Vatican accuses Amnesty of immorality

Originally posted by twhitehead
Has he taught the British populace that it is wrong to support their government on the same grounds?

That's what the British bishops ought to be doing. Like most First World bishops, however, they're a bunch of wimps IMO.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Because one is a matter of official policy, the other isn't (if anything, it involves people acting against the interests and official teachings of the organisation they are part of).

My question was 'Can you understand...?' not 'How are they different?'

There are many differences between the two, but the relevant issue is in several Dioceses, it seems
that the upper echelons of authority (irrespective of their 'mission statement' or 'official teachings'😉
used money to harbor pedophiles. They have continued a political campaign to quiet and obscure
this fact, fighting court orders to submit documentation and denying charges which later prove to
be true. Only a handful of available convictions have been meted, and many priests have been
quietly dismissed with no charges filed even though they are still within the statutes of limitations
for prosecution.

I'll repeat, can you now understand the justification for why some faithful have discontinued giving
money to the Church?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'll repeat, can you now understand the justification for why some faithful have discontinued giving money to the Church?
Nemesio

I've never had a beef with parishioners in affected dioceses temporarily cutting off the flow of funds to an errant bishop.

Originally posted by lucifershammer

subjugate: To make subservient; enslave

Explain how the fact of male-reserved ordination "subjugates" women.

There are times when a woman is denied access to Holy Communion due to her being out of favor with the Church.

When this occurs, what portion of the time is it a man that makes the determination that she is not eligible to receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
There are times when a woman is denied access to Holy Communion due to her being out of favor with the Church.

When this occurs, what portion of the time is it a man that makes the determination that she is not eligible to receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ?

There are times when people who don't pay their taxes are imprisoned. When this occurs, what portion of the time is it an agent of the government that makes the determination that he/she is not eligible for certain freedoms?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
There are times when people who don't pay their taxes are imprisoned. When this occurs, what portion of the time is it an agent of the government that makes the determination that he/she is not eligible for certain freedoms?

Always. In this way the government subjugates the governed.

There are times when a woman is denied access to Holy Communion due to her being out of favor with the Church.

When this occurs, what portion of the time is it a man that makes the determination that she is not eligible to receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Always. In this way the government subjugates the governed.

There are times when a woman is denied access to Holy Communion due to her being out of favor with the Church.

When this occurs, what portion of the time is it a man that makes the determination that she is not eligible to receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ?

Always.

Thankfully, most people are sensible enough to see that not all exercises of authority qualify as "subjugation".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Always.

Thankfully, most people are sensible enough to see that not all exercises of authority qualify as "subjugation".

How many times did Jesus determine that people were ineligible to commune with him?

Was Judas denied a seat the last supper?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Always.

Thankfully, most people are sensible enough to see that not all exercises of authority qualify as "subjugation".

What is the Catholic church's position on the Lord's Supper? Is it something that belongs to the denomination, the church, the priest, or to Christ? In my church, there is always the point made that "this table does not belong to this church or to this denomination or to me. This is Christ's table and if you belong to Christ, you are most welcome here."

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Always.

Hold on a second. It is my understanding that a priest cannot refuse
a communicant the Eucharist, even if he knows of a grave sin that ought
to prevent partaking. I thought the burden of responsibility was upon
the faithful regarding receiving and not receiving; I thought I had read
this somewhere in canon law, but I'm not sure. As I recall, someone
who receives while not in a state of grace only profanes him/herself, as
the Eucharist -- the Body and Blood of Christ made present -- is of itself
ineffable and perfect.

Is this incorrect?

Nemesio

Edit: That is not to say that the priest/bishops/Pope do not have the
authority to instruct the faithful when and when not to commune; obviously,
they ought to. However, I thought that they had no authority to refuse
except if they suspect that the Eucharist was going to be physically defiled
by the communicant (stomped on, thrown in a garbage can, &c). I thought
that they could only insist that the communicant consume the species in
their presence.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I've never had a beef with parishioners in affected dioceses temporarily cutting off the flow of funds to an errant bishop.

But, as is evident, there are still court cases struggling to liberate the
truth from Church archives and the Pope, who has the power to insist on
an 'opened-door policy' has not done so. To many people, this would appear
to be complicity. To refuse to give until the Church offers all of its information,
even the material that damns their actions, would be akin to refusing to
give to Amnesty International until it stops giving monies to abortion-enabling
entities.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Hold on a second. It is my understanding that a priest cannot refuse
a communicant the Eucharist, even if he knows of a grave sin that ought
to prevent partaking.

http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu31.htm#answer2

Q. 2. Under what circumstances can a Catholic priest deny someone the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist?

A. It can be denied under the following circumstances:

1. The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist cannot be administered to members of other religions, and

2. The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist cannot be administered to those who voluntarily continue to live in grave sin.

Interestingly, the argument given for not having female Catholic priests is that Jesus never had female disciples (despite everybody knowing that's not actually the reason behind the policy but a contrived excuse to maintain it in modern times). But how many times did Jesus refuse to commune with grave sinners or members of particular religions?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The comment I "dismissed" had to do with your comments regarding the Church's alleged misogyny (not your argument on abortion).

um, no, this was the comment you dismissed:

"I'm just trying to point out that the churche's position on abortion is hypocritical given its history, and is in fact simply another way to attempt to subjugate women."
Like I said, my arguement on the church's hypocrisy.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What if she chooses not to? After all, its still her body that has to take the child to social services or even pick up the phone to ask them to come and collec the child?

Not caring for the child and not calling soical services amounts to killing the child, something I already stated that she has no right to do.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Language, reasoning, creativity, etc. are all abilities of your brain. You have yet to give me any definition of intelligence that compromises anything more than the abilities of the nervous system.

They are abilities of the brain in human beings. Nothing about language, reasoning, creativity etc. says that these can exist only in hum ...[text shortened]... ocial context.[/b]

If society can give individuals rights, then surely it can take it away?[/b]

They are abilities of the brain in human beings. Nothing about language, reasoning, creativity etc. says that these can exist only in human-like brains.

They can exist only with a nervous system. You have yet to give me any definition of intelligence which does not require one.

If society can give individuals rights, then surely it can take it away?

yup