It didn't say "Congress" it said "Federal Government" as in opposition to the State government.
Doing badly on this test I think mostly results from:
1. Ignorance of history... If you don't have a clue what the Federalist Papers or the Lincoln-Douglass debates were all about, you lose.
2. Inability to read closely....
I'm not really interested in a flame war on this subject. However, this is such a common misperception that I feel the need to respond. You really do need to understand the distinction between inspired teachings (magisterium) on faith and morals vs. church discipline and mere custom (aka small-t tradition). This is not a dodge or a clever way of avoiding responsibility, but fundamental to the Christian understanding of the human person.
First of all, I am well acquainted with the many faults, errors and even enormities committed by those who make up the church. It is an obvious fact that the Church is made up of and run by fallible human beings. Knowing what is true and right is not going to ensure right behavior - we do believe in original sin, you know, aka the defectibility of human nature or "the only doctrine of the church that can be independently verified". Just look around at your fellow humans, or, preferably, at yourself.
If you understood this distinction and the history around the indulgence controversy of the 16th cent, you would know that Tetzel and his crew were wrong to be "selling" indulgences, even by the official teachings of the time. It is probable that pope Julius II at least "winked at" these abuses to raise money to build St. Peter's (or pay for his more or less continuous wars), but still, that can only be added to his fairly long list of likely sins, not ascribed to the Church itself. Any uncertainty on the point was pretty definitively removed at Trent. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm if you really want to know about this.
So the conclusion is that what the Church really teaches about ethics is worth paying attention to. Leaving aside for the moment my belief in the infallible nature of the essential principles (magisterium), there is, after all, some 2000 years of continuous tradition in thinking about this and quite a bit of attention is paid to internal consistency, even on the less formal declarations. A modicum of humility in consideration of this tradition may be worthwhile. Just a thought.
Are you sure you wouldn't just rather have him burned at the stake, in good old Catholic tradition?
Well, no, actually. That rather went out some time ago. Or hadn't you heard?
Oh, don't worry, there are no ethical issues that selling a few indulgences can't fix.
You really do need to update your arguments. Leaving aside the validity of selling indulgences (which was an abuse, but it's a long argument), this was stopped back in the 16th century.
Please, can somebody mod this guy down to Flamebait/Troll? I really find such mindless anti-religious prejudice very disturbing. And me with no mod points....
Such an uneducated and unintelligent rant as this is a waste of bandwidth, as is any attempt to make sense of and reply to it. However, I have some free time I'm willing to waste on this. A brief investigation will show that each and every attempt at fact in this drivel is not so and the opinions expressed (so elegantly) are of no value whatsoever.
About a billion Roman Catholics care (to one extent or another) what the Pope says.
The assertion that the Pope is merely a "figure head" who nevertheless has undeserved power is, of course, self-contradictory.
As pointed by another poster, the Bible isn't the primary source of the Pope's authority; tradition (supported by scripture and other early Christian writings) is what really gives an apostolic church it's authority.
I find it amusing that you think that "with science, people don't have to believe anything." A lot of philosophical schools would debate that. At minimum, you need to believe that your reality is "real", something not all would immediately affirm.
I too find "religion in deities" to be ridiculous, almost as much as I would actual belief in multiple deities, but I believe in only One. So, too, does the pope, I hear.
Do you have any idea what the Pope is actually paid and actually owns? He doesn't actually have a "salary" as such and personally owns very little. He just lives in a palace, which he doesn't really own. I believe they they had his old car on eBay a while ago - a rather modest VW Golf. He does have access to the "Peter's Pence" collection from around the world, which may be several (maybe hundreds of) millions, but is mostly used for his charitable purposes and just to pay the bills at the Vatican.
Oh, and evil is usually defined in Christian theology as the "absence of good", somewhat like the absence of any sense in your screed.
More to the point, since the Encyclical isn't even released yet, no one knows really what it is actually going to say, so all this is speculation of the most uninformed and useless kind. The old Roman saying is "Those who talk don't know and those who know don't talk." I believe the Holy Father may actually deal with this, as with all ethical issues, in terms of the liceity of both means and ends. It is entirely possible that there are good ends which may be pursued by valid means which result in less taxes being paid. Simple greed isn't one of the approved motives, however, anymore than law-breaking is an approved method.
Frankly, I think the AC poster is either under 15 or has some serious problems that I really hope he gets straightened out.
Slashdot Mirror
It didn't say "Congress" it said "Federal Government" as in opposition to the State government. Doing badly on this test I think mostly results from: 1. Ignorance of history... If you don't have a clue what the Federalist Papers or the Lincoln-Douglass debates were all about, you lose. 2. Inability to read closely....
I'm not really interested in a flame war on this subject. However, this is such a common misperception that I feel the need to respond. You really do need to understand the distinction between inspired teachings (magisterium) on faith and morals vs. church discipline and mere custom (aka small-t tradition). This is not a dodge or a clever way of avoiding responsibility, but fundamental to the Christian understanding of the human person.
First of all, I am well acquainted with the many faults, errors and even enormities committed by those who make up the church. It is an obvious fact that the Church is made up of and run by fallible human beings. Knowing what is true and right is not going to ensure right behavior - we do believe in original sin, you know, aka the defectibility of human nature or "the only doctrine of the church that can be independently verified". Just look around at your fellow humans, or, preferably, at yourself.
If you understood this distinction and the history around the indulgence controversy of the 16th cent, you would know that Tetzel and his crew were wrong to be "selling" indulgences, even by the official teachings of the time. It is probable that pope Julius II at least "winked at" these abuses to raise money to build St. Peter's (or pay for his more or less continuous wars), but still, that can only be added to his fairly long list of likely sins, not ascribed to the Church itself. Any uncertainty on the point was pretty definitively removed at Trent. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm if you really want to know about this.
So the conclusion is that what the Church really teaches about ethics is worth paying attention to. Leaving aside for the moment my belief in the infallible nature of the essential principles (magisterium), there is, after all, some 2000 years of continuous tradition in thinking about this and quite a bit of attention is paid to internal consistency, even on the less formal declarations. A modicum of humility in consideration of this tradition may be worthwhile. Just a thought.
Well, no, actually. That rather went out some time ago. Or hadn't you heard?
Oh, don't worry, there are no ethical issues that selling a few indulgences can't fix.
You really do need to update your arguments. Leaving aside the validity of selling indulgences (which was an abuse, but it's a long argument), this was stopped back in the 16th century.
Such an uneducated and unintelligent rant as this is a waste of bandwidth, as is any attempt to make sense of and reply to it. However, I have some free time I'm willing to waste on this. A brief investigation will show that each and every attempt at fact in this drivel is not so and the opinions expressed (so elegantly) are of no value whatsoever.
About a billion Roman Catholics care (to one extent or another) what the Pope says.
The assertion that the Pope is merely a "figure head" who nevertheless has undeserved power is, of course, self-contradictory.
As pointed by another poster, the Bible isn't the primary source of the Pope's authority; tradition (supported by scripture and other early Christian writings) is what really gives an apostolic church it's authority.
I find it amusing that you think that "with science, people don't have to believe anything." A lot of philosophical schools would debate that. At minimum, you need to believe that your reality is "real", something not all would immediately affirm.
I too find "religion in deities" to be ridiculous, almost as much as I would actual belief in multiple deities, but I believe in only One. So, too, does the pope, I hear.
Do you have any idea what the Pope is actually paid and actually owns? He doesn't actually have a "salary" as such and personally owns very little. He just lives in a palace, which he doesn't really own. I believe they they had his old car on eBay a while ago - a rather modest VW Golf. He does have access to the "Peter's Pence" collection from around the world, which may be several (maybe hundreds of) millions, but is mostly used for his charitable purposes and just to pay the bills at the Vatican.
Oh, and evil is usually defined in Christian theology as the "absence of good", somewhat like the absence of any sense in your screed.
More to the point, since the Encyclical isn't even released yet, no one knows really what it is actually going to say, so all this is speculation of the most uninformed and useless kind. The old Roman saying is "Those who talk don't know and those who know don't talk." I believe the Holy Father may actually deal with this, as with all ethical issues, in terms of the liceity of both means and ends. It is entirely possible that there are good ends which may be pursued by valid means which result in less taxes being paid. Simple greed isn't one of the approved motives, however, anymore than law-breaking is an approved method.
Frankly, I think the AC poster is either under 15 or has some serious problems that I really hope he gets straightened out.
God bless