Is this the only example you can think of where a pope diverged from previous popes' teachings? Seems that you shouldn't be quoting in the plural sense.
In terms of the galileo event, the pope didn't condemn galileo's opinion, only his saying that because the bible seemed to contradict his opinion, the bible must be wrong. As the bible is not meant to be a science text, this is clearly an invalid argument. The pope did not say for certain that galileo was wrong, but that the bible was certainly not wrong. The issue was not about whether or not the sun revolved around the earth, but whether the bible was wrong.
If you look carefully, you will see that everything the popes declare as 'truth' is always the same. At least until now, any teaching of the pope has entirely agreed with the bible, catholic tradition, and every other statement of every other pope. If you can disprove this, I would be glad to hear your proof.
I'm sorry you don't agree, but if you won't acknowledge the church's teaching on these issues, you're not a catholic! No matter how much you say you are, if you disown the pope's teaching, you shouldn't be saying you're catholic. Part of being a catholic is accepting the truths of that church.
there is hamburger on my plate. i will eat it, and it will become the stuff of my organs and bones, it will become human life. so i should look at the hamburger on my plate with the spiritual and legal reverence of a human life?
pfffffffft
same observation applies to the blob inside a woman before 3 months
it's POTENTIAL human life. NOT human life. in any spiritual, intellectual, logical, moral, or legal consideration you can devise There is a difference here. The hamburger will potentially become a part of a human being. Therefore, it is not alive, it will never be a life itself, and so we should not reverence it as a life.
But a baby inside the mother's womb, is already alive. You cannot deny that it is a life, even if it's microscopic! Your problem seems to be that if you can't see or feel the baby, you don't believe it is alive. But if you look at the scientific proofs, you will find that the baby is very much alive, and should be respected as such. We're not asking for any special protection for a "potential life" - we just want to give the living baby the most basic human right - the right to life. Nobody, not even the mother, has the right to take that away from the child.
That is an entirely subjective statement. I personally believe that we are better off for science. But if you look at the "dark ages", you will see that it was *the church* that preserved the "scientific" papers, and kept a civilized culture alive, during this time, and then brought the world out of the dark ages and got it started with modern methods and knowledge. Without the church, science would not be what it is today. The church is definitely *not* opposed to science, and indeed helps it and supports it. When it does *good* science though. (And real good is not subjective!) Science in itself is good, but the destruction of *life*, whether human or animal or whatever, is not intrinsically good, and I would indeed go so far as to say that it is intrinsically *evil*. Therefore, the church being the world's authority on both objective good and the good which some people consider subjective, has an obligation to speak out against this "science". But at the same time, the church supports *real* science, and that is evident from the pope's speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this the only example you can think of where a pope diverged from previous popes' teachings? Seems that you shouldn't be quoting in the plural sense.
In terms of the galileo event, the pope didn't condemn galileo's opinion, only his saying that because the bible seemed to contradict his opinion, the bible must be wrong. As the bible is not meant to be a science text, this is clearly an invalid argument. The pope did not say for certain that galileo was wrong, but that the bible was certainly not wrong. The issue was not about whether or not the sun revolved around the earth, but whether the bible was wrong.
If you look carefully, you will see that everything the popes declare as 'truth' is always the same. At least until now, any teaching of the pope has entirely agreed with the bible, catholic tradition, and every other statement of every other pope. If you can disprove this, I would be glad to hear your proof.
I'm sorry you don't agree, but if you won't acknowledge the church's teaching on these issues, you're not a catholic! No matter how much you say you are, if you disown the pope's teaching, you shouldn't be saying you're catholic. Part of being a catholic is accepting the truths of that church.
pfffffffft
same observation applies to the blob inside a woman before 3 months
it's POTENTIAL human life. NOT human life. in any spiritual, intellectual, logical, moral, or legal consideration you can devise
There is a difference here. The hamburger will potentially become a part of a human being. Therefore, it is not alive, it will never be a life itself, and so we should not reverence it as a life. But a baby inside the mother's womb, is already alive. You cannot deny that it is a life, even if it's microscopic! Your problem seems to be that if you can't see or feel the baby, you don't believe it is alive. But if you look at the scientific proofs, you will find that the baby is very much alive, and should be respected as such. We're not asking for any special protection for a "potential life" - we just want to give the living baby the most basic human right - the right to life. Nobody, not even the mother, has the right to take that away from the child.
That is an entirely subjective statement. I personally believe that we are better off for science. But if you look at the "dark ages", you will see that it was *the church* that preserved the "scientific" papers, and kept a civilized culture alive, during this time, and then brought the world out of the dark ages and got it started with modern methods and knowledge. Without the church, science would not be what it is today. The church is definitely *not* opposed to science, and indeed helps it and supports it. When it does *good* science though. (And real good is not subjective!) Science in itself is good, but the destruction of *life*, whether human or animal or whatever, is not intrinsically good, and I would indeed go so far as to say that it is intrinsically *evil*. Therefore, the church being the world's authority on both objective good and the good which some people consider subjective, has an obligation to speak out against this "science". But at the same time, the church supports *real* science, and that is evident from the pope's speech.