In historic speech, Pope urges Italians to have more children to reverse declining birth rate

Associated Press ^ | 11-14-02 | NICOLE WINFIELD

[Oldeconomybuyer]

ROME (AP) --

[Desdemona]

Blonde, busty and brainy apparently is not a good combination. Neither is good posture, confidence and morals.

Desdie, you might want to get out more. If this is an accurate description, I know three Texans who'd fly to meet you tomorrow!

Not only accurate, but, so I'm told, understated. I was brought up to be modest. It didn't really work, but...

Yeah, I know I need to get out more. I spend so much time in practice modules and rehersal, about all I have time to do is walk the dog.

[Palladin]

Thank God the Old Boy wasn't speaking ex cathedra on that one! We can take it then that this is his own (misguided) opinion.

[Deep_6]

re:
"..Remember, MOST of the priests involved in the scandals were homosexual priests 
preying on teen-age, post-pubescent boys. They are not pedophiles preying on little boys and girls..."

The average ages of the children at time of first encounter were 6-10 years old,
not "post-pubescent".

"Homosexuals" are attracted to those of the same sex and/or of an age that would be
akin to the age that you prefer for your mate. When one is attracted to a child,
it is not "sexual attraction", it is a hunger for power; it is akin to rape. There is a vast
difference. Most pedophiles are heterosexual and attack male or female, whatever
is available. In the case of priests, it would be safe to assume that male children
are more easily available. It has little to do with sexual preference and more to
do with the mind of the rapist.

There is nothing more anti-Christ, than allowing a child to be placed in harm's way.
That is exactly what the Church has done repeatedly, after knowing a member
of clergy had been accused of sexual battery against a child. There is no excuse.

And yet the Church continues to protect the batterers; the molesters; the pedophilic
members of clergy.

 

[sinkspur]

I spend so much time in practice modules and rehersal, about all I have time to do is walk the dog.

Lucky dog!

[ProtectRUnborn]

And just what makes you think you know more about the prison inmates in Italy than the pope? Perhaps there's great wisdom in his request. They do have a left-leaning, psudo-socialist govt. probably lost of "political" prisoners.

I can understand his request.Also, that comment you made about "rich countries always having fewer children", does nothing but point out the rampant materialism of those cultures. Once again JPII is right.

[sinkspur]

And just what makes you think you know more about the prison inmates in Italy than the pope? Perhaps there's great wisdom in his request.

And, perhaps there's not.

At this point, however, I really don't care anymore.

[ProtectRUnborn]

I do care. Especially when fellow Catholics assume to know more than the Holy Father and constantly second-guess him.

[sinkspur]

Especially when fellow Catholics assume to know more than the Holy Father and constantly second-guess him.

The Pope is infallible only when he speaks "ex cathedra." In all other circumstances, he is liable to criticism, and second-guessing.

[Catholicguy]

<>Is the Catechism teaching on the Death Penalty Doctrine or not? "<>

It is not. There is no rationale given for a 180 degree turn from the doctrine which has been a part of Christian tradition for 2000 years.

<> You might want to consider E-mailing the Pope re the Death Penalty not being Doctrine. He appears to think differently. He wrote an Encyclical in which he cites the development of that Doctrine and it is also featured in the Universal Catechism. In the Encyclical he gives reasons why the Doctrine has developed. The Pope seems to think that is Doctrine.

What other Doctrines, in your opinion, can a Catholic reject and still be a "god Catholic?"<>

[Catholicguy]

god catholic = good catholic

[Catholicguy]

<> Yes<>

[Catholicguy]

<>LOL<>

[wideawake]

You made the moronic comment, not I.

I'm hardly an idiot for immediately recognizing the fact that you're a bigoted moron. Not that it wasn't fairly obvious in the first place.

[Catholicguy]

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do...

<> Matthew quotes Jesus regarding authority. We are to be obedient. We are to hear legitimate authority and obey. Doctrine is from legitimate authority. Neirther of you have liberty to reject any Doctrine. Neither of you have any "seat" of authority.

Both of you approach Catholic Doctrine as though you were Protestants. YOu usurp legitimate authority, you place yourselves on the chair of Moses.<>

[Catholicguy]

http://kevin-miller.blogspot.com/2002_09_29_kevin-miller_archive.html#82478400

<>Link to Death Penalty explanation."Theses on JPII and death penalty<>

[Catholicguy]

Thursday, October 03, 2002 :: Kevin Miller gives a very good summary of the Church's teaching HERE. I am in virtually complete agreement with his take on the subject except the following:

Thus the traditional teaching that capital punishment is not murder and can be acceptable has not been altered - although, it is doubtful that this traditional teaching has been infallibly taught, so it probably could be altered by a pope.

If capital punishment were murder then the Church in giving explicit and tacit approval over the centuries would have been endorsing murder. And it is difficult to see HaShem contradicting Himself at Sinai telling Moshe that one of the commandments was "thou shalt not kill" and then having numerous penalties in the Law which had a proscription for the perpetrator being killed for offending those prescriptions. One would almost have to go the route of the Reformed "suspension of the ethical", Marcion's "dimuirge" theology, or some other notion that is either heretical or blatantly contradictory to sustain this notion.

Murder is unlawful killing. There is also the element of Christian teaching that makes it unlawful for people to deliberately harm themselves. This is where the teaching of self-defense comes into play: the person is obligated to defend themselves even to the extent of taking the life of an aggressor against them. However, at the same time the latter is only morally permissible when it is unavoidable if you will. For example, if you and I were fighting and all that was needed to defend myself adequately was to knock you out or disable you by breaking a knee (or apply a crossface chickenwing sleeper to neutralize your attack), I would be out of line to go any further then that. The same principle applies with the death penalty.

I find it interesting that many of the same people who are opposed to the pope's current teaching on the matter do not seem opposed to the execution of public heretics or rebellious schismatics by the state. Why I ask them is spiritual murder acceptable whereas physical murder is not??? What is worse, the killing of the body or the killing of the soul???

The pope's teaching is in the context of a society that is shorn of its Christian principles. I have said it before and I say it again: the Church is in practically the same situation as she was pre-Constantine when Christians were viewed as traitors to the state. The sword today is wielded most times by governments who do not govern according to Christian principles. Do we want them deciding on a whim who is and is not a "danger to the state"??? What principles can we possibly use to argue our case in todays climate except the logical application of the principle of self-defense being the only morally permissible form of taking a life and extending it to the criminal justice system???

If we look at history we will see that the Church was not a supporter of the death penalty pre-Constantine. (Because to do so was to slit their own throats.) Prior to Our Lord's time the Sanhedrin were very hesitant to execute anyone and had numerous out clauses if you will. The Mishnah itself notes that "A Sanhedrin that carries out the death penalty once in seven years is a murderous tribunal. Rabbi Eliezar ben Azariah says: "Once in seventy years." Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: "Had we been members of the Sanhedrin, no one would ever have received the death penalty." Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: "They would indeed have multiplied those who shed blood in Israel."[Mishnah Makkot 1:10] More on this subject can be found HERE.

The Catechism of Trent speaks amonst the "lawful" exceptions to the principle rule Thou shalt not kill as the execution of criminals in the following words (key emphasis is mine): Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment– is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord. [Roman Catechism: Instruction on the Fifth Commandment]

So if the Church recognizes the licity of judicious use of the death penalty (which by its very implication means rare) and states that the end of this is preservation of life, then if the end can be achieved in other ways that do not involve the taking of life, that is the route we must tend to. In short, Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium vitae, points to the fact that we have many ways to protect society from offenders. Because of this, he states forcefully that the traditional Catholic principle that bloodless means whenever possible are to be utilized is to be retained. Whatever arguments we want to make about the application of this teaching, they must proceed from the principle of what is necessary to achieve the end that the death penalty historically has been used for: preservation of life.

"All things are lawful but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful, but not all things edify" sayeth the Apostle (i Cor. x,22-23). The same is the case with the death penalty in the vast majority of cases where it may apply from a theoretical standpoint. And while the pope has not set any strict schedule in stone on how this principle is to be carried out, there is a moral duty to inform oneself and to act accordingly. Kevin goes over this quite well in his link above, the part I addressed above being my only real objections to what he has said on the matter.

<> Shawn McElhinney's response to Miller's blogpiece. The Popoe is right, as usual, and we are bound to obey this Doctrine<>

[sitetest]

Dear Alberta's Child,

"'However, he doesn't owe you, me, sinkspur, or any other person on the planet, an explanation of his childlessness.'

"That's exactly what I said in my post. All I said beyond that was that he should be prepared to have that question come up. His credibility would improve dramatically if he either explained himself or simply found something else to complain about.

"The pot may have a damned good (private) reason to be black, but if he calls the kettle black he should expect to be taken to task for it."

Well, that isn't my point. It appears that what you're saying is that he may not talk about the disaster of falling birthrates in the West unless he is willing to talk about his own childlessness.

For the reasons previously stated, I disagree.

Mr. Buchanan has every right to talk about the disaster of falling birthrates in the West. No one ought to question why he and his wife are childless. To do so is just bad manners.

"The pot may have a damned good (private) reason to be black, but if he calls the kettle black he should expect to be taken to task for it."

This would mean that he may not comment publicly on an issue that he believes is of great social importance unless he is willing expose the details of his private life, even if those details would show him to be a man entirely innocent of any wrong, including hypocrisy. I don't accept this premise. It's wrong.


sitetest

[Alberta's Child]

I understand your point.

Please note, however, that I know enough about how these Beltway types operate to take anything I hear from them with a grain of salt.

With all due respect to Pat Buchanan, he's not a voice in the wilderness here -- he's simply in the business of selling books.