evmori Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Yes I was OGE. I'm just curious if these definitions have changed over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I have to wonder if this inability to make a complex ethical/moral decision, even in the hypothetical as a thought exercise, without consulting a priest is something common among Roman Catholics? What happens if you are caught in a situation where there is no priest available and you have to make a decision *now*? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Dan, if I was in a situation without a priest available, I would do the best I could with the facts I had, the same as I expect most Catholics, nay most humans to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Dan, It's possible that you might go right ahead with an ill-conceived, disastrous, Bay of Pigs invasion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 "Dan, if I was in a situation without a priest available, I would do the best I could with the facts I had, the same as I expect most Catholics, nay most humans to do." Yeah, OGE, that's what I would expect most adults to be able to do. That's why I'm confused why the only answer repeatedly given when asked to think about a moral/ethical dilemma is sometimes "ask a priest". Since I obviously don't go around having many discussions with Catholic priests, such answers are rather frustrating. Unless the inability or unwillingness to provide a real answer is meant to be a discussion ender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I am not sure how many transgressions against humanity and against specfic Forum Members that the Roman Catholic Church has perpertrated. I know that as an organization run by man it has erred. I humbly apologize to all for any insult, injury, transgression or otherwise wrong thing the Roman Catholic Chuch has ever done. For any thing the Church has said or done, for anything a Roman Catholic has said or done I apologize Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 OGE, it isn't your place to apologize for anyone other than yourself and none is needed as far as I'm concerned. However, there are some who seem bound to impose their personal rigid interpretations and faith on everyone else (worse yet, on the boys) and who seem intolerant of any alternate views. You are not one of those persons and I hope that you do not feel like you are the target of the ridicule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 The fact is that priests are much more educated than myself on Christian theology. I think it is a good trait to admit when you do not know something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 OGE, my experience here is that you are a very thoughtful person, who is willing to examine other points of view, even when you respectfully disagree with them. Personally, I find that a very admirable trait. I think that such a thoughtful examination of one's beliefs (through the examination of others') can strengthen one's faith. The ability to make judgments (even hypothetical ones) based on one's moral and ethical beliefs is a hallmark of a fully developed morality. OGE, I have no doubt about your ability to do so. I'm just confounded by the inability of anyone who professes to possess such a strong moral structure to apply that moral structure to ethical dilemmas on their own. You have nothing to apologize for, OGE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I think it is a good trait to admit when you do not know something. Yah, but only if yeh admit it before yeh start making definitive declarations, not after you've been asked to explain your declarations . I have no problem with the Lord grantin' Simon Peter the keys to the Kingdom, eh? He was quite a special fellow. What doesn't follow is that every other patriarch of Rome has da same gift. Peter also was able to order the lame to get up and walk in the Lord's name. Yeh seen that from anybody recently who has claimed to stand in da shoes of The Fisherman? I reckon many of the popes have been successors to Peter the way men like Commodus were successors to Marcus Aurelius, eh? Even Catholic authors like Dante Alighieri consign them to the inferno. Remember, the only people the Lord ever became angry with were the priests in the Rome of his day, eh? Beavah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASM915 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 This weekend, I had an interesting conversation with a dear friend of mine, a Sister that I work with. I asked why she was still at the hospital at dinner time. She was working on a paper. I do not remember what the paper was about, but it immediately made me think of this thread. I pulled up a chair as I stated I'm going to burn in you know where, drawing laughter from her and the other two women with her. I leaned over and let her in on some of our conversations here. I then asked if she had heard about the Brazilian case, and explained what was happening. She became very quite and solemn for quite a while. I apologized for ruining her evening. She stated that she was just thinking over the situation, and was not upset. She felt that in this terrible situation, the death of two innocents and the saving of one innocent, over the death of all three innocents, should be the choice, and that she would have to go with the abortion, even though it was against Church doctrine. OGE, no need to apologize. All religions have their cross to bear, maybe us Catholics a little more then others. Other then Vatican II, it has been about 500 years since the Church really had to look at some of it's believes, and made changes to doctrine, (the Earth is not flat, and is not the center of the Universe, and it is not sacrilege to believe so). Maybe it is time again, with all the medical advances that God has allowed man to discover, that the Church again take a close look at it's views on certain items, and make minor appropriate changes to safeguard the well being of it's parishioners, as well as itself from people leaving the Church do to some,I hate to say it, antiquated thought processes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Actually it was only about 350 years that Galileo had to burn in hell or something. Small price to pay for truth, I'd say, especially since hell is just myth. But a more important turnaround (if you want to call it that) came with the more recent embrace of evolution by the Catholic Church. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 "I think it is a good trait to admit when you do not know something. Yah, but only if yeh admit it before yeh start making definitive declarations, not after you've been asked to explain your declarations." It is easy to repeat Church doctrine and rulings, anyone can do that. I admitted I do not have the education to explain it all as good as some. "I have no problem with the Lord grantin' Simon Peter the keys to the Kingdom, eh? He was quite a special fellow. What doesn't follow is that every other patriarch of Rome has da same gift. Peter also was able to order the lame to get up and walk in the Lord's name. Yeh seen that from anybody recently who has claimed to stand in da shoes of The Fisherman?" When Jesus consecrated the Apostles with the Holy Orders he gave them the same power to pass it down. Through Apostolic Succession, Peter passed his special authority down to others, who continue, guided by the Holy Spirit to be the Head of the Church on Earth to this day. Clearly Jesus meant there to be one Earthly head on the Church. Why would he want this to be only a temporary feature? It should exist for all time. Remember he gave Peter the keys so Hell can not prevail against us. Why would he want Hell to win after Peter's death?(This message has been edited by TheScout) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 A long time ago, I worked as the Technical Director of a Radologic Technology Program in Evansville, Indiana. I taught most of the Radiologic Technology classes and the other faculty did the Anatomy and Physiology, Physics, etc. I did teach a class on Radiologic Technique, that's the process of making X-rays as diagnostic as they can be. To explain the interaction between the part being X-rayed and the X-ray I would have to explain various X-ray interactions such as the Photo-electric Absorption, Coherent Scattering, Compton Scattering, Pair production and Photo-disintergration. Now, the last two always confused me and I would study up really hard before the class and then I would teach it and sure enough, two days later, I would forget which was which and what would happen in each. If someone would ask about it, I would refer them to Mr PhysicsTeacher who would explain it off the top of his head. I had no problem referring the question to a more qualified person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASM915 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Pack, What was that poor priest's name? You know, the one who was excommunicated because of his thesis on evolution, religion, and man being created when God finally gave him a soul. If I remember correctly, he he was educated as a scientist, couldn't turn his back on what was proven by science, and tried to reconcile the two. God created everything. As evolution took place, God finally said thatI would like one of my beasts to be in my image. When god finally saw a beast that He liked in His image,He gave it a soul, and thus the creation of man as we know him. Now I know that is extremely oversimplified, but that was the core of his thesis. He was excommunicated by the Church. Some time after his death, the Church took another look at the thesis, and decided that maybe his thought processes may not have been so far fetched. Now they are teaching his philosophy in the Catholic institutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now