Catholic Church teaching on the purpose of sex changed in the 19th century

[benidict]

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops=“Red”]

Exactly. to the POPE and not the BISHOPS. Not screaming, just accenting. Only the Pope has infailability. But you just said his personal opinions are not binding. So just when DOES the Pope possess infailability. I DO believe in Papal infailability by the way. But only when He is speaking from the Chair. That is what the Church has always taught, if Im not mistaken.

 

[wanner47]

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops=“Red”]

Exactly. to the POPE and not the BISHOPS. Not screaming, just accenting. Only the Pope has infailability. But you just said his personal opinions are not binding. So just when DOES the Pope possess infailability. I DO believe in Papal infailability by the way. But only when He is speaking from the Chair. That is what the Church has always taught, if Im not mistaken.

Didn’t you read the entire excerpt?

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility,** they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. **

 

[Rock_Happy]

Not necessarily. Read this:catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

I have a hard time accepting that an evil person, and clearly a minority of popes have been about as evil as they come, can become instantly virtuous on demand. I believe that such a person must be colored in his judgements by his own outlook on life, and his personal integrity. You are claiming that a personality disintegrates for brief pronouncements on morality and spirituality, like some sort of Jekyll and Hyde character. I find this implausible.

 

[benidict]

Didn’t you read the entire excerpt?

It’s not the pope, by himself. It’s the Pope* in union with the bishops*. Otherwise known as the Magesterium.

Ok, I can go along with this. They proclaim Christ doctrine. infailably. But their moral theology is far from infailable. This is very evident, from the scandle that has rocked the Church.

 

[wanner47]

I have a hard time accepting that an evil person, and clearly a minority of popes have been about as evil as they come, can become instantly virtuous on demand.

Good, because that’s not what the excerpt said, nor is it what I said.

I believe that such a person must be colored in his judgements by his own outlook on life, and his personal integrity.

Probably, yes.

You are claiming that a personality disintegrates for brief pronouncements on morality and spirituality, like some sort of Jekyll and Hyde character. I find this implausible.

No, not at all. I didn’t say that, nor did the document.

Being protected from teaching error means just that: God prevented bad Popes from teaching error. They were still horrible people, but they didn’t teach error.

 

[wanner47]

Ok, I can go along with this. They proclaim Christ doctrine. infailably. But their moral theology is far from infailable. This is very evident, from the scandle that has rocked the Church.

What do you mean?

Are you saying that the bishops have taught that pedophilia is morally acceptable? If so, can you prove it?

 

[benidict]

What do you mean?

Are you saying that the bishops have taught that pedophilia is morally acceptable? If so, can you prove it?

Their actions speak louder than their words. Do you deny, that they shifted problem priest around to protect them from prosecution? Do you deny that they covered up years and years of sexual abuse? One of the Popes own relatives was caught up in this scandle. By their very actions, they condoned it for a long time, while in their words they comdemned such practices. And you dont have a problem with this? I dont have to prove anything. They have done quite a nice job of it for me.

 

[wanner47]

Their actions speak louder than their words. Do you deny, that they shifted problem priest around to protect them from prosecution? Do you deny that they covered up years and years of sexual abuse? One of the Popes own relatives was caught up in this scandle. By their very actions, they condoned it for a long time, while in their words they comdemned such practices. And you dont have a problem with this?

That wasn’t my question. Everyone is a sinner so I can’t say I’m really surprised that human beings sin.

However, my question was **did the bishops teach that pedophilia was morally acceptable? **Did they hold this teaching as binding on all Catholic faithful?

 

[benidict]

That wasn’t my question. Everyone is a sinner so I can’t say I’m really surprised that human beings sin.

However, my question was **did the bishops teach that pedophilia was morally acceptable? **Did they hold this teaching as binding on all Catholic faithful?

It does not matter what they taught by words. They certainly proved by their actions, that they do not believe their own moral theology. And although you are appying double speak, you admit that the magesterium IS failable.

 

[wanner47]

It does not matter what they taught by words. They certainly proved by their actions, that they do not believe their own moral theology.

So you disagree with Jesus’ words below?

Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. Matthew 23:3

 

[benidict]

So you disagree with Jesus’ words below?

You are aware you just compared the Magesteriumn to the pharisees? This is who Jesus was speaking about. I am gonna be generous and believe you did not throw this out there on purpose. Do you find me stupid? Im a former baptist. If you want to use the bible, then at least give the correct context. Thank you. Oh, and for future reference. Please do not misuse and take out of context the Teachings of Christ to prove a point. Im very very familiar with the Scriptures. Fair warning.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That wasn’t my question. Everyone is a sinner so I can’t say I’m really surprised that human beings sin.

However, my question was **did the bishops teach that pedophilia was morally acceptable? **Did they hold this teaching as binding on all Catholic faithful?

Of course they didn’t. And Rock and his friends quite conveniently omit mentioning that the majority of the cases that were 'covered’up in the U.S. anyway occurred in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s when the AMA (that’s the American Medical Association) and the APA (that’s the American Psychological Association) believed, taught, and practiced that pedophilia was CURABLE, and also (and the legal profession backed them up, not just in ‘the Church’ but in society at large) that the only ‘fair’ way to deal with a “CURED” pedophile (or alcoholic, or addict) was to send them off to a NEW place with a CLEAN slate lest they be ‘prejudged’.

This occurred not just in the Catholic church but in protestant churches, temples, in schools, in businesses, and in HOMES where the abuser was allowed to ‘come back’ and supposed to be treated as though the abuse hadn’t happened.

Massive ‘coverups’ through every fabric of society based on the definition of AD 2011. . .‘prescribed medical treatment’ for the definition of AD 1970. But if we actually took the time to accept this, instead of screaming that it was a "CATHOLIC problem’ we’d have to accept that not just our doctors but our lawyers, judges, indeed, everyone in authority in 1970. . .was WRONG.

And that won’t do. Not if we can use the Church as a scapegoat and pretend this kind of thing didn’t happen. Not if we instead on pretending that the bishop in 1970 had exactly the understanding and knowledge we have today.

I am NOT excusing the few–and it is a few, sadly–who really did cross the line. Still less am I excusing the people who did these crimes.

But it is a hard fact that many of the bishops who ‘transferred’ priests are DEAD. Guess what? We don’t KNOW what they knew, what they ‘felt’.

We DO know that the doctors and lawyers back in 1980, 1970, 1960, etc. told a very, very different story from the one they teach today.

Only the Catholic Church has been big enough and moral enough to come forward, to make restitution, from every member up through the Pope. . .and we’re still being bled white. . .

Ask me how many abusive fathers from that same time period are paying ANYTHING to the children THEY raped and the families THEY destroyed. . . Oh no. In fact, if you weren’t molested by a priest, forget it! You’ll be ostradized, you’ll be treated like dirt. . .

God help the children, but the way these sanctimonious "Catholic priest bashers’ are acting is in NO way helping the children or anybody else. They’re making things worse because they aren’t addressing the REAL PROBLEM which has nothing to do with Catholic priests or Catholicism. . .

 

[benidict]

Of course they didn’t. And Rock and his friends quite conveniently omit mentioning that the majority of the cases that were 'covered’up in the U.S. anyway occurred in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s when the AMA (that’s the American Medical Association) and the APA (that’s the American Psychological Association) believed, taught, and practiced that pedophilia was CURABLE, and also (and the legal profession backed them up, not just in ‘the Church’ but in society at large) that the only ‘fair’ way to deal with a “CURED” pedophile (or alcoholic, or addict) was to send them off to a NEW place with a CLEAN slate lest they be ‘prejudged’.

This occurred not just in the Catholic church but in protestant churches, temples, in schools, in businesses, and in HOMES where the abuser was allowed to ‘come back’ and supposed to be treated as though the abuse hadn’t happened.

Massive ‘coverups’ through every fabric of society based on the definition of AD 2011. . .‘prescribed medical treatment’ for the definition of AD 1970. But if we actually took the time to accept this, instead of screaming that it was a "CATHOLIC problem’ we’d have to accept that not just our doctors but our lawyers, judges, indeed, everyone in authority in 1970. . .was WRONG.

And that won’t do. Not if we can use the Church as a scapegoat and pretend this kind of thing didn’t happen. Not if we instead on pretending that the bishop in 1970 had exactly the understanding and knowledge we have today.

I am NOT excusing the few–and it is a few, sadly–who really did cross the line. Still less am I excusing the people who did these crimes.

But it is a hard fact that many of the bishops who ‘transferred’ priests are DEAD. Guess what? We don’t KNOW what they knew, what they ‘felt’.

We DO know that the doctors and lawyers back in 1980, 1970, 1960, etc. told a very, very different story from the one they teach today.

Only the Catholic Church has been big enough and moral enough to come forward, to make restitution, from every member up through the Pope. . .and we’re still being bled white. . .

Ask me how many abusive fathers from that same time period are paying ANYTHING to the children THEY raped and the families THEY destroyed. . . Oh no. In fact, if you weren’t molested by a priest, forget it! You’ll be ostradized, you’ll be treated like dirt. . .

God help the children, but the way these sanctimonious "Catholic priest bashers’ are acting is in NO way helping the children or anybody else. They’re making things worse because they aren’t addressing the REAL PROBLEM which has nothing to do with Catholic priests or Catholicism. . .

We have not bashed the priest. only one percent of priest are guilty of this crime. It is the Leadership that shifted them around and covered up, that supposedly is Infailable that we have an issue with. Exposing such people greatly helps the victims of such crimes, in that this type of behavior will have less of a chance of happening again, and that those who commit such acts will be turned over to the authorities by the leadership in the future. Let get it straight what we are addressing here.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It does not matter what they taught by words. They certainly proved by their actions, that they do not believe their own moral theology. And although you are appying double speak, you admit that the magesterium IS failable.

I thought that Donatism had been disproven long ago. Why are you trying to resurrect it?

 

[benidict]

I thought that Donatism had been disproven long ago. Why are you trying to resurrect it?

I will admit I am not familiar with this term. Educate me and I will answer yes or no. simple really.

 

[wanner47]

You are aware you just compared the Magesteriumn to the pharisees? This is who Jesus was speaking about. I am gonna be generous and believe you did not throw this out there on purpose. Do you find me stupid? Im a former baptist. If you want to use the bible, then at least give the correct context. Thank you. Oh, and for future reference. Please do not misuse and take out of context the Teachings of Christ to prove a point. Im very very familiar with the Scriptures. Fair warning.

No, I compared individual sinful bishops to the Pharisees.

How is it out of context? Jesus was telling the Jewish people that if they had sinful leaders, they should do what those sinful leaders said to do, but not follow the example of how they act.

Just so, when our bishops teach on matters of faith and morals in concert with the Pope, we are to listen to them; when their individual behavior is sinful and wrong, as in the priest scandals, we should not follow their example.

I know the Bible too, and I’d ask you not to take your own interpretation of Scripture as infallible and correct.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

We have not bashed the priest. only one percent of priest are guilty of this crime. It is the Leadership that shifted them around and covered up, that supposedly is Infailable that we have an issue with. Exposing such people greatly helps the victims of such crimes, in that this type of behavior will have less of a chance of happening again, and that those who commit such acts will be turned over to the authorities by the leadership in the future. Let get it straight what we are addressing here.

Let’s. First of you, you’re claiming bishops are infallible. They aren’t.

You have no proof that a given bishop who ‘sent around’ a pedophile priest wasn’t doing so with the blessing of the doctors and lawyers at the time. IOW, you’re attributing only the BASEST of motives as the ONLY motive and ignoring that there could be any other reason. You’re ignoring the knowledge of the time. As I said, many of the bishops are dead now. How do you know for SURE that they were deliberately ‘covering up’ with the motive of ‘enabling’ priests to sin again?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No, I compared individual sinful bishops to the Pharisees.

How is it out of context? Jesus was telling the Jewish people that if they had sinful leaders, they should do what those sinful leaders said to do, but not follow the example of how they act.

Just so, when our bishops teach on matters of faith and morals in concert with the Pope, we are to listen to them; when their individual behavior is sinful and wrong, as in the priest scandals, we should not follow their example.

I know the Bible too, and I’d ask you not to take your own interpretation of Scripture as infallible and correct.

They are really going off target here. We should ask them, wanner, if and when they can actually prove that a given bishop ‘covered up’ with malice aforethought, having read the mind of the priest and knowing that the person WOULD abuse again, that if this ‘bad behavior’ on the part of one bishop invalidated Catholic teaching, what about bishops like Bishop Burke? Would they ‘cancel out’? And how about Mother Teresa?

 

[benidict]

Let’s. First of you, you’re claiming bishops are infallible. They aren’t.

You have no proof that a given bishop who ‘sent around’ a pedophile priest wasn’t doing so with the blessing of the doctors and lawyers at the time. IOW, you’re attributing only the BASEST of motives as the ONLY motive and ignoring that there could be any other reason. You’re ignoring the knowledge of the time. As I said, many of the bishops are dead now. How do you know for SURE that they were deliberately ‘covering up’ with the motive of ‘enabling’ priests to sin again?

First of all, other posters are proclaiming the Bishops infailable. not me. far from it. I am claiming they ARE failable. That is what we are debating. Second. The cases have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there WAS a cover up. And a shifting around of priest to keep them from prosecution. Intersting that the Church has lost so many civil suits. Do you deny this?

 

[benidict]

No, I compared individual sinful bishops to the Pharisees.

How is it out of context? Jesus was telling the Jewish people that if they had sinful leaders, they should do what those sinful leaders said to do, but not follow the example of how they act.

Just so, when our bishops teach on matters of faith and morals in concert with the Pope, we are to listen to them; when their individual behavior is sinful and wrong, as in the priest scandals, we should not follow their example.

I know the Bible too, and I’d ask you not to take your own interpretation of Scripture as infallible and correct.

This is going to be very interesting. I know which way I want to go with you on this, and you may not like it. You just opened up a can of worms my friend. Thank you. Have a good night. Talk with you tomorrow. Ta ta!