I just went over to "Catholics for a free Choice" website, to take a peak... and was appauled. I cpuildnt even finish looking throuhg the web site.

One hting I noticed thouhg, they lie heavily.

The firts Lie I caught was the claim that peopel who are opposed to Abortion cannot imagine sex as an expression of Love, or a way to get closer to the other person. This si a lie. That is PRECICELY the way I see it, and EXACTLY why it shoudl be confined ot marriage.

I just dont think that if pregnancy results we shoudl issue murder as an option...

Speaking of this, they also said that Scientifically, they cannot tell if the Fetus is a person or when it becomes one, likewise they said that the Vatican does not know when the Fetus becomes a person. But I read the contrary form every book on Catholisistic teachigns I own that deals withthe matter. The Vatican has, in fact, maintained a hard stand agaisnt Abortion ON THE GROUNDS THAT the Fetus IS a living soul. Not may be, but is.

They also tried to throw numbers at one... but they relaly didnt tell WHY the number of Catholcis who have abortions is relevant to the mroal issue. If 68% of all Catholics in Brazil where car theives woudl this mean that Car theift was OK?( Not saying that 68% are, just an example...)

Now, my queastion is this, are these peopel even relaly Catholic? If not, why are they allowed to call themselves such? Indeed, can I open a CHurch somewhere, start teachign whateve I want, and call myself Catholic? I dont think so...

Anywya, just asking...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 29, 2004

Answers

My own bump

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 29, 2004.

From their site...in Bold I made notations...

Women have rarely been able to be sexually active without consequences. Making the decision to have an abortion, going through the abortion, accepting that you are not ready or able to have a child, coming to terms with the inadequacy of the relationship with her partner, feeling some sense of the failure or inadequacy of one’s life – I’d call those pretty serious consequences.

I think we have come to the crux of the matter. One of the differences between those who favor legal abortion and those who oppose it is the different way in which the two groups view sexuality. For some who are opposed to abortion, sex is not in and of itself a positive thing if it does not include an openness to children. So the idea that you would have sex primarily because you love and want to be closely united with another person doesn’t make sense.

{This is a lie, and an argument on faulty logic. JUST beleivign sex is for love and out of a desire to be close does NOT preclude th eopenness to have a child, nor is the openess of having a child a preclusive item preventing it form beign an expression of Love...This is blatant charecter assasination and a lie.}

Some people go so far as to think that if you have sex and are not prepared to have a child, you should be punished – and your "punishment" should be to have a child. I think we all can agree that children should be the result of a freely made decision, preferably by two people, sometimes by a woman alone. Children should not be punishment for having sex.

I believe it is immoral that during the course of this hour, eight women will die from unsafe abortion. I believe it is immoral that women are branded as criminals simply because they have an abortion. When a woman takes seriously the question of whether or not she should continue a pregnancy – whether or not she should bring a child into the world – and concludes, through a serious process of self- reflection, that the most moral thing she can do is to terminate the pregnancy, it is hard for me to say that she is immoral. Even if she has drawn a conclusion that I would not draw, even if I think it is the wrong decision, I really respect her process and would never call her immoral. However much women may need the advice and support of family, friends, doctors, lawyers, and priests, women must be recognized as the primary moral agents in decisions of pregnancy and birth. We must promote, first of all, safe and effective contraception, then comprehensive instruction on the use of such contraception, and adequate child support for women who want to bear a child but cannot support themselves and their children. Finally, we must promote a culture that affirms the woman as the primary moral agent in the decisions that affect her life. Any church or society refusing to promote these policies is, in effect, promoting abor

Assertion: The fetus is a person from the moment of conception. I care about the mother too, but you can't ignore-or kill-the little person inside her. Response: In fact, most of the world's scientific, medical, legal, and religious communities do not share that view. Even the Vatican says that science and medicine cannot tell when the fetus becomes a person and that theologians differ on when a fetus gains a soul, which for some religions marks passage into personhood. Different relgions and different societies put forth different ideas.There is no definitive statement on which everyone agrees. Society will not likely settle this question in our lifetimes, and we are certainly not going to settle it tonight. Good people will diagree. The question is what kind of laws should we have when there exists repectable diversity of both scientific and religious views on the status of the fetus. I think it is unjust and unworkabl for the law to forbid something which respectable opinion supports. While we really have no consensus in society on when the fetus becomes a person, we do agree that the pregnant woman is a person. She is the one who must decide what she believes to be the value of the fetus, when it becomes a person, and under what circumstances it would be morally justifiable for her to have an abortion. She has to weigh all the information available and make her own decision. No matter what value you place on fetal life, you cannot ignore the consequences of illegal abortion on the quality of a woman's life. When women are deprived of information and the ability to decide to have or not have a legal, safe abortion, they suffer, men suffer, and children suffer-everybody suffers when abortion is illegal.

Question: You have fought for women's rights and against discrimination and violence against women. Why don't you want to grant the same rights to the fetus? Response: Your question assumes that a fetus is a person. We do not know that. We do know that a woman is a living, vital human being. The movement to grant women civil, political, and human rights equal to those of men is a struggle for recognition that men and women are inherently equal because they are persons. Rights are granted to persons. Scientific, legal, and philosophical evidence and history indicate that fetuses are not persons. Law in the United States has consistently denied fetuses in utero the rights of persons It is appropriate to consider whether the fetus is a person and, if so, to grant it rights. The fact is, a fetus is not a person by most criteria-whether legal, scientific, or religious. Even Catholicism does not claim to know when a fetus becomes a person. It would be discriminatory to grant to the fetus, which is not a person, rights that would limit the rights of women, who are persons. Women and fetuses are not comparable beings. While all life, including fetal life, has value, it is only persons, including women, who have rights. To grant an absolute right to life to fetuses at all stages of development, from a single cell to viability, is to denigrate women's lives, health, and capacities. Reverence for life should be expressed through social and economic support for children and families. We revere life and attend to women's rights when we use resources to assist women in making good decisions and preventing pregnancy.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 29, 2004.

Zarove Im usure as to whether the Vatican has issued anything but on March 22, 1996, Bishop Bruskewitz (Diocese of Lincoln, USA) wrote warning of 12 organisations including such groups as SSPX, Call to Action, Catholics for a Free Choice, Planned Parenthood and the Freemasons, "whose beliefs and practices are perilous to or incompatible with the Catholic Faith."

John G is a long time pro life activist who I am sure is well aquainted with this group and will be able to set you straight. Ill get back to you on your "EU thread" later

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), January 29, 2004.

Zarove said: They also tried to throw numbers at one... but they relaly didnt tell WHY the number of Catholcis who have abortions is relevant to the mroal issue. If 68% of all Catholics in Brazil where car theives woudl this mean that Car theift was OK?( Not saying that 68% are, just an example...)

Here, you hit one of the things that intrigues me about the Catholic Church. In all the Protestant denominations, the best they can do is vote (whether with their opinions or their actions). Even then, if someone is voted out of one church for refusing to repent, they can always go down the street and start fresh at the next church, or find one that will tell them that their sin is good. Or start their own with whatever doctrines they like. But the Catholic Church claims to preserve God's truth no matter what the opinions or practices are of its members.

I heard a story from several centuries ago I guess, when some queen wanted to get a divorce, so she told the man who was up for the papal position that she would make sure he got it if he would only declare that divorce was allowed once he became pope. Well, apparently he agreed and became pope, but then God so convicted him that he couldn't keep his promise to her to change that dogma. He was so weighed down with this conviction. So the queen sent him to a dungeon until he would agree to change it, and he didn't ever change it. Then another guy became pope who wouldn't change it either. I think my mom told me that she read this story somewhere. Has anyone ever heard of it?

Something that really shocked me was hearing a Catholic man tell me that 90% of Catholics do not agree with or follow the Church's stance on contraception. This number sounds strangely high. But anyway, this man disagrees with many teachings of the Church, and I believe his intention was to show me that many others are in agreement with him by disagreeing in some ways. Or that by converting, I would not have to agree with everything the Church teaches. However, I took away a different message than his intended one. I realized that the Church possesses a tremendous amount of authority, so much that if they are what they claim to be (ie. apostolic succession, keeper of the keys, preserving God's teachings), then I can trust that. There is no people-pleasing, pampering, telling you what you "want" to hear. If even 90% of the churches followers don't agree, that does not change God's eternal truth. There is no democratic vote to decide eternal truth, as it should be. God should be the one who decides.

Perhaps this is why US society can sometimes be quite anti-Catholic? In addition to its mostly Protestant roots, it was also founded on the principles of democracy. Who wants a dictator, they might think. But in reality, I think that having God as my dictator would be the best political leader ever. Those poor Israelites didn't know how good they had it!

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), January 29, 2004.

Emily,

You've hit upon something that is so important to me. The Catholic Church is one of the few that has never changed its stance on artificial contraception and abortion. She stands as a bulwatrk against modern notions that defy God. I pray for those who call themselves Catholics and support abortion. They are either misinformed or refuse to accept the truth. I would be curious to find out how many of the Catholics for Free Choice really believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and participate in the sacraments regularly.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), January 30, 2004.

Democracxy is the system that places the highest value on popylar opinion, without ever realisign that the majority isnt always right.

-- z' (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 30, 2004.

Also, note this, many of htese newer "Liberal catholics" think of the Eucharist as a "Community meal" and a "Defining cultural tradition."

Sacraments arent important, and many only attend Mass on holidays or other "Specuial" occassions.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 30, 2004.

Emily,

As I understand it, Catholics are obligated to believe all the Truths which the Church teaches. Otherwise, one enters into Heresy.

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth, which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith." (CCC)

regarding abortion ...

"Usually only the bishop, the pope, or their delegates, depending on the offense, can remove an excommunication. For example, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, abortion is a mortal sin. The sin of abortion many incur an automatic excommunication (Canon 1398) for everyone involved -- the mother and the father of the aborted child, the doctor and the nurse, and anyone whose cooperation was needed to perform the abortion." -- Father Trigilio Jr.

May God give you the Grace to convert fully into the Holy Catholic Church. It is safe to believe her because she possesses the fullness of Grace and Truth.

-- J.John (J.John@yahoo.com), January 30, 2004.

Zarove said: Now, my queastion is this, are these peopel even relaly Catholic? If not, why are they allowed to call themselves such? Indeed, can I open a CHurch somewhere, start teachign whateve I want, and call myself Catholic? I dont think so... Does anyone know, what would the Catholic Church do if someone opened a new church and called it "Catholic" or "catholic" unofficially (ie. not being in submission to the pope)? J.John said: May God give you the Grace to convert fully into the Holy Catholic Church. It is safe to believe her because she possesses the fullness of Grace and Truth. J.John, thank you for your kindness. Please pray that God will make that possible. To read what I wrote about this, click here. Basically, I am waiting for two things:
1. To make sure that I am doing the right thing. I will have extensive time this summer to study Catholic and anti-Catholic material.

2. To be able to explain to family and friends why I made this decision, after much study. I want to be prepared to give an answer for the reason for my faith (1 Pet. 3:15) 15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. 17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing. God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), January 30, 2004.

oops, sorry for the badly formatted message. I'm still learning this HTML stuff. Anyway, here's the link that didn't work above: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Bh5P

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), January 30, 2004.

Hi Emily,

In regards to your question: "Does anyone know, what would the Catholic Church do if someone opened a new church and called it "Catholic" or "catholic" unofficially (ie. not being in submission to the pope)?"

I recall reading in my diocesan newspaper about a church just north of Atlanta, GA that called itself catholic, but it wasn't any such thing. The church claimed that they used the word catholic to mean "universal" church. If I recall correctly, the bishop there was doing what he could through the local government. But that's a tricky thing to handle, I would imagine. I don't know of any specific law in the US that prevents someone from opening their own church and calling it "catholic", or "baptist", or "reformed" for that matter. About the only thing I guess a bishop could do is get the word out to his diocese about that specific church. Anyone else know more about this?

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), January 30, 2004.

Jmj

Hello, Emily and Andy.
All of the following (and probably many others) exist. (They are schismatic churches or Protestant denominations.) ...

the Anglican Catholic "Church"
the American Old Catholic "Church"
the Anglican Catholic Communion, USA
the Apostolic Catholic "Church"
the Catholic Apostolic "Church"
the Catholic Apostolic "Church" in North America
the Catholic Apostolic "Church" of Antioch
the Catholic Apostolic "Church" of Brazil
the Catholic Apostolic Philippine "Church"
the Apostolic Orthodox Catholic "Church" in Europe
the Christ Catholic "Church"
the Christian Catholic Rite of Community "Churches"
Christ's Worldwide Apostolic Catholic "Church"
the Contemporary Catholic "Church"
the Eastern Orthodox Catholic "Church"
the Ecumenical Catholic "Church"
the Ecumenical Catholic "Church" of Australia
the Ecumenical Old Catholic "Church"
the Evangelical Catholic "Church"
the Federated Orthodox Catholics United Sacramentally (FOCUS)
the Free Catholic "Church"
the Friends Catholic Communion
the Independent Catholic "Church" of America
the Independent Evangelical Catholic "Church" in America
the Liberal Catholic "Church" International
the National Catholic "Church" of America
the Old Catholic "Church" of America
the Old Catholic "Church" of Utrecht
the Old Catholic Orthodox "Church"
the Mexican National Catholic "Church"
the Old Roman Catholic "Church" in North America
the Polish National Catholic "Church"
the Orthodox Catholic "Church"
the Traditional Roman Catholic Archdiocese
the United Catholic "Church"
the United Reformed Catholic "Church"
Whenever one of these things spring up, the real Catholic Church (at least in the U.S.) doesn't take action, because it has no "patent" or "copyright" on the name "Catholic," and there is no law prohibiting people's abuse of the word.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), January 31, 2004.

Wow, John. That is quite a list! I think it is actually rather sad, but good to know in case I walk into one of those expecting something different.

This reminds me of a quote I heard once by a man who said something like that he was glad that God allowed for many different flavors of Christianity to develop, as they were each responsible for preserving a different trait of God. For example, the Presbyterian tradition and God's sovereignty, Methodists and God's Holiness, and Catholics with the Mystery of God.

As I think about it, many different churches hold traits that, when put together could actually point toward Catholicism. For example, Presbyterians practice infant baptism, while Baptists insist that adult baptism is the true form. But Baptists believe that salvation is open to everyone, while Presbyterians say that it's only for the elect, or a smaller group. Both churches contain parallels and differences from Catholic teaching.

On this thread, Zarove gave me a link that explains the beliefs of Friends (Quakers).

Zarove said on that thread: Quakers arent technically protestants, and do not hold to sola Scriptura. Indeed, they veiw the Bible as a doculemtation fo Gods interaction, not as a sole basis of authority, they claim that Jesus is the final authority, and that he visits in spirit his followers. Each person in the Friends, or Quakers, has to allow personal revelation as well.

I found it quite interesting the Friends do not hold to Sola Scriptura, but claim Jesus as the final authority. Perhaps I'm biased, but this seemed to me to parallel the Catholic belief of papal authority, because it's like the person has a revelation from God just as the Catholics claim the pope does. However, with Friends, everyone would essentially be their own pope it seems (at least going along with the parallel to Catholicism).

The Friends website said: Friends are best known for the peace testimony, but they also hold to other testimonies including truth, equality and simplicity.

With the exception of total pacifism (and substituting just war doctrine), it seems that all of these should be traits of faithful Catholics.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 01, 2004.

John,

I learn something everyday in this foum. I think this Lady(Emily) caught on quicker than anyone I ever saw. :-)

St. John Bosco pray for us.

-- - (David@excite.com), February 01, 2004.

Emily,
Beware, simplicity to a Quaker means, among other things, getting rid of the sacrements. To a Quaker a Sunday service is sitting around waiting for the spirit to prompt someone, anyone, to stand up and preach whatever comes to mind.

Equality to a Quaker means, among other things, there are no priests or bishops. Everyone is a minister and has the ability to speak the 'truth'.

To a Quaker, truth is relative.

Don't be too quick to accept nice sayings until you ask the author of those sayings what they mean.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.

Bill,

Do you think you ever "talked" to Emily before? Stick with the basics Billy!

-- - (David@excite.com), February 01, 2004.

I only meant that the Quakers wheren't Protestants, I didnt mean to imply that they where Catholic.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 01, 2004.

Thanks for that list John. I never realized.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), February 01, 2004.

You're welcome, Andy. Yes, it does come as quite a shock!
I too learn every day, David. (Yes, Emily is a welcome addition to the Church and forum!)
[We knew what you meant, Zarove, but Quakers are Protestants (from our point of view).]
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.

Hi Emily just a small point but pacifism is a perfectly legitimate and acceptable Catholic tradition for faithfull Catholics.

Peace and love!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.

David said: I learn something everyday in this foum. I think this Lady(Emily) caught on quicker than anyone I ever saw. :-)

Thanks for the compliment. May I ask what you are referring to, as I was a bit confused? If it is about Catholicism in general, I have been studying it for awhile, as has my mom, who shares insights with me. So I'm not *that* fast of a learner, lol (ie. simply from this forum for the month I've been around).

David said: St. John Bosco pray for us.

Who is this? I looked him up here but I could not figure out the significance of him to this discussion. Or is he simply your favorite saint, or what? How do you Catholics keep track of them? There are countless Saints it seems!

---

Bill, Thanks for correcting me. You are right in that I should be more careful in what I endorse. However, I was simply thinking of it in the sense of simplicity as opposed to materialism; equality as opposed to hate, prejudice, etc; and truth as opposed to rebelling against authority that holds truth, or swerving toward falsehood. However, you are right to point out that some of the things the Friends groups endorse do not seem correct.

---

David said: Bill, Do you think you ever "talked" to Emily before? Stick with the basics Billy!

David, I'm not sure how to take this? It appears to be an insult to my intelligence, except that you just complimented me above. I understood everything that Bill said just fine. Did I misunderstand you here, David?

---

Zarove said: I only meant that the Quakers wheren't Protestants, I didnt mean to imply that they where Catholic.

Zarove, sorry I wrote in a way that might be misinterpreted. I think that Friends (Quakers) are Protestant, but not Catholic. I was merely using them as an analogy, showing that different Protestant denominations contain elements that may allude to Catholicism.

---

John said: Yes, Emily is a welcome addition to the Church and forum!

Thanks, John. You are very kind. I have not joined the Catholic Church yet, though.

---

Kiwi said: Hi Emily just a small point but pacifism is a perfectly legitimate and acceptable Catholic tradition for faithfull Catholics. Peace and love!

Hi Kiwi, are you a pacifist? That's interesting, because I thought that the Catholic position was not complete pacifism, but only a just war doctrine, as seen here. Do you know of an allowance for the doctrine of complete pacifism in the Catholic Catechism?

God bless you all,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 01, 2004.

Emily , the first link has an error , 'cause the link is wrong !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 01, 2004.

I am trying to learn HTML and sometimes my links fail, and I don't know why. Anyway, here's the link that I gave above about St. John Bosco: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintj14.htm

Does anyone know why on my first attempt, I copied in the entire link and it appears on the source page, but for some reason the link is broken up and does not work? This only happens to me sometimes.

Also, while I'm asking. This program (thankfully) includes (P)s automatically, usually. But if I enter one (BR) or (P), it messes up everything else by taking them all away everywhere else. Is there a way to just enter one or two (BR)s and still get the (P)s automatically?

Thanks and God bless!

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 01, 2004.

Emily, good question. Happens to me too, and I don't have an answer.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.

Emily, I didn't understand David either. I think he meant it as a compliment to you, but I don't know :(

I didn't mean anything as an offense to anyone. I just found Quakers to be a bit mischievious is all..

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.

Hi Emily

Hi Kiwi, are you a pacifist?

No I accept war as sometimes necessary. My own family has a long and proud record of military service, my great great great unucle on my Mums side(Charles Heaphy VC) being the first New Zealander to be awarded the British Empires highest honour- The Victorian Cross for bravery. My father served as an infantry officer in the NZ Army for over 30 years and I have a brother currently serving in the army.

That's interesting, because I thought that the Catholic position was not complete pacifism, but only a just war doctrine, as seen here.

The pacifist tradition, exemplified especially in the religious orders, seeks the maintenance of peace using non-violent means. Based on Gospel values and the experience of national and global violence, pacifism regards war as being unthinkable and not to be justified. The just war tradition, on the other hand, opposes the use of force for similar reasons, but concedes that engagement in war may be justified in certain circumstances, under strict moral conditions and only as a last resort, in order to protect the innocent or to restore justice. Although these traditions are strictly logically incompatible, they have co-existed over the centuries.

Do you know of an allowance for the doctrine of complete pacifism in the Catholic Catechism?

Yes 2311 of the Catechism makes an allowance for pacifism. While we must all work assiduously for peace and try and act as "the peacemakers", society also needs the example of those who renounce violence altogether. Their "witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death" should serve to restrain the use of even justified force. Such conscientious objection is a valuable service to society.

God bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.

Don't forget consientious objectors are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.

OFF topic:

Emily , Bill & .... , you can press the return button X-times in this case , until you see the reply you were typing , and so you can fix it , it's a shame there is no "preview" before pressing enter !!

PS: The reason why some HTML Tags don't work , there was someone a while ago , that person was misusing HTML , by even destroying entire forums !! __ Sometimes if you tryed to reply on a thread , that reply appeared on another forum !!

BACK topic:

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 01, 2004.

Kiwi, I found the paragraph to which you are referring, here. However, when read in context it appears that public authorities (eg. Catholic government officials) must simply make allowances for people such as Mennonites to follow their pacifist convictions. This paragraph does not appear to sanction pacifism as a legitimate Catholic stance for those who are aware of the Church's position of just war doctrine, and thus no longer able to claim having an ignorant conscience.

Paragraph 2311 gave me cross references to 1782 and 1790. Basically, 1782 said that people must be allowed to follow their consciences, but 1790 said that an ignorant conscience can make erroneous judgements. Thus, paragraph 2311 only allows for acts of conscience done in ignorance.

Complete pacifism does not seem to make sense for a Catholic. What would you do, for example, if a murderer was standing next to your child or any child threatening to kill him or her, and no amount of coercion seemed to be able to stop this murderer? Would you just stand by and let this atrocity occur?

If I am mistaken in my interpretation of these paragraphs or there are other references that I have not listed, by all means, please share! I am relatively new to Catholicism (still a Protestant), and I am open to correction.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 01, 2004.

Kiwi, I found the paragraph to which you are referring, here. However, when read in context it appears that public authorities (eg. Catholic government officials) must simply make allowances for people such as Mennonites to follow their pacifist convictions.

>>>>Its broader than that its not limited to Catholic government officials nor Mennonites. Its simply than ANY legitimate public authority must make alllowances for ANY PERSON to follow their pacifist conviction.

"This paragraph does not appear to sanction pacifism as a legitimate Catholic stance for those who are aware of the Church's position of just war doctrine, and thus no longer able to claim having an ignorant conscience.

>>>>Emily thats an intresting way of looking at it but I dont think the just war doctrine holds quite the elevated status you seem to give it. Someone will clarrify I hope. Im not a theologian nor have I had any formal training in religious education so my words need to be taken with a degree of caution but as I understnad it.... Its not an infallible nor is it an authoritive church teaching. THere are many different levels that the church teaches at, each requiring different levels of assent. Its very complex but something I have spent some considerable time studying as part of an ongoing disagreement with some of my traditional friends here realting to another issue. In short much to the delight of pro war Catholics one can legitimately dissent from "just war" teachings and this does not as you presume mean that their consceinces are in error or ignorance as the level of certitude of the church teachings truth is lacking.

The just war theory is not an immutable truth and that for many centuries such a theory did not exist at least not in its current form. It is something that has changed amd will contiue to do so.

2311 has nothing to do with an erronous conscience but rather afirms our right not to bear arms because of reasons of conscience. 2311 is not the affiramation that one has to follow a conscience even when in error its simply the affirmation of a truth from Vatican II.The Second Vatican Council insisted that conscientious objection was an option for Catholics in the document, "The Church in the Modern World (79:3)"

Further to this (and with much credit going to Dorthothy Day) The U. S. Catholic Bishops affirmed pacifism and conscientious objection as a legitmate expression of Catholic faith in their 1983 peace pastoral, "The Challenge of Peace".

Complete pacifism does not seem to make sense for a Catholic. What would you do, for example, if a murderer was standing next to your child or any child threatening to kill him or her, and no amount of coercion seemed to be able to stop this murderer? Would you just stand by and let this atrocity occur?

>>>>Emily Im unsure how pacifists would react to this or similar dilema relating to personal self defence as Im not a pacifist. ANy pacifists out there?! If you search for DOrthothy DAy on google Im sure she will have discussed such issues in depth but I personally cannot speak for pacifsts.

Peace!

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.

Hi EMily Ive just read something from a pacifist viewpoint rather than just mouth off my own (incorrect assumptions). I now believe not all pacifists reject the just war theory, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Id be very wary of what i have said about dissenting from church teachings I use that term far too liberally, one can only dissent in rare circumstances regrding non authoritive infallible teachings on faith and morals however the church has enough clowns ignoring teachings without me confusing the matter. "If its from Rome- obey it" is a good enough rule under all but the most extraodinary of circumstances.

Also on reflection I can think of no reason why the Pope could not speak solemely about the justness of a war although I would like this point clarrified by someone.

WHat lesson do you learn from this- take anything I say with a grain of salt, esp if Imin a hurry! WHat is clear is that a Catholic pacifist can object to bear arms but are nonetheless as Bill mentioned obliged to serve the human community in some other way.

Anyway the essay in question outlines what Catholic Pacifism is at least of the Catholic worker variety...

http://www.catholicworker.org/roundtable/essaytext.cfm?Number=80

God Bless

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 02, 2004.

Jmj

Hi, Kiwi. You wrote:
"... one can only dissent in rare circumstances regrding non authoritive infallible teachings on faith and morals ..."

I don't see this in the Catechism or in any other Catholic Church document. Please quote one to support this contention, if you can. Oops! I see a problem in your wording. If something is a "teaching on faith and morals," it is ipso facto "authoritative." A "teaching" always comes from the pope or from one or more bishops who possess a "magisterium" or teaching authority. If something really is a "teaching," then, it is "authoritative." If something is not a "teaching" (e.g., an opinion or a prudential judgment), then it is not "authoritative" -- i.e., not commanding assent or obedience.

As sort of "pre-emptive rebuttal" to what you might quote in approval of "dissent," I will quote this, from Vatican II:

"Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will." [from "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" #25]

Emily and Kiwi, my impression is that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, despite their constant appeals for peace and the end of war (in Vietnam, the Holy Land, the former Yugoslavia, etc.), did/do not approve of a total pacifism as an option for all people.

Pope Paul VI, in his New Year's Day 1968 "World Day of Peace" address, stated:
"It is to be hoped that the exaltation of the ideal of Peace may not favor the cowardice of those who fear it may be their duty to give their life for the service of their own country and of their own brothers, when these are engaged in the defence of justice and liberty, and who seek only a flight from their responsibility, from the risks that are necessarily involved in the accomplishment of great duties and generous exploits. Peace is not pacifism; it does not mask a base and slothful concept of life, but it proclaims the highest and most universal values of life: truth, justice, freedom, love.

Pope John Paul II, in his New Year's Day 1984 "World Day of Peace" address, stated:
"Moreover, the spirit of war rises and grows strong where the inalienable rights of man are violated. Even if dictatorship and totalitarianism temporarily suppress the complaint of exploited and oppressed human beings, the just person clings to the conviction that nothing can justify this violation of the rights of man; he has the courage to intercede for others who suffer and he refuses to surrender in the face of injustice, to compromise with it; and likewise, however paradoxical it may appear, the person who deeply desires peace rejects any kind of pacifism which is cowardice or the simple preservation of tranquillity. In fact those who are tempted to impose their domination will always encounter the resistance of intelligent and courageous men and women, prepared to defend freedom in order to promote justice."

What I recall hearing more than once is that neither the Catechism (#2311) nor Vatican II (Gaudium et spes #79) nor the U.S. bishops 1983 pastoral letter calls upon all Catholics to adopt pacifism. Rather these writings call upon Catholics to acknowledge that some people throughout history have had a vocation to resisting injustice by non-violent means only (e.g., St. Francis of Assisi). Yet those who are called to a "pacific" way of life are forbidden to require anyone else to imitate them or to deny the state its right to self-defense through bearing arms. Indeed, they must be willing to serve a warring state in an alternative way. The Catholic Church is not "Quakerism Lite."

God bless you.
John
PS to Emily: When David/excite wrote, "St. John Bosco, pray for us," he was asking for the intercession of the saint who is, each year, especially commemorated on January 31 (the day on which David was writing). Informally speaking, people say that January 31 is the "feast day" of St. John Bosco.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 02, 2004.

Hi John hope alls well. Thank you for the correction relating to faith and morals. As the justness of war is a matter of morality is it possible in your opinion for the Pope to ever speak definitively as to the morality of a conflict or is this highly unlikely given the lack of certitude?

Im not interested in debating dissent , nor encouraging, John I think you’d be the first to admit we have had enough discussion on this forum relating to obedience to last a lifetime. However I believe in certain circumstances dissent can occur from what LG 25 ( and Canon law )t says requires “the religious submission of mind and of will”. What does this require? Definitely, it forbids public contradiction of the teaching but this cannot be the absolute assent which faith calls for - for since this teaching is, by definition, not definitive, we gather that the teaching it is not absolutely finally certain.

Im not sure we that the pontiffs in question “did/do not approve of a total pacifism as an option for all people” although you did say this is just your impression. A few comments though

“peace is not pacifism”

Of course “peace is not pacifism” in much the same way “ violence is not courage” this is not a condemnation of pacifism merely the confirmation that they are logically distinct concepts.

“the person who deeply desires peace rejects any kind of pacifism which is cowardice or the simple preservation of tranquillity.”

Again no argument here this is just affirming what Catholic pacifists believe also from the link above:

“I will attempt to distinguish authentic Catholic pacifism from a right-wing variant that replicates the Protestant rejection of just war theory in favor of an ethic of non-resistance on the one hand,and a left-wing adventurist deviation, which expresses itself in the destruction of property the "nonviolent" assailants claim has no right to exist. Both of these negate authentic Catholic pacifism.?”

John while I was skeptical about pacifists however after myself reading the Catholic worker version of pacifism (whatever you may think of their social activism and vision) one cannot deny their very deep spirituality nor the extreme traditional Catholicism and orthodoxy in theology. One cannot level any claims of hetereodoxy, and we must remember there are a variety of charisms in the church .

“Grace and nature, sin and grace, the call to goodness, to holiness; the Paschal Mystery, the transforming power of unmerited suffering, the imperative of love; intellectual rigor, a wedding of rights theory with virtue ethics, the primacy of the theological virtues of faith hope and charity; an honest and humble search for the true mind of the Church and a faithful desire to conform to the Magisterium: these remain his legacy. Father Hugo wanted passionately for the Church to teach against war and the things that make for war, and to teach peace and the things that make for peace with full authority. He didn’t have to be told that the Church can not teach authoritatively if Catholics undermine her authority with carping criticism. He sought to discern the true mind of the Church, and to conform his own thinking to that norm.”

These people are most certainly Catholic to the core, one cannot dismiss their views as sentimental communal utopian dreams. I ask you to read the link I provided outlining catholic pacifism if you haven’t already.

Yet those who are called to a "pacific" way of life are forbidden to require anyone else to imitate them

John likewise can we not also say that those who are called to a “warrior” way of life are forbidden to require anyone else to imitate them?

or to deny the state its right to self-defense through bearing arms. Indeed, they must be willing to serve a warring state in an alternative way. The Catholic Church is not "Quakerism Lite."

“Father Hugo’s thinking is in the mainstream. His defense of the just war theory is logically adroit and rests on rights theory. It can not be dismissed. Nor should it be a cause of scandal for the tender-hearted. Father Hugo never suggests that war is not contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, that it is anything other than horrible, that no matter what its justification, war leads swiftly to unutterable moral as well as physical evil, and that war today is something different in specie from what Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas wrote about. But he does not jettison the just war theory, and neither should we….

Today the question is not whether a Catholic can be a pacifist or a conscientious objector. That question was settled definitively by the Second Vatican Council (Gaudium et Spes , #78-79). The question today is, can a Catholic be anything other?”

Peace!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 02, 2004.

Yes, Kiwi, a Catholic can be other. If Hitler was alive today I don't think there would be any question among Catholics (with our knowledge of history of course) that we in the United States would engage in a preemptive war to prevent or end his murdering. Yes, there can be a just war. The only question then is which wars do we enter into not having the luxury of a historical perspective? Premptive war assumes no such luxuary.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 02, 2004.

Remember: "This is my commandment: love one another as I love you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends."

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 02, 2004.

BIll are you just a fan of Michael J Fox's early movie career or are you being serious?

DO the words isolationlism/pearl harbour mean anything to you?

Pre emptive war compatible with Catholic just war theory . Ha!

he who lives by the sword...

-- Kiwi (csisherwoood@hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.

Bill Im stirring you, I dont pretend to be as deep as these pacifiscts types, I can rationalise killing as sometimes necessary (sadly).

God Bless you

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.

Jmj

Hi, Kiwi. I suddenly got very busy, so I have to make "quickie" responses (maybe not adequately).

K: As the justness of war is a matter of morality is it possible in your opinion for the Pope to ever speak definitively as to the morality of a conflict or is this highly unlikely given the lack of certitude?
J: I thought about this in the past year. If you list the several conditions required for a just war, I think that you won't have much trouble envisioning clear-cut cases in which one side is waging war unjustly. An example that comes to mind right away is Germany's attack on Poland in 1939. The pope could condemn such an unprovoked act of war.

K: However I believe in certain circumstances dissent can occur from what LG 25 (and Canon law) says requires “the religious submission of mind and of will.” What does this require? Definitely, it forbids public contradiction of the teaching but this cannot be the absolute assent which faith calls for -- for since this teaching is, by definition, not definitive, we gather that the teaching it is not absolutely finally certain.
J: But you are contradicting yourself. First you say that "dissent can occur," but then you say that "public contradiction of [a] teaching" is "forbid[den]." The problem is that "dissent" is public contradiction of a teaching. Suppose there is a teaching that you find difficult to accept. I think that LG 25's "religious submission of mind and will" require not only an absence of public contradiction but also an attitude expressed somewhat like this: "I don't understand how this teaching can be right, but I will trust that the successor of Peter is more likely to be right than I am ... so I will accept it, pray for God's help to understand it better, and pray that God may help the Church to explain it better to me."

K: Im not sure we that the pontiffs in question “did/do not approve of a total pacifism as an option for all people” although you did say this is just your impression.
J: Maybe there is a semantic problem here, because I was not careful enough. Yes, if ALL PEOPLE (100% of us) embraced pacifism, that would be heaven-on-earth. But, due to the effects of original sin, that ain't gonna happen. So what I meant was that, if "all" people who are trying to do God's will were to embrace pacifism, then all the rest of the people would walk all over the pacifists, take complete control of the world, and inflict every kind of crime and injustice imaginable. Since that would not be God's will, it follows that he wants those who are not called by him to pacifism to fight against evil powers, visible and invisible, for the sake of justice. I think that the popes believe this, so they do not teach that all God-fearing people must be pacifists.

K: I ask you to read the link I provided outlining catholic pacifism if you haven’t already.
J: I read most of it. It appears to be saying that Dorothy Day took a pacifist stance on World War II and demanded all other members of the "Catholic Worker" movement to do the same. I can respect her own conscientious objection to the War, but not her insistence that others agree with her and follow her actions.

I don't believe that everyone has the vocation of "pacifist" from God. For many years, I was sure that I had that vocation, but I am no longer certain. I do believe that WWII was a just war (though with some injustices done by both sides -- the great majority of of them by the losers).

K: ... likewise can we not also say that those who are called to a “warrior” way of life are forbidden to require anyone else to imitate them?
J: Yes.

K: “Father Hugo’s thinking is in the mainstream. His defense of the just war theory is logically adroit and rests on rights theory. ..."
J: I don't know what he thought/wrote. However, if he supported Dorothy Day's insistence that others be pacifists during World War II, then I don't support him. He should have explained to Dorothy that the war was a just one.

K: Pre emptive war compatible with Catholic just war theory . Ha!
J: "Pre-emptive war" is not "compatible with Catholic just war theory." What a coalition of nations (led by the U.S.) is engaged in is not "pre-emptive war," regardless of what some people (even in leadership) have called it. Instead, it is legitimate self-defense in the form of "reactive war" (not pre-emptive), responding to attacks. Within a just war, it is acceptable (and wise) to take "pre-emptive actions" (which is actually what has happened). Please note the distinction:
1. Reactive war with reactive strikes and pre-emptive actions = OK. [Examples = WWII U.S. response to Pearl Harbor ... current U.S. response in War on Terror].
2. Pre-emptive war with pre-emptive actions = not OK. [Example = WWII Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.]

K: I dont pretend to be as deep as these pacifiscts types, I can rationalise killing as sometimes necessary (sadly).
J: Don't give them so much credit. They are not so "deep!" They are just human beings like the rest of us.
When killing is required, you should refer to it as "justified," not "rationalized." The latter word has a connotation of sinfulness.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.

If we know someone or some organization to be a danger to many people and the only way to stop that evil person or organization is war. Then the war is just. If a preemptive strike would save our soldiers, and possibly citizen's lives, then yes, even a preemptive war is just. If pacifism would lead to that evil taking innocent lives, than pacifism is actually contributing to evil. So, no, pacifism is not always the right answer and is not always morally justified.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.

I should clarify one thing I just stated ("K: ... likewise can we not also say that those who are called to a “warrior” way of life are forbidden to require anyone else to imitate them? J: Yes.")

I should have said,
J: Assuming we are talking about a just war ... They are forbidden to require those who are legitimate conscientious objectors to take up arms, but they are permitted to expect other service from objectors/pacifists. They are also permitted to require non-pacifists to take up arms in defense of their nation.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.

Jmj

Hi, Bill. You wrote:
"If a preemptive strike would save our soldiers, and possibly citizen's lives, then yes, even a preemptive war is just."

It depends on what you mean by "pre-emptive war."
Do you really mean those words literally, or are you referring to what I (just above) explained is a "pre-emptive action" within a "reactive war?"

If you mean literally a "pre-emptive war," then you are mistaken, because that would be against Catholic "just war criteria." If there is no war taking place, and entity #1 does not provoke entity #2 by attacking it, then #2 cannot pre-emptively attack #1. I say this, based on what I see in the Catechism:

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
-- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
-- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
-- there must be serious prospects of success;
-- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

In a truly "pre-emptive war" (waged by entity #1, starting from a status of "peace"), the very first criterion of a just war is not met -- simply because there was no "aggressor" and no "damage" done by entity #2. That being the case, there's not even any point in looking at the other criteria.

[In case it was not clear in my response to Kiwi, Bill, I reject the claim that the U.S. is involved in a "pre-emptive war."]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.

the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

If you know for certain that someone or some government will attack a community (that it is certain), you can take steps to prevent it(a pre-emptive war).

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.

Thanks John I didint realise dissent could not just be private, I need to find an approprtiate word to replace dissent then!. I still believe that on very rare occasions dissent from some teachinngs in the past from those who listened to their conscience has been proven by history to have been the right thing to do. Especially regarding religious freedom in times when the church (as in church papal bulls and encyclicals) taught messages contrary to the gospel and Catholic tradition.

I know you dont agree with this and would say "truth cannot contradict truth" etc etc. Its an argument I cant possibly "win" and goes like this

Me: I believe X to be false

Church: "X" is true you are wrong

ME: But all availble evidence, reason and logic tells me X is NOT true.

Church: "X" is true, you are wrong.

Me But here are my reasons and evidence for believing otherwise....

Church: "X" is true, you are wrong.

Me: But why?

Church: "X" is true, you are wrong.

You get the idea, its a no win situation when youre up against the truth!I have a problem when dogma crushes all thought but I guess this is what must occur if I am to deepen my own faith in the Church?

As for the war in Iraq, I agree with 99% of the worlds Bishops and theologians that the war was immoral under Catholic just war doctrine. Looks like we will have to agree to disagree on that one as well.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.

Do you think that dogma came into existence without long and deep thought by those most qualified to do such thinking? What an individual needs to do in such a situation is set aside his trivial personal "reasons and evidence", and explore the profound reasons, evidence, and thought that went into the definition of the dogma in the first place.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 03, 2004.

As for the war in Iraq, I agree with 99% of the worlds Bishops and theologians that the war was immoral under Catholic just war doctrine.

I don't think you have any evidence for this statement. If you do I would like to see it.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.

Kiwi,
Moral truth and natural law are not relative. It isn't up to you to decide what is Truth and what is not.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.

Frankly Kiwi, I find your presentation of the 'me verses the Church' argument a little . . . unfactual, dishonest, offensive. None of those is quite right and I am not trying to assault you in any way. I just find that to be not at all in line with reality. The Church goes out of its way to explain things at great length. This is what I generally observe (do not place yourself in the role of the dissenter or you might get offended).

Dissenter: X is not true.

Church: X is true, you are wrong, here is why. (dissenter puts fingers in ears)[four paragraphs of reasons follow].

Dissenter (pulling fingers out of ears): X is not true here is why.

Church: X is true, and I covered all your points in my initial responce, but I will do it again. (Dissenter puts fingers in ears) [two pages follow].

Dissenter (pulling fingers out of ears): How dare you say X is true! I showed you why I want it to be true. Here are my reasons again.

Church: X is true. (dissenter puts fingers in ears)I heard your reasons the first time and have dealt with them twice. Here it is again. [twenty very official looking pages follow].

Dissenter (pulling fingers out of ears): Oh, here we go! The great repressive Church, squashing all dialogue with its 'official' pronouncements. You are just a bunch of angry old men trying to keep us all down. I reject your teaching, I reject you authority. Some day the 'spirit of Vatican II' is going to bring down Jesus to crush you all.

Church (from the vatican): There is a matter of great importance that needs settled. [One hundred and fifty page encyclical filled with love, charity, reason, and some healthy firmness comes from the Pope]

Dissenter (finding a reporter): See, what we freedom loving Catholics have to put up with from this repressive hierarchy!

I really really don't want you to get upset with this, but frankly, the Church never ever says, "you're wrong, shut up." It always gives detailed reasons for everything. I think that if all the dissenters would pull their fingers out of their ears and actually listened to what the Church is saying they would be overwhelmed by the profound truth of it.

I hope i wasn't to gruff. Sorry if I was,

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), February 03, 2004.

Hey Dan no offence taken, its back to that old question of the Greeks

"Is it good because God commands it or does God command it becuase it is good?" Sometimes there are no reasons to explain adequately WHY something is true despite the best human minds of the past 2000 years doing their best attempt. SOmetimes philosphers are able to create excellent arguments to which the Church has no adequate reply beyond "becuase the Bible tells us so" or "we cannot question God". Thats whats faiths about- being able to take that leap IMHO and say ok this is the truth that Im going to base my framework around. its about accepting certain limits and boundaries to which we cannot question or debate. From someone outside that framework, ie a non believer, its nothing but emotional nonsense.

Bill the truth hurts doesnt it ;), qualification though..make that 100% of Bishops and 99% of theologians. SOunds like a universal teaching if ever I heard one.

If you disgree with my assesment please supply a single statement(one) (1) from the thousands avaiilble from ANY National Catholic Bishops Conference from ANY nation in the world that support your belief the Iraq war is just and moral. If you like I could spam this thread with a never ending condemnation from the Bishops of the world opposing the war but lets see yopur cards first eh.

I await with interest.... Failing that anything from Pope? failing that the Vataicn ?.... Failing that anything from a respected orthodox theologan outside the US?....

Hint: pentagon intelligence reports/whitehouse press releases are not accepted!

God Bless you Bill

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 04, 2004.

Kiwi, You are the one that said 99% of the worlds Bishops and theologians that the war was immoral under Catholic just war doctrine. So you are the one that needs to prove that number. You can't just throw out a number like that and ask others to disprove it. The burden of proof for such a statement is on your shoulders. The truth that hurts here is that you don't seem to have the proof.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 04, 2004.

"Thats whats faiths about- being able to take that leap IMHO and say ok this is the truth that Im going to base my framework around. its about accepting certain limits and boundaries to which we cannot question or debate. From someone outside that framework, ie a non believer, its nothing but emotional nonsense."

That's what I've been trying to point out for a while, pretty much. Understanding comes after belief. Only if a person decides to believe the good and the true in it's entirety and completeness will they be able to make any sense out of their Catholic faith.

People often seem to start from the angle of attempting to understand before they believe, which seems natural enough but it can never come to a good end because it is a contradiction in terms. St. Augustine seemed to do this up to a point, but then ultimately something substantial changes with him because the philosophical approach could only proceed so far and no further. There's this chasm between human reason and divine revelation that the human mind is unable to bridge; it's up to God to reach out and bridge the gap. Relying on human reason as a bridge is a little like getting a good running start and trying to jump the Grand Canyon; St. Augustine decided at some point to accept the bridge that had already been built, which is divine revelation. A little late, he would say, but he did it and the result for him led to doctor of the Church and sainthood.

If someone accepts divine revelation as a complete whole in the only place it can be found, the Catholic Church, they have made a decision or an act of the will. It doesn't happen because they embarked on a quest for knowledge which was bound to culminate in believing as Catholics do... that's impossible if the doctrines we believe as Catholics can only be had by divine revelation. It happens because their Will is to know and do the good and choose to accept the divine revelation. At that point, they are no longer engaged in moral and intellectual resistance to God, and understanding is able to take root.

The conversation above is about a moral question, but the intellectual and the moral questions work hand in hand. It's impossible for someone to understand truth concerning morality as Catholics do if they don't live it; they have to set it aside before understanding can set it. Living immorally will blind someone and they will not be able to discern the truth except peripherally. They will experience guilt and confusion, but not understanding until the decide, or will, to do the good and avoid evil based on acceptance of a moral precept. After that is done, things will make sense.

I'm rambling, so here's my point: America lives immorally and on the whole, accepts little or nothing of divine revelation as it is found in the Catholic Church. That's just an indisputable fact. I've kind of reduced out the element of what the bishops do or do not think or say on the matter above because right now they are forced to operate within this confused social structure and the message seems mixed. I'm simply pointing to the basic principle of the faith/reason relationship: the reason for the variety of opinion in the thread here is that people no longer really buy into the Catholic principle that the temporal sword actually belongs ultimately and at the top, to the Chair of Peter. The principle is all over the place in church teaching for 2,000 years, but as evident as ever in Unam Sanctam. We've lost this continuity; therefore the confusion.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 04, 2004.

In other words, if church and state are separated, here's what you are left with:

Lots of people who have no say-so in anything who are arguing about what constitutes and just war while godless people in power go and do whatever suits their own interests.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 04, 2004.

Kiwi,
I looked up the last thing the US Bishops said on just war, and this is the last missive from them:
The role of conscience. While we have warned of the potential moral dangers of embarking on this war, we have also been clear that there are no easy answers. War has serious consequences, so could the failure to act. People of good will may and do disagree on how to interpret just war teaching and how to apply just war norms to the controverted facts of this case. We understand and respect the difficult moral choices that must be made by our President and others who bear the responsibility of making these grave decisions involving our nation's and the world's security (Catechism #2309).

They did not make a judgement, they left it up to the President.

Sorry, you don't have a 99% condemnation based on the just war theory. Your stat is bogus.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 04, 2004.

Jmj

Wow! I love it when this happens -- when several other people pitch in and answer/refute almost all the questions/complaints, etc., that were directed to me! It lets me get off without having to do so much work.

In this case, I want to thank Bill, Paul M, and Dan for answering Kiwi's questions and setting him straight where he went off the paved road. Each of you said something that I was thinking of saying to Kiwi when I was reading his posts.

Now, however, I still have to say a few words ...

Bill, I quoted CCC #2309 -- on the conditions for a nation to enter into a just war. You re-quoted the first condition (the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain), and then commented:
"If you know for certain that someone or some government will attack a community (that it is certain), you can take steps to prevent it (a pre-emptive war)."

I was amazed at your words, because I am certain that neither the pope nor a single other bishop would agree with you. The first condition in 2309 refers to something that has happened in the past -- not something that could potentially happen in the future. In other words, 2309 is talking about what a nation's leaders must consider after an unjustly attacking entity has taken action against that nation (or one of its allies).

The first condition says, "the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain". The word "inflicted" means "already inflicted" (not "may be inflicted some day"), and we know that because the offending entity is already called "the aggressor." In the pre-emptive situation that you improperly advocate, the entity that you wish to demolish has not attacked a "nation or community of nations," so it cannot be called an "aggressor." Ergo, the first condition of 2309 refers only to entering into war after an attack -- not starting a war by a pre-emptive attack! [I want to repeat, though, that what I am saying here is not a criticism of U.S. action in Iraq, which is not relevant to this specific point.]

Kiwi, I agree with Dan that your "argument-I-can't-possibly-win" scenario is not realistic, but a gross caricature. I hope that you will some day be able to admit that, when the Church states that "'X' is true" and "you are wrong," she then explains why "X" is true and you are wrong! I hope that you also will some day stop thinking that "dogma crushes all thought." (That sounds like a Kung-ism to me!) You can have all the "thought" and insight you want, as long as you don't deny what the Church tells us God has revealed.

You stated: "I agree with 99% of the world's Bishops and theologians that the war was immoral under Catholic just war doctrine." As others have explained, (1) there is no way for you to be able to prove such a comment, and (2) it is not true [as proved by the USCCB statement and could be proved by other quotations by theologians, a bishop in Iraq, etc.]. In reality, only a small percentage of the world's bishops and theologians have even spoken out on this, so the "99%" stuff is from your imagination. Moreover, the negative comments that you have read (from a limited number of bishops and theologians) are just opinions that don't really matter -- because the CCC, in a case like the current one, leaves it up to the secular authorities to determine whether or not war seems just to them.

You -- and all the complaining bishops/theologians -- need to re-focus your thinking and begin to realize that the "war" here is not a "War on Iraq," but a "War on Terror," which indubitably is justified under the "just war" conditions.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 04, 2004.

John,
To clarify: when Hitler was killing Jews he would be committing crimes against the community of nations. We know the only way to stop him was to enter war against him. Therefore a preemptive war by the US against Hitler (even though he did not attack the US) would be justified even if we were 'at peace'.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 04, 2004.

Just as a point of history, Bill, the US waited until it was attacked by Japan to enter the war. Don't know if that effects the truth of your statement, though.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), February 04, 2004.

Just as a point of history, Bill, the US waited until it was attacked by Japan to enter the war. Don't know if that effects the truth of your statement, though.

Yea, I know, my arguement is indepedent of this fact.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 04, 2004.

Hi Bill and John I feel a little sorry for you both and how trapped you are in political ideology but the fact that this has been caused by factors and presures in the culture/fabric of your spociety and what being a true "AMerican" means to you is a mitigating factor IMHO Lets ignore the fact that the case for war is accepted (by all but the strongest of repiblican ideologues) as based on little more than lies and deception

Firstly Bill rather than me prersent hundreds of statements from Bishops confrences around the world which ALL condemn the war( I will do so if pressed on another threqad if you desire) lets look at the only group of Bishops likely (given their own recent scandals, public perception and cultural influences likely to moderate their condemnation so as not to completley alienate themsleves from the public while still remaining faithful to the truth) to support your position.

That group is of course The US Bishops which you quoted, in comparison to all other national Bishops confrences who issued statements that I have read (thanks to moderator ED in part) their words are indeed a considerably more watered down message, trying to sweeten the message for the AMerican public whipped into a state of near paranoia and revenge... but nevertheless their brave message is clear "NO TO WAR in IRAQ".

I looked up the last thing the US Bishops said on just war, and this is the last missive from them:

Bill the first thing to note here is this is not a statement as the war commences and it needs to be read in context neverthless Ill explain what your Bishops are trying to tell you....

The role of conscience. While we have warned of the potential moral dangers of embarking on this war, we have also been clear that there are no easy answers.War has serious consequences, so could the failure to act.

This is all true but does not support your position for war one iota the Bishops and Catholics universally however have made it clear that the consequences of war are greater than the failure of not using force(see earlier statements from Bisdhops below).

People of good will (non Catholics and non believers who mean well) may and do disagree on how to interpret just war teaching and how to apply just war norms to the controverted facts of this case.

Just acknowlding that even though Bush etc got it wrong they mean well.

We understand and respect the difficult moral choices that must be made by our President and others who bear the responsibility of making these grave decisions involving our nation's and the world's security (Catechism #2309).

Well Bill congratulations, you got me there! The Bishops are saying its a tough decision and they repsect the President but they dont AGREE with him!The Bishops dont make the decision the president does! WOw I never knew that.

They did not make a judgement, they left it up to the President.

OH dear, of course Bill Bishops are not elected Politcans. If we took your twisted and convoluted take on 2309 then the GErman catholics in ww2 would have had to support Hitler!!!!!!

Sorry, you don't have a 99% condemnation based on the just war theory.

No I dont I have 100% if we include AMerican Bishops.

Your stat is bogus.

Your nose is growing.

OK lets look at what the US Bishops have said from that very same release you quoted in March 2003 as war broke out

Statement as the War Commences

Our conference's moral concerns and questions, as well as the call of the Holy Father to find alternatives to war, are well known and reflect our prudential judgments about the application of traditional Catholic teaching on the use of force in this case. We have been particularly concerned about the precedents that could be set and the possible consequences of a major war of this type in perhaps the most volatile region of the world. Echoing the Holy Father's admonition that war "is always a defeat for humanity," we have prayed and urged that peaceful means be pursued to disarm Iraq under UN auspices.

The decisions being made about Iraq and the war on terrorism could have historic implications for the use of force, the legitimacy of international institutions, and the role of the United States in the world. The moral significance of these issues must continue to be assessed given their importance in shaping a more just and peaceful world.

Lets lok at what they meant by their moral position as they have consistently said the use of force did not fit Catholic just war theory

September 13, 2002

...the use of force against Afghanistan could be justified, if it were carried out in accord with just war norms and as one part of a much broader, mostly non-military effort to deal with terrorism. We believe Iraq is a different case. Given the precedents and risks involved, we find it difficult to justify extending the war on terrorism to Iraq, absent clear and adequate evidence of Iraqi involvement in the attacks of September 11th or of an imminent attack of a grave nature……We fear that resort to force, under these circumstances, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force. Of particular concern are the traditional just war criteria of just cause, right authority, probability of success, proportionality and noncombatant immunity.

November 13, 2002

With the Holy See and bishops from the Middle East and around the world, we fear that resort to war, under present circumstances and in light of current public information, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force…...Our assessment of these questions leads us to urge that our nation and the world continue to pursue actively alternatives to war in the Middle East. It is vital that our nation persist in the very frustrating and difficult challenges of maintaining broad international support for constructive, effective and legitimate ways to contain and deter aggressive Iraqi actions and threats. We support effective enforcement of the military embargo and maintenance of political sanctions. We reiterate our call for much more carefully-focused economic sanctions which do not threaten the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians. Addressing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction must be matched by broader and stronger non-proliferation measures.

February 26, 2003

Our bishops' conference continues to question the moral legitimacy of any preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq. To permit preemptive or preventive uses of military force to overthrow threatening or hostile regimes would create deeply troubling moral and legal precedents. Based on the facts that are known, it is difficult to justify resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature or Iraq's involvement in the terrorist attacks of September 11. With the Holy See and many religious leaders throughout the world, we believe that resort to war would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for the use of military force.

You both need to get to confession asap ;).

Peace!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 04, 2004.

Bill amongst all the poor formating and lack of spelling/grammar this stands out as making things even more confusing

" first thing to note here is this is not a statement as the war commences" should read "first thing to note here is this IS a staement as the war commences"

Moderator I have just read JFGs preposterous and arrogant words directed at myself, faithful lay Catholics, The Holy Father, The Holy See and the worlds Bishops. He should not publically criticise such a universal prudential judgments but do as you suggested what I should do with dogma.

"What an individual needs to do in such a situation is set aside his trivial personal "reasons and evidence", and explore the profound reasons, evidence, and thought that went into the definition of the dogma in the first place."

AMongst his many offending staements this stands out

"You -- and all the complaining bishops/theologians -- need to re-focus your thinking and begin to realize that the "war" here is not a "War on Iraq," but a "War on Terror," which indubitably is justified under the "just war" conditions."

Johns not qualified to make such absurd demands on the faithful.I suggest implementing a three strike bad behaviour bond system for John so he learns to submit to all Church decisions.

If in a rare occasion he is unable for reasons of conscience to agree with all offical church judgments he should not be allowed to subject other loyal Catholics to his personal politcal whims and fancies or use sarcastic putdowns to imply they are wrong.Rather he should take the time to reflect and read more about why the Church reached such a decision to help him out of his erronous beliefs.

His lack of respect for the authority and obedience to a clear call from the universal Bishops and Holy SEE is unfortunate but his repeated attacks on those who wish to listen and OBEY those decisions is not tolerable in a Catholic forum.

I ask to you to give him a public reprimand for such absurd behaviour! ;)

Peace!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 04, 2004.

Kiwi, You still didn't prove that 99% of the worlds Bishops and theologians said that the Iraq liberation was immoral under Catholic just war doctrine. Sorry.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 04, 2004.

Of course he hasn't. Kiwi can't back up anything he's saying. In fact, John can back up all he said; because it's a no-brainer. Iraq has nothing settled about it as pertains to an unjust or evil war. Not anything. We all know the UN Security Council called for stringent measures against Saddam Hussein under prop. 1441; and our coalition forces had legal status under that UN directive.

Our Holy Father's own misgivings were humanitarian, not elementary. He wasn't even speaking for the Church definitively, and Kiwi knows it.

We must see Kiwi's views as purely subjective and biased to the left; not unusual in our academic communities. These are the same which adulate many other dubious revolutionaries of socialist fame. Personally, I'm not impressed with any of them. Neither is the Pope, I dare say.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 05, 2004.

"Kiwi can't back up anything he's saying."

Probably because he's using your own kinds of arguments. Maybe he's spent too much time listening to people telling him that the magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit unheard of in Catholic theology until this last century.

It goes like this: "everything which issues from the Pope's heart and mind is infallible, at least until it hits on an issue that happens to personally affect me and my household inconveniently".

From Eugene:

"Our Holy Father's own misgivings were humanitarian, not elementary. He wasn't even speaking for the Church definitively, and Kiwi knows it."

But I thought we were supposed to never question, but simply follow.

Using your own structure, try this:

"Our Holy Father's own New Springtime of ecumenism is humanitarian, not elementary. He wasn't even speaking for the Church definitively, and Gene knows it."

But say that and you're deemed to be faithless.

John says this:

"You -- and all the complaining bishops/theologians -- need to re- focus your thinking and begin to realize that the "war" here is not a "War on Iraq," but a "War on Terror," which indubitably is justified under the "just war" conditions."

"All the complaining bishops"? But I thought weren't suppose to address our bishops and theologians this way, or voice any opposition to them because it's antiCatholic. I thought we were supposed to leave these determinations to them, as we are not qualified to decide such things.

So if kiwi can't back anything up, it's because he's using the same lousy understanding of the excercise of the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Church he's heard repeated over and over again. The one that's not accurate.

Except in this case kiwi might be right: the truth of the matter is that the Supreme Pontiff has the right to be the final judge of proper course in temporal matters for all of human society.

The reason for all the confusion here is that the Catholic Church has been severed from the state and the papacy has been marginalized beyond belief in our age. This severing was caused by the same ideas and philosophies which gained the upper hand in the French Revolution and which are the same as what gave birth to the structure of the United States of America simultaneously in history.

Those ideas are Liberty, Fraternity and Equality, and these principles played out will find themselves in contradiction with genuinely Catholic social structure and in contradiction with the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

This stuff is what Americanism is all about.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 05, 2004.

"Probably because he's using your own kinds of arguments. Maybe he's spent too much time listening to people telling him that the magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit in ways unheard of in Catholic theology until this last century."

Just to clarify that the Holy Spirit does in fact guide His Church, just not in the ways people are claiming He does at this time.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 05, 2004.

Dear Gene out of the respect I hold you in, which is the highest regard I will refrain from commenting on your post. Others can make up their own minds as to the value accuracy and truthfulness of your claims in relation to the deabte on this thread.

Bill I proably cannot prove such a thing conclsuively but Im open to it being falsifiied by a single shred of evidence to the contrary.Every statement I have read from National Bishop organisations (at least 25 outside America) has said that the use of armed force in Iraq is NOT justifed under Catholic morality. They speak much more plainly than your own Bishops but even they have made their position clear as I have outlined briefly above.

You can possibly disagree with sucha decision (debatable) but most certainly you cannot then accuse other Catholics on a Catholic forum of being wrong on this publically!!!! Being in direct conflict with the universal church on even this level of teaching is a very dangerous thing to do, one should realise the gravity of what they are doing. ANy Catholic who publically "corrects" those in the church who follow their Holy Father and their Bishops is an idiot in my eyes.

I could of course cut and paste all the relevant statements but look lets get serious. You dont really care what the Church has to say on this, youre simply not intrested in listening but only finding loopholes.Short of an ex cathedra statement from Pope John Paul II (even that mighten be enough from some) the vast majoirty of you who identify yoursleves as Republicans are no going to read or listen to word I provide you with).

May the peace, joy, love and light of Jesus Christ be we with you both!

Johm before you blast me, (nothing is more certain in this life than this) I was being sarcastic with the 3 strike thing etc , I was trying to lampoon you but it came across as serious. I still think you owe Pope John Paul II and those Catholics who follow their leaders an apology somewhere in amongst your pending hail of hatred that will be rained down on me! I can handle you abusing me,(couldnt care less) but not the Church herself.

Blessings

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.

Thanks Emerald, for both your posts... except Newman isnt "lousy" in my book.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.

It's a no-brainer that you and I aren't allies on everything kiwi, which is cool, but I just wanted to point out that yeah, they are in fact contradicting themselves here. You're right on that score.

If it looks like I'm trying to cause needless division here, I'm not; just looking for the root causes of things as usual, that's all.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 05, 2004.

You know Ill be tainted by association though, just wait and see ;)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.

lol... I hear you and don't blame you. I wouldn't want to wish that on anybody.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 05, 2004.

Bill I proably cannot prove such a thing

I never thought you could. I fall into the same trap throwing out numbers. We should avoid doing that. If we present statistics we should be able to back them up with proof. Otherwise, not state them. That was really the only point I was making. I acknowledge a lot of Bishops and theologians said that the Iraq liberation was not justified based upon the just war theory. And some did. How many on either side is only a speculation since a survey was really not conducted asking a Yes/No question of all bishops and theologians in the Church. So it is only speculation based upon news reports any of us can gather. The US Conf. of Catholic Bishops were not happy about the war, but they left the decision up to the secular leaders as to whether it was just or not.

take care,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.

This article seems relavent to the discussion:
Auschwitz Under Our Noses

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.

Ref: Auschwitz Under Our Noses

I would like to know what we should do about North Korea based upon conceptions here on just war.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.

Jmj

Hi, Bill. You wrote:
"To clarify: when Hitler was killing Jews he would be committing crimes against the community of nations. We know the only way to stop him was to enter war against him. Therefore a preemptive war by the US against Hitler (even though he did not attack the US) would be justified even if we were 'at peace'."

Thanks for the clarification. This proved to be a semantic problem between us. I agree with your stance that the civilized world would have had a right to attack Hitler if it knew about an extermination of Jews by him. However, but I could never call that a "pre-emptive war." Instead, that would be a reactive attack against an aggressor who had been the one that started the war!

Here is an example of what a "pre-emptive war" (unjustifiable) would have been: For some civilized nation to have attacked Hitlerian Germany when the Nazis, in the 1920s and early 1930s, were only speaking prejudicial and hate-filled words about Jews, but without yet actually perpetrating physical injustices on them.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.

Jmj

Hello, Kiwi. You wrote:
"I feel a little sorry for you both and how trapped you are in political ideology but the fact that this has been caused by factors and presures in the culture/fabric of your spociety and what being a true 'American' means to you is a mitigating factor IMHO"

Thanks for adding "IMHO." It really is a "humble opinion," and nothing more. A "humble opinion" does not really amount to much when stacked up against the facts -- not mere opinions -- that Bill and I (and Joe Stong and others) have presented. We don't need your pity ["feel a little sorry"], since we are not "trapped" by anything, an "ideology" or otherwise. We will just continue to present the facts. And we will pity others who choose to sink in the quicksand of an ultraliberal, uncourageous ideology, a part of "the culture/fabric" of the morally decaying, defeatist "society" to which they belong.

Kiwi, you then stated (with my observations in brackets): "Lets ignore the fact [sic] that the case for war is accepted (by all but the strongest of republican ideologues) as based on little more than lies and deception [sic]."

Sorry, pal, but if you are so ill-informed (or emotionally disrupted) as to actually consider yourself in the possession of "facts" -- and if you actually think that the "case for war" was "based on little more than lies and deception" -- then there is no point in well- informed and emotionally calm people like Bill and myself attempting to discuss this subject with you. I would have thought that, so many months after your initial erroneous posturing on this topic, you would have become better informed and objective, rather than remaining in the possession of no facts and continuing to be so subjective and emotional. I'll catch up with you elsewhere, pal -- on some other topic, where you are still able to carry on a decent conversation.

WOW! I wrote the above words to you, Kiwi, after reading your composite reply to me and Bill -- but before reading the mind- boggling criticisms in your next post, in which you unjustifiably called on the moderators to take some kind of action against me -- for no valid reason whatsoever. I really wasn't troubled by the outrageous things you said, though. In fact, they made me feel "affirmed" in the prudence of my decision (mentioned in the previous paragraph) to avoid further discussion with you on this topic.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.

This proved to be a semantic problem between us.

Yep, take care,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.

Jmj

Some errors are so silly that they don't deserve more than a word or a phrase in response.

1. "It goes like this: 'everything which issues from the Pope's heart and mind is infallible, at least until it hits on an issue that happens to personally affect me and my household inconveniently.'"

Response: Wrong, as should have been known.

2. "'All the complaining bishops'? But I thought weren't suppose to address our bishops and theologians this way, or voice any opposition to them because it's antiCatholic. I thought we were supposed to leave these determinations to them, as we are not qualified to decide such things."

Response: You "thought" wrong -- or are pretending to have thought it. Ponder the subject, and you may remember why you "thought" wrong, since it was already explained at forum countless times.

3. "Except in this case kiwi might be right: the truth of the matter is that the Supreme Pontiff has the right to be the final judge of proper course in temporal matters for all of human society."

Response: Wrong, as also was explained in the past (and will not be explained again -- even if an old, misinterpreted papal text is dragged out and dusted off again).

Hi, Kiwi. I have continued to read further, and I have noticed that you got calmer than you were earlier. (No big surprise there!) I will stick to what I said, though, and avoid further debate on this topic with you.

I just want to take note of one new half-sentence that you wrote ("I still think you owe Pope John Paul II and those Catholics who follow their leaders an apology ...").

Don't hold your breath waiting for me to apologize, Kiwi! It will not happen. I didn't insult the pope or any other bishop or any layman.

For some strange reason, even though I have explained this thing over and over again for a few years, you (and a few other people) have ignored, or failed to "mentally assimilate," what I have said. I am speaking of the absolute fact that some things that popes and bishops say/write are not "teachings" -- not exercises of their magisterium (teaching authority) -- but are instead (publicly-stated) private opinions or prudential judgments. Whenever a pope or bishop issues these kinds of non-teaching comments, he knows that they are subject to disagreement and even criticism -- which he should gratefully and cheerfully accept.

The successors of the Apostles are not gods or demi-gods, and when they are not teaching, they can and do say some things that are either wholly or partially wrong (factual matters) -- or that are simply opinions which are no more binding on anyone than your opinion or mine.

As you must have observed, I am one of the strongest proponents anywhere of the necessity of each Catholic to follow what "Lumen gentium" #25 teaches us about genuine papal and episcopal exercises of their magisterium. But personal comments by the pope or by various bishops about the justifiability of recent U.S. military actions are NOT teachings ("papal and episcopal exercises of the magisterium"), are NOT covered by LG 25, and are therefore "fair game" for respectful criticism (the kind I have always given).

As a layman, you are welcome to agree with a papal or episcopal opinion, but you are not permitted to demand that I agree with it, and you are not permitted to trash me for openly disagreeing with those non-magisterial comments. When I disagree with a bishop's/theologian's/layman's opinion on this subject, I am within my rights and certainly do not have to apologize for it.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.

And you don't see the contradictions in all of this?

The single bolt that holds together just about all of the post conciliar construct: Lumen Gentium #25.

The other options is to hold fast to the doctrines of the Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 06, 2004.

Hey John, do you believe in the pursuit of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality?

In your estimation, are these worthy ideals to strive for?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 06, 2004.

There are some people visiting the forum with whom I have decided to have no further conversations. When they say something factually incorrect, I may very briefly point out the error (for the benefit of lurkers).
'Nuff said.

-- (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), February 06, 2004.

I was just wondering because, as you know, the United States of America has been built upon the espousal of the ideas of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. This phrase, as everyone knows, was the battle cry of the French Revolution. But the way in which these ideas of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality have been understood and put into social practice from the time of that Revolution up to the present day have been repeatedly condemned from the Chair of Peter through the course of several pontificates.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 06, 2004.

Liberty, Fraternity and Equality is a motto of the French Revolution (1789), I don't know of it as a motto of the American Revolution (which happened in 1775-6). The problem with the French Revolution was that it failed, over and over again. One reason according to Thomas Paine, was that the French eraticated God from their government. As people in the US said during our revolution, you have to base your institutions on morals well founded in a belief God.

See: Religion and the Founding of the American Republic.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 06, 2004.

A point I always like to keep in mind when speaking of abortion is that abortion, and the laws that have legalized it, are direct attacks on the Incarnation. Because our Lord came to earth and humbled himself in human flesh in Mary's womb from the moment of her fiat, he has alligned himself with every child in the womb. In a society which says that it is legal to murder a child made in the likeness and image of God, it is not far off that other evils come with that: divorce, fornication, adultery, contraception (which in many cases are abortifacients), and sexual perversity. The Catholic Church has always stood by what here Bridegroom has said to Her. It is sad when people choose man over Christ. They all need our prayers and penances.

-- Sean (s22w22@yahoo.com), February 07, 2004.

Hi John and Bill I have read your replies and of course I disagree with them in almost there entirety. No surprise there but I dont think I could make my case any plainer than your very own Bishops, except argue with John about how loyal lay Catholics should properly respond if they disagree with a judgement on the morality of a war, such as the one in Iraq, where the judgement was so universal and the message so clear- the use of force under Catholic just war theory is immoral. Yet I havent time to go down that line or continue this debate any further.

To those who still cling to the lies and deceptions given by the Administration to justify war I can only say "Let me begin by saying we were almost all wrong and I certainly include myself"

David Kay

Let the finger pointing and blame shifting begin in earnest amongst those who follow such men as their moral guides.

God Bless

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

Kay's remark was about less-than-perfect pre-war intelligence from the US, France, UK, Germany, Israel, Russia, China, the UN, among others, on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq was "even more dangerous than we thought," said Kay, despite the fact that caches of WMD have not been found in the country. Kay said that he does not expect the US to find stockpiles of WMD WEAPONS, but did say that there may be stockpiles of WMD agents. The U.S. weapons inspector previously suggested that Saddam's stockpile of chemical and biological agents might have been spirited to Syria. Often in modern chemical or biological warfare the agents are kept separate from the bombs and shells until the last minute. Then added. He pointed out that the agents take up much less room than tht ebombs and shells and could have been moved in the trucks seen going into Syria before the war. "I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and removal of Saddam Hussein," he said, which sounded very much like an endorsement of President Bush's decision to turn Saddam and his murderous regime out of power.

Kay has subsequently made a number of public appearances and again expressed his support inn the removal of Saddam.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.