Were any of these ever church policy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
Printable View
Were any of these ever church policy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
Gregory XVI, rightly condemning the slave trade, is generally seen as the first pope to acknowledge that "the blacks" (his words -and I'll not judge his language too harshly as he was writing in the 1830's) had souls though his language isn't explicit as he's merely saying it's wrong to treat them as animals rather than men. His condemnation of slavery itself was unequivocal though and I applaud him for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
The church and it's popes were in their time hostile to the idea there may be more than five continents as the bible apparently only refers to five.
There's a lot on the internet about this sort of thing, and much of it is contradictory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
While there's some evidence that many early Christians were flat earthers (against the grain at the time), it doesn't ever seem to have been an ecumenical matter. Possibly Lionel Richie was thinking of the fun Gallileo had over the earth not being the fixed centre of everything (I like to think of that as just a co-ordinate subsititution anyway). I don't know what place that had in church doctrine, but if it was worth threatening excommunication over, I'd guess it was fairly accepted.
Many local churches in the US supposedly suggested black people had no souls. I've never seen anything to suggest that offical catholic docterine bought into that. The Catholic church has even gone so far as to suggest that animals have souls, relatively recently I think.
I've never heard of the other thing he suggests.
However, there are other things on which attitudes may have been altered, e.g. Pope Gregory sent a priest to Britain to buy Pagan boys to work as slaves on church estates, while the 9th Council of Toledo ruled that all children of clerics were to be automatically enslaved. This ruling was later incorporated into canon law. There are various other examples (and counterexamples), but the church's stance on slavery wasn't terribly firm in the middle ages and later. I don't know what their current teaching is, but I doubt they'd openly approve of it any more. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish local actions from official teaching - a Catholic bishop condemned Martin Luther King at one point.
Then there's the treatment of Anabaptists and other sects and schisms, which was often violently discriminatory.
I'm only working from memory here so feel free to contradict me. There were two major references to the place of gentiles (including black people) in the bible. One was at the nativity where Jesus was introduced the three gentile kings when he was 12 days old. The other was a vision Saul had on the road to Damascus, where God showed him a great sheet and placed on it all the plants, creatures and people of the world. The theme common to both was that Christianity was to be a world religion. This was a mojor shift away from the Jewish belief that they were the chosen people. I'd be very surprised if any subsequent Pope contradicted that teaching. That argument is entirely separate from the issue of slavery. There's no inherent contradiction in believing that a slave can have a soul.
I'm also pretty sure that the ancient Greeks discovered that the world is round about 2700 years ago and that it was commonly accepted at the time. A round world appeared on Roman coins, for example and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote on the topic quite a bit (he had some interesting ideas, if you ever look them up). The idea that people used to think the world was flat comes from a children's book written in America a bit over a hundred years ago. The book described Columbus' voyage of discovery and in it all the Europeans thought he was crazy and that he would fall off the edge of the world.
I've never heard the claim about five continents before but I imagine it was quite a common belief before Australia and Antarctica were discovered.
I agree with you on the 'black people having a soul' thing - I suspect it was a local thing, never sanctioned by the pope. I've read nothing to suggest otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
I've read a little Aquinas, though not on very many topics. He was quoted extensively in a book I read a few years back on the history of the church but I can't recall the name - I must dig it out when I get home.
As for flat earthism, there are a few minor passages (like references to the four corners of the earth and the ends of the earth) which I've read that a few early Catholics interpreted in that way, but nothing to suggest that this was a majority view at any point (I said "many" in my last post, which may have been misleading). Better established is the idea that the earth is fixed - I think there's a line in Genesis about it being "fixed in the firmament" or something. I think that's the origin of the heliocentric controversy.
I assume that Lionel meant that the church was somehow resistent to the idea that there were more when Australia was found. Again, I've never heard of this one.Quote:
I've never heard the claim about five continents before but I imagine it was quite a common belief before Australia and Antarctica were discovered.
I hope I don't have my saints mixed up but the belief at the time of Aquinas was that the world's climate was arranged into bands. That the desert was to hot for anyone to cross but that the climate would get cooler on the other side and become livable again before becoming too cold at the pole. He did a lot of philosophising on the people who might live in the southern hemisphere. Whether they would all be dammed because they never got to hear the word of Jesus and whether this was fair on them.
Also, I'd be amazed if a pope actually denied the existence of Australia after it was discovered. Especially since the Americas were discovered first.
I assumed the usual level of "religion is ridiculous" etc etc would come up on this thread and it did.
However to keep this thread on topic ill submit this article to ye.I hope this link works,let me know if it doesnt.
http://www.catholic.org/internationa...y.php?id=32739
I don't mean to question the objectivity of the journalists at Catholic International News but was that story covered in any mainstream publications?
I found this article too.I was happy i did because it sums up a point i was going to make comparing South Africa's AIDS problem to Uganda's AIDS problem.Which policy is working???
BTW,keep the personal insults out of this thread,IM NOT BRAIN DEAD!!!
Many media organisations have agenda's and it wouldnt look very good if the other side of the argument got a few paragraphs in their publication now would it.Thats why much(not all) of whats on this site doesnt get to "main stream" media.BTW:Is main stream media totally objective i ask you??
Whether the main stream media is objective is separate from the question of whether the Catholic International News is objective.Quote:
Originally Posted by eamo1
Eamo, these "agendist" mainstream media organisations regularily invite priests, bishops, cardinals, primates as well as their protestant and non-christian counterparts on to news and current affairs programming to chuck in their tuppenceworth on any range of issues ...often despite the religious leaders having little or nothing beyond a laymans expertise in the topic at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by eamo1
In my 36 years I can recall exactly one (1) religious affairs programme that had an atheist/humanist commentator on it's panel and if death metal langball Glen Benton from Deicide had been sitting next to him with his inverted crucifix branded on his forehead Benton would have gotten an easier ride.
John, I'm putting my hand up that my "round earth resistance" was a bad example on my part -it was actually your fixed earth/center of the universe I had more in mind. Also I think it was only FOUR continents and not five as I said in previous that are referred to in the bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Surely it's the other way around - the church reflects the pope's idea's on the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
It defies logic for anyone to suggest that condoms and protected sex aren't part of the solution when it comes to helping prevent the spread of AIDS. It is not blatant church bashing to point out that their policy is ridiculous, and is in fact costing lives - only fundamentalists could possibly claim otherwise.
And on fundamentalists, people like David Quinn get plenty of column space and airtime in the mainstream media for their (imo bigotted) opinions. FFS the religious even get a seat at the social partnership table.
cant stand that man - he is so smug and always talks rubbishQuote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Quote:
"It is my belief that the most effective presence on the front in the battle against HIV/AIDS is precisely the Catholic Church and her institutions. I think of the Community of Sant' Egidio, which does so much, visibly and invisibly to fight AIDS, of the Camillians, of all the nuns that are at the service of the sick.
"I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome with advertising slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanization of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with those who are suffering, a readiness - even through personal sacrifice - to be present with those who suffer. And these are the factors that help and bring visible progress.
"Therefore, I would say that our double effort is to renew the human person internally, to give spiritual and human strength to a way of behaving that is just towards our own body and the other person's body; and this capacity of suffering with those who suffer, to remain present in trying situations.
"I believe that this is the first response [to AIDS] and that this is what the Church does, and thus, she offers a great and important contribution. And we are grateful to those that do this."
Mmmm. Hardly the rabid anti johnny rant its being made out to be.
I don't know where you got that quote from, but in the above piece I've quoted, he seems to be excluding condoms completely as even part of a solution.Quote:
The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanization of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with those who are suffering, a readiness - even through personal sacrifice - to be present with those who suffer.
By all means use other avenues of approach also, but condom usage can, and I'd say must, have a role to play in any realistic plan on halting the spread of the disease.
I dont see how you read that from the qoute. however, of course he excludes condoms as part of the solution. hes the pope. but that doesnt mean his statement is without merit. my reading of the qoute is that it can be tackled by not shagging anything that moves and respecting your partner and also by showing a bit compassion to those suffering the disease. not exactly "ignorant" things to wish for at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
I completely agree. I said in the above post and in my previous posts that measures to tackle people's attitudes to sex is a crucial part of the solution. We agree completely on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billsthoughts
But it is not, or need not, be a given.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billsthoughts
As an example, the Catholic church under John Paul II recently changed a centuries-old policy on Limbo. It had previously been decreed that all babies that died before baptism could take place were born under original sin, and were therefore not able to enter heaven.
Without saying that Limbo no longer exists (which would be to admit an error which had existed for 14/15 hundred years, if not longer), they now say that God's mercy is such that it is surely possible he will accept those babies who died before baptism.
If the Catholic Church can make such a reversal on such an important issue, then why not more of them?
It shouldnt be a given. But it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
For better or for worse organised religion seems to be hung up on sexual matters. If pope came out in the morning and said johnnys are good. have loads of sex and that the most important aspect of christianity is love and respect for your fellow human beings........then loads of people would just leave the Catholic church and join the sex is bad breakaway church. questions of theology - not many people can get their heads round anyways...questions of riding - well everyone knows about that.