Replies

Religion should be nice. It should have no doctrines, since that would create division. There are no moral absolutes, no objective truths. In an ideal world, you should not be able to put a cigarette-paper between a Catholic and a Buddhist. Since we are all going to Heaven, regardless of our conduct on earth, what is the point of all this violence on Calvary? Of course, we need some ritual and collective spirituality: so, let’s go and hang some cuddly toys on the railings of Kensington Palace. What we need is a one-size-fits-all, syncretic religion, centred on the United Nations; an ethical code that does not restrict us from the perpetual gratification of all appetites.

This statement is neither an accurate reflection of Catholic teaching or the teaching of the current Pope. It is slanderous of you to claim that it is.

Then I guess you don't recall "Dignitatis Humanae" on religious liberty and "Unitatis Redintegratio" on Ecumenism and "Nostra Aetate" on relationships with non-Christians and even "Gaudium et Spes" on the Church in the modern world which said that now we would embrace the world.

I'm game, and willing to stand corrected ... let's see.

Dignitatis Humanae [link] seems to say that the church will not enforce it's faith on others, that it agrees with the concept of 'separate of church and state', that the church will be made known in man by God and should not be 'forced' upon anyone is kinda of what I read. Correct me if I missed something. I don't see anything wrong with this 'advancement' in the RCC and I definitely don't see the 'super Euchanism' that is warned about by this author in his anti Vat2 zeal .. but let's move on ..

Unitatis Redintegratio[link] "The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus "

Hmmm - can't see anything wrong with that statement ... perhaps the 'method' of euchanism is what you are most upset with and not the words of Vatican II itself. I may be wrong, and this may deserve more dialogue.

Nostra Aetate [link] "The Church examines more closely he relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship."

Noble statement, and one that a church that should and would want to claim the title of the 'leader' of Christianity should make. Again, you must be upset about something other than this noble statement, but rather the 'practice' that follows. Again, much more dialogue could follow.

Gaudium et Spes[link] "Hence this Second Vatican Council, having probed more profoundly into the mystery of the Church, now addresses itself without hesitation, not only to the sons of the Church and to all who invoke the name of Christ, but to the whole of humanity. For the council yearns to explain to everyone how it conceives of the presence and activity of the Church in the world of today."

Again, this is what a church should do ... lead, take a stand, inform the world of it's beliefs, etc. Once more I do not find fault with the intent or wording of the Vatican II council, but perhaps may agree with you with what the church has done to supposedly follow it's (perhap's wrongly) understood meaning.

So, maybe this deserves another thread entirely but the topic is of great interest. By the by, I am NOT a Catholic but was raised as one and do remember the church before and after VatII.

In His Name,
AgThorn