Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/0 ... ?hpt=hp_t2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pope Francis reaffirmed the Catholic Church's opposition to gay marriage on Wednesday, but suggested in a newspaper interview that it could support some types of civil unions.

The Pope reiterated the church's longstanding teaching that "marriage is between a man and a woman." However, he said, "We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety."

For instance, civil unions provide financial security to cohabitating couples, "as for instance in medical care," the Pope said in a wide-ranging interview published Wednesday in Corriere della Sera, an Italian daily.

A number of Catholic bishops have supported civil unions for same-sex couples, including Pope Francis when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires in 2010, according to reports in National Catholic Reporter and The New York Times.

The tolerance from that statement is incredible.

It's the Jesuit side of him coming through. Plenty of compassion there.

GannonFan wrote:It's the Jesuit side of him coming through. Plenty of compassion there.

It's a great start. This guy has a lot of compassion and common sense.

GannonFan wrote:It's the Jesuit side of him coming through. Plenty of compassion there.

Still has done nothing about the ever widening world wide child molestation scandal.

Ibanez wrote:

GannonFan wrote:It's the Jesuit side of him coming through. Plenty of compassion there.

It's a great start. This guy has a lot of compassion and common sense.

Still has done nothing about the ever-widening child rape issue withing the church.

If he had true compassion and common sense, he would be dealing with this issue and not wasting time on comparatively silly ones like this.

GannonFan wrote:It's the Jesuit side of him coming through. Plenty of compassion there.

When I was in college, many of the Jesuits we had were similar to Francis. They argued that the Church often focused on the "Rules." But the Rules were simply attempts to apply the "Ideals," and more fundamentally, it was the Ideals which were paramount.

For example, one Ideal is that human life is sacred from conception to natural death.

Rules which flowed from this Ideal include: (i) abortion is impermissible; (ii) all ordinary means must be used to preserve human life; and (iii) the mental well-being of a human life is vital.

All works fine under unexceptional, normal circumstances, but there are exceptional circumstances when two (or more) Rules which flow from the same Ideal can conflict, which makes it impossible to follow one of the Rules.

For example, a pregnant woman faces medical problems which can be fatal, possibly related to the pregnancy itself. If you were to follow Rule (i) above, you would say that any medical procedure which would likely kill the fetus is impermissible. If you were to follow Rule (ii) above, you would need to undertake medical procedures to save the life of the mother. A conflict arises between these two Rules, flowing from the same Ideal, when the medical procedure is likely to result in the death of the fetus. The Jesuits I knew would argue, under the circumstances, an accommodation must be reached between the two Rules which serve the same Ideal (because the Ideal is what is paramount). The conclusion would be it is acceptable to perform the surgery necessary to save the mother's life, so long as the intent of the surgery is not to endanger the fetus, but to save the mother's life. And this remains acceptable even though the surgery, in fact, endangers the fetus, because the ultimate intent is to save the mother, not to endanger the fetus.

Similarly, they would argue that in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, following Rule (i) can conflict with Rule (iii), since forcing a woman under such circumstances to proceed with a pregnancy could cause long-term psychological harm to the woman. They thus would argue that the Church should defer to the informed moral choice of the woman, because it would be impossible to judge her according to the terms of Rule (i), given the circumstances which resulted in the pregnancy.

Francis is very much a follower of the "Ideals," and not the secondary rules which flow from the Ideals.

JoltinJoe wrote:

GannonFan wrote:It's the Jesuit side of him coming through. Plenty of compassion there.

When I was in college, many of the Jesuits we had were similar to Francis. They argued that the Church often focused on the "Rules." But the Rules were simply attempts to apply the "Ideals," and more fundamentally, it was the Ideals which were paramount.

For example, one Ideal is that human life is sacred from conception to natural death.

Rules which flowed from this Ideal include: (i) abortion is impermissible; (ii) all ordinary means must be used to preserve human life; and (iii) the mental well-being of a human life is vital.

All works fine under unexceptional, normal circumstances, but there are exceptional circumstances when two (or more) Rules which flow from the same Ideal can conflict, which makes it impossible to follow one of the Rules.

For example, a pregnant woman faces medical problems which can be fatal, possibly related to the pregnancy itself. If you were to follow Rule (i) above, you would say that any medical procedure which would likely kill the fetus is impermissible. If you were to follow Rule (ii) above, you would need to undertake medical procedures to save the life of the mother. A conflict arises between these two Rules, flowing from the same Ideal, when the medical procedure is likely to result in the death of the fetus. The Jesuits I knew would argue, under the circumstances, an accommodation must be reached between the two Rules which serve the same Ideal (because the Ideal is what is paramount). The conclusion would be it is acceptable to perform the surgery necessary to save the mother's life, so long as the intent of the surgery is not to endanger the fetus, but to save the mother's life. And this remains acceptable even though the surgery, in fact, endangers the fetus, because the ultimate intent is to save the mother, not to endanger the fetus.

Similarly, they would argue that in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, following Rule (i) can conflict with Rule (iii), since forcing a woman under such circumstances to proceed with a pregnancy could cause long-term psychological harm to the woman. They thus would argue that the Church should defer to the informed moral choice of the woman, because it would be impossible to judge her according to the terms of Rule (i), given the circumstances which resulted in the pregnancy.

Francis is very much a follower of the "Ideals," and not the secondary rules which flow from the Ideals.

Jesuits are also some of the more brutal rapists and sadists employed by the catholic church.

GannonFan wrote:It's the Jesuit side of him coming through. Plenty of compassion there.

So there are varying levels of compassion depending on what catholic subcult you subscribe to?

Where has this guy been hiding? Not a bad start (key word, he's still new on the job) so far for the new guy.

Joe will say that it's part of God's ever evolving (to us anyway, God had this shvt figured out a long time ago) plan to reveal himself to us. Yes, because in order to survive, the Catholic Church needed whack job, narrow minded, out-of-touch rule makers for centuries. Only now, when Islam is kicking Christianity's azz, is it time for a little bit of common sense.

Alright Francis, time to start wining the hearts and minds of the "lost flock." Let them know your followers can eat bacon and your pews will be overflowing.

D1B wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
When I was in college, many of the Jesuits we had were similar to Francis. They argued that the Church often focused on the "Rules." But the Rules were simply attempts to apply the "Ideals," and more fundamentally, it was the Ideals which were paramount.

For example, one Ideal is that human life is sacred from conception to natural death.

Rules which flowed from this Ideal include: (i) abortion is impermissible; (ii) all ordinary means must be used to preserve human life; and (iii) the mental well-being of a human life is vital.

All works fine under unexceptional, normal circumstances, but there are exceptional circumstances when two (or more) Rules which flow from the same Ideal can conflict, which makes it impossible to follow one of the Rules.

For example, a pregnant woman faces medical problems which can be fatal, possibly related to the pregnancy itself. If you were to follow Rule (i) above, you would say that any medical procedure which would likely kill the fetus is impermissible. If you were to follow Rule (ii) above, you would need to undertake medical procedures to save the life of the mother. A conflict arises between these two Rules, flowing from the same Ideal, when the medical procedure is likely to result in the death of the fetus. The Jesuits I knew would argue, under the circumstances, an accommodation must be reached between the two Rules which serve the same Ideal (because the Ideal is what is paramount). The conclusion would be it is acceptable to perform the surgery necessary to save the mother's life, so long as the intent of the surgery is not to endanger the fetus, but to save the mother's life. And this remains acceptable even though the surgery, in fact, endangers the fetus, because the ultimate intent is to save the mother, not to endanger the fetus.

Similarly, they would argue that in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, following Rule (i) can conflict with Rule (iii), since forcing a woman under such circumstances to proceed with a pregnancy could cause long-term psychological harm to the woman. They thus would argue that the Church should defer to the informed moral choice of the woman, because it would be impossible to judge her according to the terms of Rule (i), given the circumstances which resulted in the pregnancy.

Francis is very much a follower of the "Ideals," and not the secondary rules which flow from the Ideals.

Jesuits are also some of the more brutal rapists and sadists employed by the catholic church.

In the past, and especially during the 16th and 17th centuries, you are absolutely correct. Today, not so much. Not uncommon for a church that has had plenty of its share of terrible history.

D1B wrote:

GannonFan wrote:It's the Jesuit side of him coming through. Plenty of compassion there.

So there are varying levels of compassion depending on what catholic subcult you subscribe to?

While you think the Catholic church is monolithic in thought and deed, it is a collection of millions and millions of people with independent and free thought. So yes, some members of the church are of different minds than other members of the church. Darn people and their penchance for individuality. No cult, though, so therefore no subcults either.

GannonFan wrote:

D1B wrote:

So there are varying levels of compassion depending on what catholic subcult you subscribe to?

While you think the Catholic church is monolithic in thought and deed, it is a collection of millions and millions of people with independent and free thought. So yes, some members of the church are of different minds than other members of the church. Darn people and their penchance for individuality. No cult, though, so therefore no subcults either.

What makes it not a cult?

kalm wrote:What makes it not a cult?

The definition of a cult.

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:What makes it not a cult?

The definition of a cult.

It's too big?

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:What makes it not a cult?

The definition of a cult.

Even in Catholic school we learned that Christianity is a cult.


Cult: a situation in which people admire and care about something or someone very much or too much

Ibanez wrote:

89Hen wrote: The definition of a cult.

Even in Catholic school we learned that Christianity is a cult.


Cult: a situation in which people admire and care about something or someone very much or too much

There are of course multiple definitions including (as I mentioned) a small group...as in a cult following.

Ibanez wrote:

89Hen wrote: The definition of a cult.

Even in Catholic school we learned that Christianity is a cult.


Cult: a situation in which people admire and care about something or someone very much or too much

In that case...

Cult:


Cult:


Cult:

89Hen wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Even in Catholic school we learned that Christianity is a cult.


Cult: a situation in which people admire and care about something or someone very much or too much

In that case...

Cult:


Cult:


Cult:

As defined by Webster. So....put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Ibanez wrote:As defined by Webster. So....put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yes, but every single person could be shoed into "cult" status, so I'm not sure that's the best definition.

Ibanez is technically right, but word "cult" is now predominantly used as a pejorative term for a small religious group with abhorrent beliefs or practices.

Catholicism, with 1.2 billion adherents worldwide, is the world's largest unified church. Without counting Catholicism, Christianity as a whole would have no standing to claim it is a "major" or "worldwide" religion.

Catholicism is not a cult as that term is commonly used today.

"Cult" is more properly used to describe the cult of atheism. Small group (about 1.8% of the population) with beliefs which are rejected as abhorrent by the majority of reasonable people.

JoltinJoe wrote:Ibanez is technically right, but word "cult" is now predominantly used as a pejorative term for a small religious group with abhorrent beliefs or practices.

Catholicism, with 1.2 billion adherents worldwide, is the world's largest unified church. Without counting Catholicism, Christianity as a whole would have no standing to claim it is a "major" or "worldwide" religion.

Catholicism is not a cult as that term is commonly used today.

"Cult" is more properly used to describe the cult of atheism. Small group (about 1.8% of the population) with beliefs which are rejected as abhorrent by the majority of reasonable people.

Is Mormonism a cult? How about Scientology? Are they seperated from Catholicism by size?

kalm wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:Ibanez is technically right, but word "cult" is now predominantly used as a pejorative term for a small religious group with abhorrent beliefs or practices.

Catholicism, with 1.2 billion adherents worldwide, is the world's largest unified church. Without counting Catholicism, Christianity as a whole would have no standing to claim it is a "major" or "worldwide" religion.

Catholicism is not a cult as that term is commonly used today.

"Cult" is more properly used to describe the cult of atheism. Small group (about 1.8% of the population) with beliefs which are rejected as abhorrent by the majority of reasonable people.

Is Mormonism a cult? How about Scientology? Are they seperated from Catholicism by size?

What does seperated mean?

JoltinJoe wrote:Ibanez is technically right, but word "cult" is now predominantly used as a pejorative term for a small religious group with abhorrent beliefs or practices.

Catholicism, with 1.2 billion adherents worldwide, is the world's largest unified church. Without counting Catholicism, Christianity as a whole would have no standing to claim it is a "major" or "worldwide" religion.

Catholicism is not a cult as that term is commonly used today.

"Cult" is more properly used to describe the cult of atheism. Small group (about 1.8% of the population) with beliefs which are rejected as abhorrent by the majority of reasonable people.

89hen says you're wrong.

89Hen wrote:

Ibanez wrote:As defined by Webster. So....put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yes, but every single person could be shoed into "cult" status, so I'm not sure that's the best definition.

It's accurate. The word has a bad connotation these days but that's due to the extremes.

JoltinJoe wrote:

kalm wrote:
Is Mormonism a cult? How about Scientology? Are they seperated from Catholicism by size?

What does seperated mean?

seperated

Learn more about this spelling


separated

Learn more about this spelling


The word listed above (separated) is probably the correct spelling for the word that you entered (seperated). This is just an educated guess based on commonly misspelled words. To double check that this is the correct word you can use the resources below to find the definition of separated, antonyms for separated, synonyms for separated, quotes relating to separated and other information about separated.