Posted on 11/18/2002 7:33:28 PM PST by Land of the Irish
<> Thnaks for the response<>
So you agree with Ratzinger's twist of the just war thing? <> I don't think it a twist><.His fantasy that most of the western world should still be a theocracy with the strings pulled from Vatican City?<> Cardinal Ratzinger defends D.H. of Vatican Two<>
You're rejected by this American - and in fact are rejected by a majority of Americans - mull that over.<> No need to "mull" that over:)<> With each passing century, your bishops have, as a percentage of population, fewer peasants around to lick their boots, and of those peasants that remain, fewer of them take them seriously.<> Just the other day, this freeper religious ghetto had a story posted that noted conversions to the Catholic Church continue to increase. You must be less well informed than you think:)<>
Fine converts, I'm sure. I'd feel real good about taking somebody so wishy washy and thoughtless. Think they were successful, and will stay a while?
What that didn't talk about was the lay public, sport.
Yes. Very little heed when he sounds like Jimmy Carter.
Just War Doctrine is against any action period when it comes to unnecessary war. Ratzinger's blatherings about the U. N. are not binding on any Catholic, and are entirely his own opinion. "Multilateralism" does not exist in Catholic Doctine for the excellent reason that truth is not affected by the number of those who agree with it.
Yes. JPII is a man of peace. But sometimes you've got to hit the donkey upside the head with a 2X4 to get its attention.
That's what Bush is doing. And liberating the Iraqi people from Hussein does more for them and their souls than a thousand speeches from well-meaning churchmen.
So, let me understand, if someone converts to Catholicism they are “wishy washy”. But I bet if someone converts from Catholicism to one of the schismatic or Nuevo Christian sects they would be “inspired and seeking the true Gospel” right?
Childish, juvenile ad-hominem taunting accomplishes nothing.
You don't like Catholics. So stay the hell off the Catholic threads!
The US Catholic bishops issued an economic statement back in the 1980s that was as close to a condemnation of the capitalistic system as they could get and still stay in the country. It compromised their credibility greatly, much as the current opposition to action in Iraq does.
I've never listened to a thing these pampered princes say about political issues since they made fools of themselves with their "redistribution of wealth" document, authored by the now-disgraced Rembert Weakland.
Bishops issue documents that look like planks from the Democrat Party, then wonder why so many Catholics vote Democrat.
Maybe we could draw up some criteria as to when legitimate Catholic authority should not only be ignored but should be castigated and ridiculed. Would one of those criteria include - "When the Prefect of the CDF or the Pope says anything about the War, or Capital Punishment,or the Economy, their blatherings ought to be ignored because they don't know what the heck they are talking about and, besides, it is just their personal opinion?"<>
To the extent either of them is appealing to the authority of the United Nations as superceding that of the United States, yes. They are blathering.
Maybe we could draw up some criteria as to when legitimate Catholic authority should not only be ignored but should be castigated and ridiculed.
Maybe you should learn to distinguish the castigation of statements by Catholic authorities with castigation of the authorities themselves. If you did so, you'd find much less need for the criteria you propose.
Yes, and he should stay out of politics! Those Europeans think that the EU is the cat's meow! (Shaking my head in disbelief)
Personally, I can stand to hear more of this blather:)<>
1. What do you mean by "justice"?
2. Was WWII a "just war"?
3. Suppose you find out that Nation X is planning to attack Nation Y with weapons of mass destruction. Does Nation Y have a right to preemptively strike?
<> In this instance, they are correct. They usually are in virtually every instance; and especially so when dealing with matters of war and peace<>
Maybe we could draw up some criteria as to when legitimate Catholic authority should not only be ignored but should be castigated and ridiculed. Maybe you should learn to distinguish the castigation of statements by Catholic authorities with castigation of the authorities themselves. If you did so, you'd find much less need for the criteria you propose.<>
Labelling as "blather" the statements of legitimate authority regarding their ares of competence is indeed an insult to those legitimate authorities
But, feel free to blather on. Who are Cardinal Ratzinger and the Pope compared to the War St. Journal, The Standard, O'Reilly, Rush, Bush, Cheney etc?<>
Unless you imply the pope intended to ban war with that comment, it has little to do with the present dispute. The dispute is whether a just war can be waged without the consent of the U. N.
As per the article above: "Ratzinger stated: "Decisions like this should be made by the community of nations, by the UN, and not by an individual power."
That is a wholly different matter than the pope encouraging negotiation as preferrable to war. It is also a statement at odds with Catholic just war doctrine.
I'm perfectly willing to believe Cardinal Ratzinger made an unintentional error in his zeal for peace. I'm also willing to concede that this is the Cardinal's personal opinion, and was never intended to be taken as an expression of the teaching authority of the Church. But I'm not willing to pretend it supercedes preceding Catholic teachings on the matter of a Just War.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.