Posted on 05/05/2009 9:02:29 PM PDT by ReformationFan
Pope: "Non-Negotiable Human Rights" include "Right to Life and Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion"
VATICAN CITY, MAY 5, 2009 (LifeSIteNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI addressed members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences yesterday at their plenary session which is focused on the theme of Catholic social teaching and human rights, and called for the promotion of universal human rights based on both faith and reason, affirming the "right to life and the right to freedom of conscience and religion as being at the center of those rights that spring from human nature itself."
The Holy Father noted that though these human rights are not strictly "truths of faith, even though they are discoverable - and indeed come to full light - in the message of Christ who "reveals man to man himself," they do "receive further confirmation from faith."
Giving an historical perspective to human rights as "the reference point of a shared universal ethos - at least at the level of aspiration - for most of humankind," the Pope spoke of the "vast suffering caused by two terrible world wars and the unspeakable crimes perpetrated by totalitarian ideologies," as a consequence of which "the international community acquired a new system of international law based on human rights."
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
You disagree? Why?
And xzins is correct, too, that some attempt to obscure that fact. But I suspect there are rogues in every assembly. I've heard even the ever-so-isolated Amish have a rogue now and again. LOL!
Yep, they were buttons and have radios!
And yet some seem to suggest that, as a non-Catholic, Obama might somehow be unaware of it.
On the other hand, the "Vatican position" has to be implemented in some way by the local bishop, and taught to the layman via the local diocese. We know that many of the bishops in the US, pre-Benedict, were politically liberal in many aspects, and the Vatican did not take a hard line with dissenting bishops under JPII like they are now. While I don't know of a case personally, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that whoever Obama acknowledged as the local bishop or priest compromised on the Church's position, allowing Obama to think the Church was not absolute in it's opposition (think Pelosi, pre-Benedict-meeting).
Though some bishops have certainly been remiss in their failure to address the absolute evil of abortion, no bishop that I am aware of has EVER suggested that abortion was acceptable.
Do they feed you when you go out there? Their food is INCREDIBLE!
Their breakfasts are unbelievable!
Then, by your own confession and definition, there is no dogma more important than anti-aboritonism (pro-lifism).
Tell me, did Christ give primacy to the evil of Adultery over other marital sins when he singled it out as the only justifiable reason for divorce?
” Then, by your own confession and definition, there is no dogma more important than anti-aboritonism (pro-lifism).”
Where do you get that from?
“Tell me, did Christ give primacy to the evil of Adultery over other marital sins when he singled it out as the only justifiable reason for divorce?”
No; He merely said it was the only proper reason for divorce. Perhaps he felt that conduct is more destructive of a marriage than, say, getting an abortion.
There have been accusations by the late Malachi Martin that John Paul I was the target of a KGB assassination attempt, that a Russian Orthodox bishop (relatively young and in ostensible good health) died at a papal reception for religious leaders of other faiths when he opened a gift book from the Russian Church leaders (infiltrated by KGB), that he died not of a heart attack as reported but because a poison gas capsule was released by the opening of the book. The suggestion is that the young bishop was personally innocent and used as a pawn by the KGB. The circumstances of John Paul I's sudden death are highly questionable. There is little doubt that the KGB tried to hit John Paul the Great, recruiting the Bulgarian KGB to hire Mehmet Ali Agca of the Islamo-nutcase Turkish Grey Wolves. JP II survived his grave injuries.
Our answer was contained in the fall of the Iron Curtain. I don't have the slightest clue as to what "ethnophyletism" may be claimed to be nor do I think I need to be enlightened in that respect given the genius of a central universal teaching authority as a sure guarantee of small o orthodoxy.
If we don't take baptized Roman Catholics seriously in their dissent from Rome and utterly refuse to be instructed by them as to the truths of the Faith, what on earth or elsewhere do you suppose empowers YOU as an outsider to sit in judgment on popes??? There are idjit RCC bishops who would allow receipt of the Eucharist by such as Nancy Pelosi, Joseph Biden, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Rosa DeLauro, David Obey, and in one notorious incident (Archbishop of Little Rock) Slick Willy himself. That does not seem to bother you but you think that my Illinois bishop ought not to intervene with his teaching and opinion in support of the local bishop in South Bend??? If that accurately reflects the Orthodox faith, then you are right on one thing. I would not be comfortable in your church.
OTOH, those Greek Orthodox with whom I am acquainted (and whom I respect) do not share your apparently casual attitude as to the American holocaust. 50 million innocents wantonly butchered is more than enough or do you want it to continue while Christians spend their time in acceptance of sinfulness while arguing obscure tenets of even more (and often merely regional) obscure councils.
One elderly GO priest asked his congregants to arrange for him to meet me when he learned that they knew me and that I was representing quite militant Rescue participants. He did not care what I thought of the Filioque or even the papacy. He just wanted to express his support for the saving of God's most defenseless children. I guess you would disagree and be far more concerned to promote the theological views of some 10th century Doohickus of East Nowheresville at an Eastern Council of Whereveritwas, questioning papal authority.
Again, what we do not recognize is some sort of "right" to dissent among those actually baptized as Catholics, much less such a "right" in those clearly not Catholic. We are certainly not extending to you whatever you may imagine. You can, of course, say whatever you want but we, as Catholics, have no obligation whatsoever to pay you the slightest heed. Neither Luther, nor Cauvin, nor Zwingli nor you have a "right" to be respected for your errors.
-—————” Then, by your own confession and definition, there is no dogma more important than anti-aboritonism (pro-lifism).”
Where do you get that from?—————
From your statement that no dogma is more important than another dogma; hence there is, by your definition, no dogma more important than the Pro-Life dogma.
-————“Tell me, did Christ give primacy to the evil of Adultery over other marital sins when he singled it out as the only justifiable reason for divorce?”
No; He merely said it was the only proper reason for divorce. Perhaps he felt that conduct is more destructive of a marriage than, say, getting an abortion.-—————
Or for that matter, more destructive than flying your spaceship into aliens lands. Context, K, context; it was a different time, with different “understoods.” The punishment for purposefully spilling blood in the womb was death. Abortion was understood as murder - no Practitioner of the Faith back then would even see fit to ask if it would damage the marriage.
Christ’s singling out of Adultery as a marital sin so destructive that He Himself recognizes it as the only justifiable cause for divorce was not merely an off-handed matter of clarifying proper divorce procedure. It is a painful strecth to try and suggest, as you have, that His concern was simply to clarify how to properly divorce your spouse.
What a ghastly example of mischaracterization, error and cherry-picking.
Mischaracterization:
Your original statement in post four refered to: the recent heresy spread by some American Roman Catholic bishops that their imagined dogma of being anti-abortion supersedes all other dogmas of The Church.
In no way does the quote you provided support your contention. There is no discussion of dogma whatsoever, as borne out below in the larger context.
Error:
The quote you presented is clearly given attribution by the "raving" Bishop Martino.... to Bishop Timlin.
Cherry-picking: Here is the quote, in larger context. It is clear that "issues" refers to election issues, not Catholic dogma.
My predecessor, Bishop Timlin, writing his pastoral letter on Respect Life Sunday 2000, stated the case eloquently:
Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign. Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to obey God’s commands. They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate.
If that's not enough, earlier in his letter, Bishop Martino states:
Another argument goes like this: “As wrong as abortion is, I don't think it is the only relevant ‘life’ issue that should be considered when deciding for whom to vote.” This reasoning is sound only if other issues carry the same moral weight as abortion does, such as in the case of euthanasia and destruction of embryos for research purposes. Health care, education, economic security, immigration, and taxes are very important concerns. Neglect of any one of them has dire consequences as the recent financial crisis demonstrates. However, the solutions to problems in these areas do not usually involve a rejection of the sanctity of human life in the way that abortion does. Being “right” on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life. Consider this: the finest health and education systems, the fairest immigration laws, and the soundest economy do nothing for the child who never sees the light of day. It is a tragic irony that “pro-choice” candidates have come to support homicide – the gravest injustice a society can tolerate – in the name of “social justice.”
That this much time would be spent deriding bishops for speaking out strongly in defense of life does no good witness for the Orthodox.
Apparently you missed a little piece he drafted called Mit brennender Sorge as well...
I'm sorry. I do not know who you are referencing so I cannot find that quote (or were you paraphrasing?).
These bishops, instead of preaching heresy, violating the canons and essentially having their heads explode over what is going to happen in another diocese, ought to read the Fathers, learn the canons and then preach the Truth as The Church has preserved it, not play silly, and frankly embarrassing political games.
You appear to be more concerned with ecclesial jurisdiction than with the sanctity of human life. It does strike me as having a whiff of Phariseeism about it.
He is obviously speaking of political issues. Why did you say that he was speaking of theological issues?
“what on earth or elsewhere do you suppose empowers YOU as an outsider to sit in judgment on popes???”
My problem isn’t with +BXVI, whom we Orthodox seem to show more respect than at least Western Catholics. My problem is with the heretics who seem to infest the hierarchy of the Latin Church in America and how they cloak their political agenda with false, no, phoney, dogmas.
BTW, if I thought the Pope was a heretic, I’d say so just as I and any other Orthodox Christian would about any bishop.
Why you bring up the off topic KGB matter is beyond me but ss for the KGB story, it pales to insignificance in the face of the American bishops embrace of Mohammedanism in the person of hundreds of thousands of Somalis dumped on our communities and welfare roles. I can go further if you like and we can discuss the sad, sad story of the American bishops and their cover up of the Msg. Faggoty story! :)
But T, what Martino and the others are doing is a violation of the canons and the preaching of heresy. Is that excused because abortion is perceived as an abomination. Is this the ultimate “ends justify the means” theology? When is a direct violation of the canons by a hierarch canonically justified? When is it permissible to preach heresy? To combat another? That's the usual Roman answer but it has never washed in the East and it won't now.
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.