A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
So the point, then, is to determine whether we like it.
OK, then, please carry on… my bad… I’ll try to read more before I post next time.
Alan
- Status
OK, then, please carry on… my bad… I’ll try to read more before I post next time.
Alan
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
What exactly has he said ?
Sometimes - often, even usually - people are attacked, not because they are in any way unorthodox, but because their critics are less wise, or have less insight, or are less well-developed as Christians, than those whom they criticise.
For example: the Resurrection is not the re-animation of a corpse - but something far greater. It far exceeds merely reanimating a corpse: that’s why the Christ, not Lazarus or the daughter of Jairus, is “the first-fruits of them that sleep”.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
It’s gossip.
Which is a sin
It borders on calumny, to deprive men of their good name when they have not lost it by some public act.
Which is also a sin. As is detraction.
The fact that these men have been nominated by that man for those reasons to those honoours in this body, should make the rest of us extremely reluctant to think that we are better judges of their fitness than the Pope. Immense, and lasting, harm can be done by rumour-mongering.
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
I kind of agree with Gottle of Geer, just above, and yet sort of don’t at the same time. Granted we shouldn’t calumniate anyone. But we have the right to examine the public acts and statements and writings of these men (if any exist) and come to an informed opinion about them.
For example, it is not “calumny” to say that Cardinal Walter Kasper doesn’t believe in the miracles of the New Testament and doesn’t believe that the Resurrection of Jesus is a historical event. He says as much in his book JESUS THE CHRIST, available from www.amazon.com In my opinion, such statements are heretical.
As for the Cardinals just appointed, I cannot give an informed opinion because I have no information about these men.
Jaypeeto3
For example, it is not “calumny” to say that Cardinal Walter Kasper doesn’t believe in the miracles of the New Testament and doesn’t believe that the Resurrection of Jesus is a historical event. He says as much in his book JESUS THE CHRIST, available from www.amazon.com In my opinion, such statements are heretical.
As for the Cardinals just appointed, I cannot give an informed opinion because I have no information about these men.
Jaypeeto3
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Me neither. That was supposed to be the point of this thread, not a place for people to claim that anyone who suggests that a Church leader can dissent is therefore a dissenter! I am simply uninformed about these men and concerned for the Church. My motives are pure and not to denigrate anyone. I’m sorry if that’s the impression that any of you have gotten.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
what do I need to know? the Pope chose them, that’s his job, not mine.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I haven’t read this whole thread in detail (I’m a slow reader
) but I see that in this thread you are mostly gathering details.Others seem convinced that you are “rating” them or second-guessing their appointments but in the skimming I did, I did not see where you were making judgmental statements.
Many of us get very sensitive of course, when it sounds like bishops are being rated and categorized but gosh, we do that all the time. When it gets to the point where you’re saying that bishop X is better than or more suited than bishop Y for the job based on their beliefs, then maybe I’ll become more concerned. As it is, if you are truly gathering information I’m not so concerned.
I’m also not concerned if people develop personal opinions of a particular clergy member. They are human, too, and their behavior has incredible impact on so many people’s lives that I think damage assessments are even warranted sometimes. I’m sorry that I don’t keep good track of what poster has said what, but it took three times through your first post until I failed to see the “judgment” in it. Again, with all these detractors, I’m hesitant to go against them because they might know something I don’t, but in this thread it seems all you did was ask what we know about these guys. A fair question coming from most people – unless we have presupposed your motives or intent on where the conversation will go next. Only you know whether that is fair and I have only to take the words of those involved here.
JSmitty, I will support you to the level that this thread did not start out intrinsically combative, although I don’t cast any support nor doubt on the opinions of others referring to previous threads as to why others may have gotten that impression. The reason I’m being this much of a weasel is that I am going against some of my posting “friends” here (I do remember some names) based on information I claim I do not have. I am also a bit ashamed at how quickly I presumed. Taking a relatively uninformed stab in the dark is usually not my style. (I like to be informed first, then make a blind stab.
)At peace with this thread for now,
Alan
I
InnocentIII
Guest
Oh come on Alan. We are not second-guessing HH at all. The decision to grant the Red hat is made on all sorts of grounds including political. Certain sees are traditionally Cardinal sees (eg Sydney). That’s the reason Pell was moved to Sydney from Melbourne (a most unusual move BTW) so he could get the Cardinal’s hat. No-one is questioning the authority of the Holy Father - he can name who he likes as Cardinal and the laity have no say in it. On the other hand we have a right to know what sort of men they are and what there record of orthodoxy/heterodoxy is. Amazing the number of people who have suddenly become devout believers in the infallibility of everything the Pope does.
The choice of bishops and cardinals is not an infallible process and you need to get down of your high horse and stop flinging judgements at others motives. I seem to remember an earlier thread where you were very keen to judge the bad motives of a priest for throwing kids out of RE classes now you tell us we must accept the Pope’s appointments with nary a peep of concern for their character. What was that Our Lord said about beams and motes. No-one accused anyone of heresy. But heterodoxy can exist within the Church and does. We the sheep have a right to know our shepherds.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
I was thinking the same thing. That’s why I’d like to read The Church on Earth by Msgr. Ronald Knox.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
please see my previous post, which probably overlapped “in the mail” with this one. I’ve effectively withdrawn my unfortunate claims against the OP.
Here I disagree, in that I don’t think we have a “right” to any particular profile of the man. I think we have a “right” to expect he will carry on his orders as he sees fit, and one would hope that means obedience to the pope but I just don’t think the laity have any right-to-know in this situation. I’m saying this just on the basis that I don’t think these men are expected to justify their credentials to us, and I don’t think they “owe” us a cheat-sheet to their philosophy unless they wish to offer one.
That said, I also think we have every right to communicate with each other as Catholics and compare these notes on their actions, speeches and writings. That’s why I apologized for barging into the thread like I did at first.
Guilty as charged. :tsktsk:
I don’t think we have a “right” as I outlined above, but the very fact they are publicly visible means they cannot hide for long.
Alan
I
InnocentIII
Guest
I noticed after I posted so imputation withdrawn likewise.
Perhaps right was a strong word but certainly I think we do have a right to know what our shepherds think. We do not have a right to refuse obedience however.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The 3 are already too old to take part in the conclave…they’re over 80.
- Status