Papal candidates - Short List?

[smaneck]

OTOH from a human rights perspective, I would like to impose my understanding that murdering innocent human beings is wrong and should be prohibited by law.

That is true. However, the definition of what constitutes a ‘human being’ is a matter off religious beliefs. A non-Christian may not believe that a Zygote is a human being.

As to issues of same sex marriage and such other societal experiments, by demanding that this structure be treated as the equivalent of traditional male/female marriage, these same folks are imposing their decidedly unbiological or theological philosophy on those who do not share it.

Unless they are forcing you to enter into such a marriage or forcing your church to perform them, I don’t see how the state allowing same-sex marriages constitutes an imposition on you.

 

[Santi2]

That is true. However, the definition of what constitutes a ‘human being’ is a matter off religious beliefs. A non-Christian may not believe that a Zygote is a human being.

That non-Christian ought to get cracking at reading a science textbook.

 

[smaneck]

That non-Christian ought to get cracking at reading a science textbook.

A science textbook can only tell us that it is a zygote of a homo sapien. Being human involves a great deal more. My understanding is that the church’s position is based on the premise that the soul comes into existence at conception. Science knows nothing about souls.

 

[LisaA]

A science textbook can only tell us that it is a zygote of a homo sapien. Being human involves a great deal more. My understanding is that the church’s position is based on the premise that the soul comes into existence at conception. Science knows nothing about souls.

No you are not correct. A human life begins at the moment of conception. This is a completely scientifically based premise. The term “zygote” is a stage of development in a human being just as infancy is a stage of development not a determination of humanity.

Lisa

 

[Santi2]

A science textbook can only tell us that it is a zygote of a homo sapien. Being human involves a great deal more. My understanding is that the church’s position is based on the premise that the soul comes into existence at conception. Science knows nothing about souls.

You’re now going to submit the scientific position with regards soul in a Catholic forum? Blimey.

 

[Santi2]

Presumably not everyone in that country is a Catholic. Should Catholics be able to dictate such things to non-believers. Should Catholic politicians who believe they should not be reprimanded by the church because they refuse to impose their beliefs on those who don’t share them?

It is expected of Catholic politicians to be the “King’s faithful servant but, God’s first”.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It is expected of Catholic politicians to be the “King’s faithful servant but, God’s first”.

Thank you for quoting St. Thomas More, my friend.

 

[Brendan_64]

It is a mistaken idea that Catholics in the USA are the most important people in the church. We are decidedly not the most important and the church looks at us just as she should - as one among many.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You approved of a post which is non-responsive to anything that anyone has stated on this thread (or to my knowledge, anywhere on CAF). No one has even vaguely suggested that American Catholics are “the most important.” That wasn’t the clear meaning of my own earlier remark, so the response to which you just replied has no relevance to any comments on this particular thread, most assuredly not to my comments. Perhaps she believes that someone somewhere has such a “mistaken notion,” but no one posting on this thread has come even close to indicating that.

Rome observes that U.S. Catholicism is fast developing into a Titanic, and will soon, without an emergency rescue effort, resemble the a-theism of Western Europe. That has nothing to do with “most important,” which was merely fabricated as a straw man. The condition of U.S. Catholicism is simply a fact which the Vatican has commented upon more than once, and which is echoed in comments from U.S. bishops as well. Anyone who doesn’t see the crisis in the U.S. Church is simply not paying attention, or whistling past the graveyard. “Importance” of any particular population of Catholics, worldwide, has never been suggested, not once.

It is merely that ignoring U.S. Catholicism, or minimizing the crisis, or denying the crisis, will ennoble and exacerbate this trend, which will then happen sooner rather than later. For Rome and the U.S. bishops to recognize the crisis does not mean that either group views U.S. Catholics as “the most important.”

We are ALL important, including but not limited to U.S. Catholics.

Have a nice day.

 

[smaneck]

You’re now going to submit the scientific position with regards soul in a Catholic forum? Blimey.

No, I’m saying that science has no position in regards to the soul.

 

[Santi2]

No, I’m saying that science has no position in regards to the soul.

And, that is why we have millions of dead and mutilated unborn children. There is one being killed right now as I reply to your post. Now, two…three…four…five…six…Hope you get the picture.

 

[Nan_S]

I clicked on this thread because it was titled “Papal candidates - Short List.” I am very interested in this, because all I have seen elsewhere are a couple of “top ten” lists posted by non-Catholic reporters in the secular media.

I see that the thread has been hijacked.

I’ll check back later to see if it gets back on track. Sure hope a new thread doesn’t need to be started to resume the discussion.

 

[LisaA]

I clicked on this thread because it was titled “Papal candidates - Short List.” I am very interested in this, because all I have seen elsewhere are a couple of “top ten” lists posted by non-Catholic reporters in the secular media.

I see that the thread has been hijacked.

I’ll check back later to see if it gets back on track. Sure hope a new thread doesn’t need to be started to resume the discussion.

Ah yes now remember the old saying about being part of the solution or part of the problem? I think there have been some interesting links providing information on the potential candidates. Now I am partial to Cardinal Timothy Dolan and one of the summaries of the potential candidates indicated that while his brash nature and US ‘baggage’ might be a problem, the Church would find no more courageous defender than Cardinal Dolan!

I’ve learned about a couple of other candidates and am watching for further information.

Do you have any thoughts?

Lisa

 

[Vouthon]

I still think that the men to beat are Cardinal Scola of Italy and Cardinal Marc Ouellet of Canada.

My favourite is the delightful Cardinal Tagle, however at 56 he seems to be perhaps too young. Maybe one day though

 

[LisaA]

I still think that the men to beat are Cardinal Scola of Italy and Cardinal Marc Ouellet of Canada.

My favourite is the delightful Cardinal Tagle, however at 56 he seems to be perhaps too young. Maybe one day though

Elizabeth502 mentioned this Cardinal and I like much of what I see in this small summary from Abyssinia’s earlier link of the top 25:
11. Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, Italy (70)

Considered more of an outsider, Ravasi represents a cultural wing in the Italian bloc frequently quoting from obscure northern European works of literature. Under Benedict’s direction, he has led a dialogue with the secular world and been at the forefront of the interface between Church and society in Europe. His relative inexperience (he has never run a diocese) would certainly count against him for more pastorally-minded cardinals. However, he is considered a skilled diplomat and a natural born communicator in the style of Pope John Paul II. He has urged priests to make their sermons more interesting and says he relishes the opportunity to help bring more young people back to the Church. If Europe emerges as a key consideration he has to be a contender.

To some extent I see our current discussion of our next priest a microcosm of naming a Pope. The same questions; can he communicate, will he be the kind of “face” for the Church that will bring the same goodwill as Blessed John Paul II? Can he inspire young people to be more committed to their faith?

It does say Cardinal Scola is the current favorite and one I also like Cardinal Oulette as being a contender but concern about his ‘lack of charisma’ are an issue.

LIsa

 

[trapper1]

That is true. However, the definition of what constitutes a ‘human being’ is a matter off religious beliefs. A non-Christian may not believe that a Zygote is a human being.

But couldn’t someone also believe this of a newborn? That personhood doesn’t exist before natural language formation? Are our laws banning infanticide a form of religious tyranny?

 

[Nan_S]

But couldn’t someone also believe this of a newborn? That personhood doesn’t exist before natural language formation? Are our laws banning infanticide a form of religious tyranny?

Trapper, if you want to continue prenatal morality please start a new thread.

Whom do you see as likely contenders for papal election and who would you support if you could vote?

 

[smaneck]

But couldn’t someone also believe this of a newborn? That personhood doesn’t exist before natural language formation? Are our laws banning infanticide a form of religious tyranny?

Of course not. And I would agree that everyone should follow what their own religion teaches on this matter. I personally happen to believe as you do, that human life begins at conception. but I also recognize that this is based on an essentially religious belief that the soul comes into existence at that time. The question here is whether the political sphere should be used to impose ones religious views on others?
To give you an example. Currently the majority of members of the US Supreme Court are Catholics. Upon taking office they swore to uphold the US Constitution which includes the principle of the separation of church and state. Should those members violate their oath of office in order to impose some Catholic principle on others? Or should a Catholic not take such an oath in the first place, knowing what it entails?

 

[trapper1]

Of course not. And I would agree that everyone should follow what their own religion teaches on this matter. I personally happen to believe as you do, that human life begins at conception. but I also recognize that this is based on an essentially religious belief that the soul comes into existence at that time. The question here is whether the political sphere should be used to impose ones religious views on others?
To give you an example. Currently the majority of members of the US Supreme Court are Catholics. Upon taking office they swore to uphold the US Constitution which includes the principle of the separation of church and state. Should those members violate their oath of office in order to impose some Catholic principle on others? Or should a Catholic not take such an oath in the first place, knowing what it entails?

Plenty of societies have been perfectly fine with infanticide…who’s to say when the soul enters the body? There are people who presently argue that personhood doesn’t begin until natural langage formation. Who are you to impose your beliefs on them?

My point? Well, I obviously don’t believe that being against infanticide is any more of a religious belief than a belief that human life begins at conception.

With respect to your last couple of sentences, I, of course, agree with what you are implying in terms of judges, but we might differ regarding what constitutes a “Catholic principle” since I think natural law/natural morality is very relevant. With respect to legislators, I think their religious beliefs should help guide their votes, as it did, for example, for many in the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s, many opposed to various wars, etc.

 

[Nan_S]

Trapper and Smaneck - This is not an AOL chat room. Cool it with your off-topic discussion, or take it to a new thread.

There are respected norms for common courtesy in this forum. As recent members you may not have recognized this, so I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt. But I’ve already asked you once.