass murdering gays?

OJ:

Lots of foods, and water, cause illness or death when tainted or improperly preserved. So your trope doesn't explain the special attention paid to shellfish.

And, if the reason for prohibiting shellfish was merely on account of health, God certainly should have double-extra special made a point of separating human waste and water. That would have made a much bigger difference than quibbling over shellfish.

Who said anything about mass murdering gays?

You did. According to you, homosexuals are, de facto, miscreants, that you would happily stone if you could get away with it. Roughly 3% of the US male population is homosexual. Your throwing arm might get tired, but that amounts to just over 4 million stonings. You better get to work; time waits for no man.

Jeff:

They wouldn't be if we discouraged it. Of course, the great irony is that traditional morality would treat the few roughly to save the many. You moral relativists encouyraged the behavior that killed millions of them. And you say life isn't a comedy?

OJ, We're still waitng for you to tell us what we should do to those evil bastards who pick up sticks on Saturday.

daniel:

Breaking the Sabbath should be stonable.

So you and your family never, ever break the sabbath in any way? If not, why are you still alive? For that matter why are you still breathing in defiance of Leviticus after that little sheep incident?

daniel:

Because we don't enforce strict morality anymore. What part of this can't you follow? We don't stone homosexuals either.

You're hiding behind that OJ. When did a truly devout Christian let the law stand in the way of righteousness? Besides, if you were a man of your word, you'd volunteer to be stoned to death.

Your motto is "Rules for thee but not for me", since you wouldn't survive 10 minutes in the ideal society you'd like to create. Where I come from, we call such people hypocrites.

I very much approve of hypocrisy. Even though we can't conform ourselves to what we know is morally right we still have to advocate for and defend it.

You still, though, seem not to get the point. Stoning is what keeps us from sinning. Remove the stones, multiply the sins.

John

8-2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them.

8-3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst

8-4 they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery.

8-5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?"

8-6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.

8-7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."

8-8 And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.

8-9 But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.

8-10 Jesus looked up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

8-11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again."

daniel:

Funny how your ilk always emphasize the wrong line. The important thing in the story is God commanding her: "do not sin again."

I very much approve of hypocrisy.

Matthew

23-23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, wiyout neglecting the others.

23-24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

23-25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity.

23-26 You blind Pharisee! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

23-27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

23-28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

23-29 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,

23-30 saying, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'

23-31 Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

23-32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.

23-33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

That passage is hypocritical, no?

The important thing in the story is God commanding her: "do not sin again."

Not sinning again is very important, but where are you going to find someone sinless to cast all those stones?

That passage is hypocritical, no?

How so?

Daniel:

Note how absolutely essential it is to OJ's reasoning that God did not create homosexuals.

It is a darn shame, however, that everything seems to indicate otherwise.

Perhaps there is a difference between God and religion.

daniel:

Recidivism earns the stoning.

Let me repeat the questions OJ since you dodged them in a cowardly fashion:

...where are you going to find someone sinless to cast all those stones?

That passage is hypocritical, no?

How so?

daniel:

The sinful will.

The sinful will.

So you and they will do so in direct defiance of Christ's commandment. So tell me, what exactly is the difference between yourself and the Pharisees condemned by Jesus?

Oh an here's that question again (third time is a charm) that you keep dodging:

That passage is hypocritical, no?

How so?

None, nor is there any difference with Christ. Note that He proceeds to command the woman to not sin again? So He's quite comfortable judging her after all, as He did the Pharisees. God too is a hypocrite. It's the nature of Man.

You're saying Jesus is a hypocrite?

This just keeps getting better and better.

All men are hypocrites--that's the point of the Bible. Hypocrisy is necessary and good.

Just out of curiosity, does your wife and family know you have these views (your brother seemed rather surprised that you actually wanted to go out and "happily" kill gays). And does your pastor and congregation know that you believe God and Jesus to be hypocrites and your otherwise unique take on the tenants of Christianity? If so what are their responses?

I don't want to kill gays. I said that if that if we as a society still did such things I'd happily do so. I'm quite conformist.

Then I suggest you not use the term "happily" as it denotes positive enthusiasm instead of grudging conformity or regretfull necessity.

BTW what does your family, friends and congregation think of your views?

daniel:

I'm confused. If no one can throw the first stone then what would be wrong with the mass murder of gays and why shouldn't priests diddle boys? If every can do whatever they want because none of us are fit to judge then why are you so judgmental?

If no one can throw the first stone then what would be wrong with the mass murder of gays

This statement is incoherrent.

daniel:

How can you condemn someone who kills gays?

Orrin,

Thank for your interest in my work over the last several years. Cardinal Ratzinger's observation that the RCC is in crisis rather than "rising," as you put it, is not unique. Globally we observe a collapse of recruitment of suitable clergy, attendance at mass, parochial school enrollments, etc. John Derbyshire latest column at National Review Online makes a similar point:

"It is therefore sad to reflect that the quarter century of [JPII's] papacy was a terrible disaster for the Roman Catholic Church. Regular attendance at Mass* all over the traditionally Catholic world dropped like a stone all through John Paul II’s papacy. Everywhere in the great Catholic bastions of southern Europe — Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal — the story is the same. In France, “eldest daughter of the Church,” the only argument is whether regular Mass attendance today is just above, or just below, ten percent. In Ireland — Ireland! — the numbers declined steadily from the 90 percent of 1973 to 60 percent in 1996, since when they have fallen off a cliff, to 48 percent in 2001 and heading south. A hundred years ago the U.S. Church imported priests from Ireland; now Ireland imports them from Nigeria."

Derbyshire also expresses grave doubts as to whether Third World Catholicism really is the future.

One may disagree about the facts and their interpretation, but the perception that the RCC faces a grave instititutional crisis is widely held on the conservative side of the spectrum.

Spengler:

Given the Derbyshire portion of the Right's obsession with immigration it seems inevitable that they'd be hostile to the Church becoming increasingly a Third World institution. But they can't save Europe and they can't keep the Church a European institution, can they?