Slashdot Mirror

If the political community is not to be torn apart while everyone follows his own opinion, there must be an authority to direct the energies of all citizens toward the common good, not in a mechanical or despotic fashion, but by acting above all as a moral force which appeals to each one's freedom and sense of responsibility.

.....

The complex circumstances of our day make it necessary for public authority to intervene more often in social, economic and cultural matters in order to bring about favorable conditions which will give more effective help to citizens and groups in their free pursuit of man's total well-being. The relations, however, between socialization and the autonomy and development of the person can be understood in different ways according to various regions and the evolution of peoples.

Basically, there is some room to debate the role of legislating morality but the natural law should always be obeyed. So Murder and Theft should still be illegal, not just from our beliefs but also because they are against natural law. Basically you should have other reasons for making things illegal, other than " its in the Bible ",but just because some things are considered Sins in the Bible doesn't mean they can't be legislated.

Ok, I'm not that smart. Exceprt from Gadieum et Spes

I think the grandfather comment was a reminder of how the Catholic Church has been known to react toward "open sourcing" their knowledges. One of the big differences between Catholics and Protestants was that Catholics were not allowed to read the bible. In fact it was illegal to own a Bible at home (in XVIIth century France at least)

"Ignorance of the Scripture is ignorance of Christ," declares the Catholic Church in Dei Verbum (the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation). In fact, those who *could* read Latin during the Middle Ages (and not everybody could - I know, it's shocking that there wasn't universal literacy during the Middle Ages) were highly encouraged to read the Bible. But it wasn't just latin. People as early as 680 AD (e.g. Caedmon) were translating portions of Scripture into the vernacular. Aelfric (~1000 AD), one of the best known Old English authors, paraphrased large portions of scripture in English. Gutenberg himself was a Catholic, and the first thing he used his printing press to do was print copies of The Bible. Even Martin Luther himself wrote: "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."

You're just full of anti-Catholic bile, is all. Try actually learning some history.

The Index (of forbidden books) was updated until the Vatican II council (1966) and is still considered by the Holy See to have a moral value as a list of the books one should prevent oneself from reading.

And I'm not surprised at all that you've gotten your details wrong here too. It was only updated until 1948 (having started in 1529, giving it roughly a 400 year run). 1966 was when it stopped being *published* - there's a difference. In any case, the stance of the Catholic Church on the matter is that people have a moral obligation to avoid circulating things that will endanger morals and faith (not just books - that's songs, movies, behaviors, whatever). Essentially, you're not supposed to knowingly convince people (including yourself) to abandon their faith. It's akin to saying: don't spread lies. If you believe X to be the truth, then distributing things that contradict it would be distributing lies. If it's a particularly important truth, then it's particularly important not to convince people of a contradiction of that truth.

The general feeling is that the Roman Catholic Church's main dogma is the "the doctrine is the truth" so if something seems to be the truth outside of the doctrine, it is dangerous and should be fought.

The "general feeling"? Of who, misinformed anti-Catholic bigots? The stance of the Catholic Church is essentially what Pope John Paul II said in a speech in 1996: Truth cannot contradict truth. If something seems to be truth outside of the doctrine, then cool! If it seems to contradict doctrine, then something has been misunderstood (either the doctrine has been misunderstood or the external evidence has been misunderstood). As another example, back in November of 2005, the AP reported the following:

A Vatican cardinal said Thursday the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into âoefundamentalismâ if it ignores scientific reason. Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, made the comments at a news conference on a Vatican project to help end the âoemutual prejudiceâ between religion and science that has long bedeviled the Roman Catholic Church and is part of the evolution debate in the United States.

The Church is not known for its research centers trying to find archaeological proofs of the Bible or to correct it

Just to bring you up to date about the Catholic Church's position on the possibility of salvation of unbelievers (including atheists & agnostics!): "Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life." (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium,DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH, 16) Check it out: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good." (CCC 1704)
By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an "outstanding manifestation of the divine image." (CCC 1705)
It is in Christ, Redeemer and Savior, that the divine image, disfigured in man by the first sin, has been restored to its original beauty and ennobled by the grace of God. (CCC 1701)

I think this group might have something to say about it.

Sigh.

Please stop posting.

Just because you can't google image search for every text you'd like does not mean they are inaccessible. Sometimes, if there is no facimile edition of the text, or reputable printing, you actually have to go to the library where they are held and work. Shocking, I know. It's called scholarship. I also can't help but notice that you have shifted your argument from the current state of affairs to a "long, long history."

In any case, I suspect you like things with "secret" in the title, so perhaps you should order this? Should you actually want to try some real work, fill out one of these out and go to a reading room.

Sigh.

Please stop posting.

Just because you can't google image search for every text you'd like does not mean they are inaccessible. Sometimes, if there is no facimile edition of the text, or reputable printing, you actually have to go to the library where they are held and work. Shocking, I know. It's called scholarship. I also can't help but notice that you have shifted your argument from the current state of affairs to a "long, long history."

In any case, I suspect you like things with "secret" in the title, so perhaps you should order this? Should you actually want to try some real work, fill out one of these out and go to a reading room.

This is an interesting point. The Church views forgiveness as a spiritual action, and indeed, an action of the Holy Spirit. If you deny the Holy Spirit, you're denying the means by which you are forgiven, and hence, can't be forgiven. ;-)

See this section of the Catechism, particularly verse 1864. "...There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss."

Actually, as a scientist, I would disagree with that. I agree that ethics should be judged by someone who understands what the scientists in question are doing (which clearly excludes the pope)

If you don't like the research, refuse the treatments when you are sick in the hospital. Why do some religious types feel they need to impart their beliefs on everyone else?

Just don't tell me what to do - I have a brain in my skull and I know how to use it independently.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

Artificial insemination: is considered wrong under the same complex natural law reasoning that condemns contraception. Sadly, natural law is not taught in the schools--what we laughingly call "Catholic religious education" in this country is horrifyingly inadequate for proper understanding of the Faith--and about half of you are too hostile to religion in general to care. (All-too-)Brief explanations are in CCC 2373-79, but the point is: Modern techniques for artifical insem frequently result in what the Church sees as large-scale murder. Yet, even if the techniques were revised, there would still be serious problems with artificial insemination--not nearly as serious as murder, but still not a good thing for souls or society at large. In The Church's Humble Opinion.

This appears to be the original text of the speech, in Italian:

Discorso ai partecipanti alla Sessione Plenaria della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede

Any self respecting geek would want to get at least some of the facts straight before passing judgement on an ODF vs OOXML discussion, so why not this one? I guess it's easier to hold a bias.

You see the whole Science vs Religion argument in my opinion is fundamentally flawed, and frankly it's a bit deceptive to expect as default the notion that they are mutually exclusive.

Yes the Catholic Church has made some big mistakes, Specifically in the Galileo affair but also regarding Copernicus too. Over 2000 years or so the Catholic Church has accumulated quite a bit of experience and has had to learn lots from the mistakes of people who call themselves Catholic. That separation of Church & State is a good thing, that Faith can never conflict with reason and that the sacraments the Church offers for the benefit of the faithful should never ever be sold.

Specifically in the case of Galileo, several Popes offered tribute to him and Pope John Paul II in 1992, essentially apologised on behalf of the Inquisition that had wrongly admonished him.

"Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture...."

        - Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - 4th November,1992

Over time it has been a humbling but healthy experience for the Catholic Church, and it grows wiser from it. It seems exceptionally unlikely to me that the current Pope was going to Rome's La Sapienza university to tell them that Science sux and that Galileo was wrong, so there!

Why?

Because Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive. The very rigour of Science itself came from monks in monasteries attempting to understand and describe the observable world in objective ways. The first Universities were monasteries. Galileo himself quotes a Catholic cleric saying "The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach how to go to heaven and not how go the heavens".

A person can choose to be an honest Scientist. A person can choose to have an honest belief in God. A Person can choose to be an honest Scientist with and honest belief in God.

A 6000 year old Earth which is an evolution free zone with dinosaur bones pre-baked is not honest. An honest Christian should not believe such things, they are not consistent with reason. With this in mind, one who doesn't lie about science can also honestly have faith in God. Faith in God does should not require taking the Bible as being a literal, scientifically prescriptive document. Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him. "If Scripture cannot err", he wrote to Benedetto Castelli, "certain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways".

Faith and Reason are actually quite compatible, and from a Catholic perspective are interdependent. On the relationship between Faith and Reason

Of course, It's always just a lot easier to criticize the Catholic Church and those that represent it as backward, anti-Science and probably involved in some kind of conspiracy. Trouble is, the truth just wants to be free.

No he doesn't have any expertise, no he doesn't have any degrees in sciences - yet millions of people still think he knows more about science than the greatest experts in the various fields of science

I would bet that a majority of people who harangue "those crazy popes" have never read anything substantial that they have written. Both John Paul II and Benedict accept rational inquiry. Faith and reason do not oppose each other, but mutually support each other in the search for truth. The truth that comes from science is truth about the observable world. Knowledge about reality that is not directly observable is by definition outside the realm of science. Something else is required. More at: Faith and Reason (John Paul II)

And, sure enough, it wasn't long after affordable printing and widespread literacy that Roman Catholicism headed steeply into its ongoing decline.

Historical oversimplifications aside, didja know the Vatican has its own domain and an official website?

Make me wonder what OS the Pope uses, and whether it would be Holy (UNIX), catholic (BSD), or simply apostolic (Linux with different creeds). Windows, I'm guessing, would viewed as something for the Protestants, and the Gospel of Jobs is still deemed both apocryphal and cultish.

What? this group you mean? Or perhaps you mean to talk about the Catholic church's views about Evolution? In any event the about the Church's views of sci-fi/fantasy here is a group that would like to disagree with you. Trying to pick on the Catholics for the lack of support of this sort of thing is either willfully ignorant or pure stupidity.

"Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from?..."

The Vatican ratlines are well documented by many sources that have nothing to do with evangelicals or Jack Chick.
Nothing _I_ linked is sourced from Bible Thumpers. Google "Vatican ratlines" if you wish.

How about some links documenting YOUR assertions, AC?

Ratzinger can certainly favor Church over flock when expedient. DO note that the settlements of hundreds of millions of dollars were a CHOICE, and essentially an admission of guilt. That much money would have bought lawyers enough to put up quite a fight if there was something viable to fight for instead of more to expose:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr05/Whitney0426.ht m

  Pedophilia Scandal: What of Ratzinger's role in the Vatican's much-delayed response to reports of massive sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, a scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church in the US? In 2002, sounding almost Tom DeLayish, Ratzinger told the Catholic News Service that he thought that the pedophile priest scandal was being driven by a media set on making the Catholic Church look bad:

"I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign, as the percentage of these offences among priests is not higher than in other categories, and perhaps it is even lower.

"In the United States, there is constant news on this topic, but less than 1% of priests are guilty of acts of this type. The constant presence of these news items does not correspond to the objectivity of the information nor to the statistical objectivity of the facts.

"Therefore, one comes to the conclusion that it is intentional, manipulated, that there is a desire to discredit the Church. It is a logical and well-founded conclusion."

So much for secular law:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story /0,6903,1469055,00.html

"Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.

'In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded,' Bertone said.

Shea criticised the order that abuse allegations should be investigated only in secret tribunals. 'They are imposing procedures and secrecy on these cases. If law enforcement agencies find out about the case, they can deal with it. But you can't investigate a case if you never find out about it. If you can manage to keep it secret for 18 years plus 10 the priest will get away with it,' Shea added. "

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cf aith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexu al-persons_en.html

I have wondered what would it take to start a community cable service, which provides basic HD (OTA reception is bad) and basic cable. Internet service offloaded in bulk to a competing ISP. Has any one any experience in such project, any links on how one can achieve this ?

If I need to provide evidence that the Eastern Orthodox church did bad things too in order to fully prove my point then I guess I can.

I think anyone with a decent knowledge of history knows that Christians, generally, have done quite a lot of bad things. Your point, though, is that some of those bad things are intrinsic to Christianity, isn't it? That's a point which would require more specific support.

You appear to be attempting to disregard my point arguing a technicality instead of attempting to understand it.

"Technicalities" are important because words have definite meanings. It should be clear at this point that we both regard the granting of indulgences for money as it was done in the time leading up the Reformation to be an abuse (as did Martin Luther), but we seem to differ in our understanding of what an indulgence itself is. Compare:

Indulgences were little slips of paper that the catholic church would give you after you paid money to the church and were not acts of piety. These slips of paper would forgive you in the eyes of god for sins you had committed. For every sin that you committed you would be sent into purgatory. In purgatory you would burn for a sufficient amount of time (determined by your loving God) and then sent up to heaven for your eternal salvation.

...with the real definition (CCC 1471-1472):

...An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints...

To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

Indulgences have always been granted for specific pious acts (prayers, etc; the norms for this are presently set out in the Enchiridon of Indulgences); money could only be involved inasmuch as some pious acts could involve it (e.g. almsgiving or donating to a good cause), and inasmuch as those very specific acts (donating to a particular cause) had been approved for the grant of an indulgence (which is no longer possible as the grant of indulgences for any acts involving money was banned after the worst abuses).

It makes more sense to make money off of something that is false than to die for something that is false.

Dying for something one knows to be false is tragic, but dying honestly is far more honorable than knowingly cheating people for money.

You can chose any other religion even if it say not to believe in other gods. The reason is because Scientology does not have a god. Xenu is an alien and you could simply say god made Xenu.

Perhaps, but there are substantial disagreements between Scientology and Christianity in areas like soter

"Right, the entirety of recorded human history is full of wars, persecution, genocide, torture, etc, and that doesn't fit "my" model. "

You are putting words in my mouth. What you actually said, that I responded to, was that people are naturally greedy/selfish. I disagreed with that; but I don't doubt that they can become selfish.

Wow, you are are truely stupid individual.

People who say things like that are usually either 15 or just as stupid. In anycase since you keep misunderstanding or forgetting your own words (see above) it would seem to be the latter.

It is 100% rational. There is no evidence of god, hence I do not believe in it.

Ironically you are an anti-scientist. You have the opposite attitute to a scientist, who holds all things possible until disproven (not the same as absence of evidence).

If you were to say "Hence I am of the opinion, rather than belief, there is no god" then I would agree that it is rational, but you would be a modern agnostic not an atheist (classical agnostics are as irrational as atheists). But when you make it a belief you are making a leap of faith with no good reason (lack of evidence isn't a good reason to make a belief). In theory atheists are effectively mad. An absence of belief still requires belief despite the typical atheist assertion to the contrary, except where there isn't any reasoning ability, like a cow, or a stone, or the mindless.

If you lack even the most basic understanding of what atheism is

I am fairly well educated. And I've thought about these subjects a lot. I even once enjoyed reading an atheist site called soemthing like "Final moments of atheists", trying to show that atheists don't die in horrible torment at the possibility they might go to hell. Want to say that presumptuous statement again?

Nor do we care to.

You have to be a either very young or silly to say something like that. That's the attitude of a cow. All it cares about is eating grass, chewing the cud and getting milked. But cows don't reason like we do, nor anticipate suffering. You should care to because one day you will be fighting with terrible suffering and feeling despair needlessly. Very few escape that (not even christians). Unless you top yourself, of course. Will you top yourself when you've got people you love depending on you?

No, I already know the actual definition of the word faith.

You mean according to the atheists dictionary? It's always better to go to the horses mouth to find out the truth of a matter. It's funny what crazy things people believe about catholics because they got it from a non-catholic source. Anyway, now you know the real definition. I really do quote the horses mouth, by the way (item 150). I know of an atheist who became a believer because he actually bothered to open a bible, but from what he wrote he was truly seeking truth despite being a full-on atheist, which you aren't from what you have already said. Perhaps that's why God revealed himself to that guy. Which he sure did.

And people who are tripping on acid and try to fly are acting supremely rationally too right?

That problem is solved through union with God, as mentioned. Even if the guy was mad he could truly know God this way. The person has total proof, better than anything science can give. You keep saying it's not rational, but without good reason.

Video games do not cause harm, hence there is nothing to protect anyone from.

You make this assertion when there is actual scientific evidence that contradicts you. It's been in the news several times. Are you just making it up? Is this another of your beliefs that comes from effectively nowhere.

You know that you have not full information but have an opinion anyway, because of how you feel the world should be -- the definition of religion!

Oh, get real. I pointed out that the only example of absolute moral you gave was not agreed by society at the time CS Lewis held the speech... and that CS Lewis did not speak out against it either.

And to insinuate that the Catholics don't believe in a hell with fire and pain must be trolling.

Furthermore, I was quoting from the chatechism of the church (an official, is slightly simplistic summary its teaching), from the Vatica website.

Furthermore, the most important point is that it is self chosen. The sufferings, whatever they are, are the unavoidable result of human nature combined with hatred of God. See this

I also refered to CS Lewis's concept of hell in The Great Divorce. It is a good (fictional) illustration of the above.

It can also be argued to be an efficient strategy in many human cultures, as seen in game theory.

It is an efficient strategy for the group or species (thus favoured by evolution), not for an individual. From the point of view of an individual making a choice, why should you care whether something is an efficient stratagy for survival for humanity or not?

If your point is that this explains why this behaviour evolved, then that does not really matter from the point of view of an indivdual making a moral choice.

You were dropped on your head.

Not a possible cause of autism, which is biochemical and neurological wiring in nature, not specific "damage" like some other diagnosis in the DSM-IV.

Or positive lack thereof since you seem to have an inner need to witness debasement.

No, actually, I have no such "inner need". I just recognize that unlike my prefered ideal of all jobs being allocated from a centeral government computer server, the real world of corporatism means that human beings are mere resources to be chewed up & spit out; treated like the garbage they are in comparison to the real first class citizens of this nation. That's true for just about everybody earning under an eight figure income. And to get even a six figure income, you've got to be willing to live wth a wage in the low hundreds first.

They failed.

Actually, they succeeded admirably by Church and Evolutionary standards- in that I'm now faithfully married, have NO extramarital sexual interests, AND have a child. Oh yeah, and divorce? That's something only Protestants do....

Which is what? "Do unto others" is somehow, in your mind, exempted in the course of discussion?

More that it's a simplification for simple minds. Paul VI said it better in Humanae Vitae, but it took until my brain finished maturing at 25 to even *begin* to understand why I should follow that instead of the liberal "have many partners and throw them away" sexual revolution. "Do unto others", heck, I was treating the girls I went out with before then the way I wanted to be treated. To me, love and lust were one and the same; I didn't understand the difference. And as an autistic "inappropriate" meant absolutely nothing. In a way, just like I've treated you online. I've treated you the *exact* same way I expect to be treated and debated with. Do unto others doesn't count for much when you're used to being treated as an adult, for there is no reason to hide feelings behind a false polticial correctness with an adult.

In the seventh conversation ( - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably ( ) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".[4]

It actually says (Gen1:27-28):
27
God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
28
God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.(...)".

ProphB, Hos 3:1

"The number of the Israelites shall be like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor counted."

/me agnostic (just to be sure ;)).

It also has Paul saying (1 Cor 7:9):
7
Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8
Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,
9
but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.

27
God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
28
God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.(...)".

All I can say is that you have an excuse. You won't be better than the pope! http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/spe eches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_2006 0912_university-regensburg_en.html

How can you condone the death penalty? Innocent people have been jailed, and innocent people have been killed. It is not up to us to decide who lives and who dies. Being pro-choice and pro-death penalty is more hypocritical than a catholic voting for a pro-choice democrat.

I did not say I was pro death penalty. I am not in fact. I said it is the lesser evil if it is justly applied. If it is unjustly applied then they are equally evil because both the unborn child and the innocent you speak of have a right to life.

The Church historically has not been against the death penalty when justly applied and even today can be used in extreme situations. On the other hand abortion is always a grave sin and anyone who has an abortion is automatically excommunicated from the Church which is the highest punishment the Church can give. So I would say the Catholic voting for the pro choice politician is the greater hypocrite. I have included some excerpts below from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which clearly show my points.

And I support a woman's right to choose, as do many of my catholic friends. Now just because we are pro-choice doesn't mean that we would encourage people to get an abortion. However we recognize that just because our faith is against abortions, it doesn't mean it should be imposed upon EVERYONE. I see no problem with valuing your religion but not trying to force your beliefs on others. I think this is more in line with the true spirit of democracy.

As for you argument of keeping my "religion" out of politics then I can could say the same thing about your belief that the death penalty is wrong. Why should a women have the choice to slay her unborn child but the state not have the same choice to slay their citizens? Is it not the same choice? Does not the state have the greater right to decide if the will of the people is to kill criminals or innocents for that matter if they are unwanted by the majority? Are you not imposing your ideals on the majority?

I for one think we have a duty to help others to be better people and to be good both in our personal lives and in our political lives. I think the state and the voters have a duty to enforce justice and to protect the rights of the weak as well as the strong. That includes the the unborn, the elderly, the poor, the unwanted, and the guilty they all deserve to be treated as human beings, to be loved, to live, and to be protected by the state. A democracy is not just about the majority's will it is not mob rule. The people are not always right if they where then their never would have been segregation, slavery, or any of the other many sins of the American people and the state. Abortion is just another of a long lines of evils this nation has condoned and encouraged and I hope that we will over come this evil as we have the ones of the past. That will not happen until we change the hearts and minds of the majority which we as Catholics must try to do.

Death Penalty

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.

http://

"Religion is pretty much self-admittedly not based on logic and rationality - it is based on faith. The two are largely irreconcilable on a logical basis unless one of them is adapted."

As a physicist and a Catholic, I'm rather perplexed by this assertion. The belief that faith is irrational is a rather ideosyncratic concept that has been in vogue in the Western world for a few decades. This is not to say that no one holds irrational beliefs -- some people certainly do. This does not imply, however, that faith is irreconcilable with reason. I would recommend that anyone who believes they are should read a bit of systematic theology, e.g. the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Be forewarned, however that if you are unfamiliar with Aristotelian philosophy, some of the terminology may be confusing.

Some may be interested to know that those who go to seminary to become a Catholic priest are taught philosophy and logic before they even begin to study theology. Faith does transcend reason, but it is, at the same time, eminently reasonable. If you believe that faith is blind, you haven't taken enough time to understand the rational underpinnings of faith. You might also take a glance at the encyclical letter Fides et Ratio (On Faith and Reason) penned by the late John Paul II.

Just like the source code you need to compile a OSS software.

The Vatican vaults are largely already open even to the public. More are open to scholars.

You should also not pay too much attention to conspiracy theories: most museums and major libraries have stuff that is not readily accessible or on display so it is hardly surprising the Vatican does too.

The Vatican also has a bit of a problem with things like pornography with historical value: it can not display it, it can not sell it and it has an obligation to preserve it.

I can run scientific test on all the relics and books you hold

What do they have that you are so desperate to run tests on? Examples please.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION

REPLIES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE DAY

INTRODUCTION

1. BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AND THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH

The gift of life which God the Creator and Father has entrusted to man calls him to appreciate the inestimable value of what he has been given and to take responsibility for it: this fundamental principle must be placed at the centre of one's reflection in order to clarify and solve the moral problems raised by artificial interventions on life as it originates and on the processes of procreation. Thanks to the progress of the biological and medical sciences, man has at his disposal ever more effective therapeutic resources; but he can also acquire new powers, with unforeseeable consequences, over human life at its very beginning and in its first stages. Various procedures now make it possible to intervene not only in order to assist but also to dominate the processes of procreation. These techniques can enable man to "take in hand his own destiny", but they also expose him "to the temptation to go beyond the limits of a reasonable dominion over nature".(1) They might constitute progress in the service of man, but they also involve serious risks. Many people are therefore expressing an urgent appeal that in interventions on procreation the values and rights of the human person be safeguarded. Requests for clarification and guidance are coming not only from the faithful but also from those who recognize the Church as "an expert in humanity " (2) with a mission to serve the "civilization of love" (3) and of life.

The Church's Magisterium does not intervene on the basis of a particular competence in the area of the experimental sciences; but having taken account of the data of research and technology, it intends to put forward, by virtue of its evangelical mission and apostolic duty, the moral teaching corresponding to the dignity of the person and to his or her integral vocation. It intends to do so by expounding the criteria of moral judgment as regards the applications of scientific research and technology, especially in relation to human life and its beginnings. These criteria are the respect, defence and promotion of man, his "primary and fundamental right" to life,(4) his dignity as a person who is endowed with a spiritual soul and with moral responsibility (5) and who is called to beatific communion with God. The Church's intervention in this field is inspired also by the Love which she owes to man, helping him to recognize and respect his rights and duties. This love draws from the fount of Christ's love: as she contemplates the mystery of the Incarnate Word, the Church also comes to understand the "mystery of man"; (6) by proclaiming the Gospel of salvation, she reveals to man his dignity and invites him to discover fully the truth of his own being. Thus the Church once more puts forward the divine law in order to accomplish the work of truth and liberation. For it is out of goodness - in order to indicate the path of life - that God gives human beings his commandments and the grace to observe them: and it is likewise out of goodness - in order to help them persevere along the same path - that God always offers to everyone his forgiveness. Christ has compassion on our weaknesses: he is our Creator and Redeemer. May his spirit open men's hearts to the gift of God's peace and to an understanding of his precepts ...

Read more of this teaching document of the Catholic Church

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation.

Read more of this teaching document of the Catholic Church

Even now, the Catholic Church has no position on exactly when ensoulment happens

That's not true. We get our souls at conception.

Catechism #2271
"God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."

In an admittedly short search, the only address I could find by Pope John Paul II to a Cosmology conference is this one, which was given at a conference in 1985. It does not say anything about avoiding any particular aspect of the creation of the Universe. Another side note, it was never the teaching of the Church that the Universe revolved around the sun. This is a common misconception.

Why proof do you have this is true other than you wanting it to be true?

...then shouldn't the Pope be against all science? Funny how they only do this with the sciences that threaten their beliefs. I find this interesting since this same Pope embraced evolution.

The only cosmology conference Pope John Paul II appears to have ever addressed at the Vatican seems to be the one he addressed on July 6, 1985. His remarks to that conference do not include any suggestion not to study the origins of the universe; if anything, it praises such research, though it cautions that such research should not be the sole basis of our understanding of our place in the universe, and that that understanding must be informed by disciplines that go beyond the empirical (and, likewise, that those disciplines themselves must be informed by the findings of science.)

But, I'm surprised to hear the Pope said this.

I would be surprised, if it were true, but it doesn't seem to be. First of all, it defies logic -- that the Church would a conference on cosmology at which the Pope would simply tell people not to study cosmology -- and second, as far as I can tell from a search of several archives of Papal speeches, the only Vatican conference on cosmology that John Paul II addressed was on July 6, 1985, and his remarks to that conference do not include even the remotest suggestion that the beginnings of the universe, or any other matter within the scope of scientific investigation, should not be investigated.

He does suggest that science alone is inadequate to completely understand the mysteries of creation, and that human understanding of our role in the universe must be informed by more than science, but that's not even remotely like discouraging investigation by science of, well, anything.

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth--in a word, to know himself--so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.

"We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of" (CCC 2280: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.h tm#I).

"We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives" (CCC 2283).

Suicide, according to Catholic belief, is not necessarily a one-way ticket to damnation.

How design supporters insult God's intelligence

and the following documentary about some priests who are also hard core scientists:

Galileo's Sons

A few days ago the Pope came out and reinforced the Catholic Church's view that Science and religion are compatible. In other words even the Pope thinks evolution is valid. Here is the original speech in Italian.

All in all the proponents of intelligent design are looking more and more like the snake oil salesmen they are.

1> Religion creates the concept of vice

No, because then religion would have no need to worship the positive deity (e.g., God) instead of the negative deity (e.g., Satan). In order to say that God is good and the devil is bad, there must be an external reference point for good and bad.

2gt; Guilt and fear in the populace create a need to criminalize and/or tax vice

I would say you only need to criminalize or tax something if people aren't already deterred. If religion were doing such a good job of keeping people moral, why are there laws?

Your point about religion creating vice to criticize activities it doesn't like reminds me of Nietzche's point about religion criticizing human love - which has been eloquently answered in that encyclical from yesterday. See sections 3 and 4.

3gt; Criminalized vice gives rise to organized crime and makes criminals of ordinary people

How are these two related? If vice is artificial and organized crime is just a group of people who are smart enough to ignore laws. I don't think you're trying to equate "ordinary people" and "organized crime".

4> Legitimite business buys off legislators

Legitimate? How is that legitimate?

5> Organized crime buys off judges and prosecutors

Sorry, there actually isn't a conspiracy by crime and business to control half the government each.

6< Law enforcement gets more tax money to handle the growing criminal populace

Why? They're being payed off by someone else, right?

7< The offering plate at church gets more donations from laymen assuaging their guilt

Actually, even churchgoers are rational (like you kinda are) and can realize that if the church is trying to guilt you into paying, then the church doesn't have a good reason. This isn't the Dark Ages with its indulgences. Have you ever watched a church ask for money? Every church I've seen makes its case based on the church's need for money to do good works.

8> Everybody profits but the average Joe, who gets completely screwed

Why isn't he part of one of the other groups - at the least, legitimate business?

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.