The Cardinal is at it again

[fightingirish]

Cardinals, priests like any other leader will be respected if they earn it!

This standard of respect-giving is fair enough and more power to you. Simply understand that there are other people -- including, presumably millions of Catholics -- who grant some people respect because of the office they hold, without making them "earn" it.

Here's a metaphor which may help: Someone may want a potential romantic partner to "earn" love... over a period of dating, etc. But they may have a love for their siblings that is un-"earned", that simply is because of who the person is, or the "place" they occupy.

 

[Chirimoya]

I hope your kids' teachers are wonderful teachers. And I hope your profession (whatever it is) is something that fulfills you. That having been said, let's leave ALL of that out of the thread!

Fair enough. I knew I was making a cheap shot at the time and I take it back, but your post kind of set the tone.

What makes me curious is that it be "homophobia" that jumps out at you from my posts. There were other posters calling people "fags", while I just wanted to make the point (and make it strongly) that people like the Cardinal, and probably 80% of the Dominicans with whom I interact, look at homosexuality VERY differently than do American liberals -- whose standards of what is "natural" were being used to critique the Cardinal.

My point was/is that it is a big world, with wildly different worldviews. Catholic, with a small c.

Maybe it was the combative tone? I see you're making the same point in a far more measured way this time, and presented in this way, without the attack on something_of_the_night, it's a point I can accept. Of course many Dominicans share the Cardinal's views on gays, as do many people across the globe, including the more liberal countries. Likewise there is an increasing number of Dominicans that are open to 'alternative lifestyles'. It's all part of social evolution, whether the Cardinal likes it or not.

I don't know about people automatically respecting the man and not questioning his judgement just because he's a Cardinal. Sounds kind of dangerous to me, to have absolute, unquestioned authority! I realise that we move in different circles, but personally I have yet to meet a Dominican who has a good word to say about the Cardinal himself.

 

[Lambada]

Children respecting good parents is fair enough. Sometimes with bad parents all the kids can do is tolerate them and not provoke them until they're old enough to leave home. But as adults, I think we should require proof that respect has indeed been earned by those to whom we accord it, otherwise we could be respecting people because of a position they hold and not how they perform their functions. The problem with that is you get corrupt politicians for example; should they be accorded respect just because they are Sub-Secretary of whatever? I would agree that there are nationalities who accord respect just because of office/religious position etc; sometimes it's almost part of the myth and magic of the culture, and it certainly seems anachronistic. Doesn't mean others have to go along with it, though. And getting back to the Cardinal, yes very powerful because a lot of people look up to him. But he should still be called when he steps out of line.

 

[Don Juan]

No free lunch.

This standard of respect-giving is fair enough and more power to you. Simply understand that there are other people -- including, presumably millions of Catholics -- who grant some people respect because of the office they hold, without making them "earn" it.


With the exception of those that win lotteries or are born rich, absolutely everyone has to "earn it"... It's almost certain that the Cardinal had to "work at it" in order to obtain that position. It wasn't just given to him.

Anyone that has risen through the rank to hold his position, should know better than to be arrogant. One of the major tenets in Christianity is humility. -The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility. Proverbs. 15:33.- Apparently the Cardinal has forgotten what his job entails. He may be too senile or drunk with power to remember or even care.... And as far as condemning homosexuals; especially given the very obvious state of the Catholic church today, well....you know the rest.
This man is a danger to his faith and country. He ought to be removed before he causes further damage. aranoid:

 

[fightingirish]

Sometimes with bad parents all the kids can do is tolerate them. But as adults, I think we should require proof that respect has indeed been earned I would agree that there are nationalities who accord respect just because of office/religious position etc; sometimes it's almost part of the myth and magic of the culture, and it certainly seems anachronistic..

I fear I am becoming a one-man-Cardinal-defending-machine here! :cheeky:

Trust me, this is far from the most important issue for me. However, I cant resist sounding a note of diversity in this thread.

You use the analogy of children respecting parents.

Note: I used *siblings* and *love*, not respect. The differences are small, but I chose them very carefully.

Since the reformation Catholics have been accused of being simpletons, people whose faith is in "magic and myth", and whose deference to authority is unhealthy and immature.

Because American (western?) culture is so dominant, I can understand where this comes from. The philosophical underpinnings of this culture celebrate "independence", individualism, do-it-yourself-ism, populism, de-throning popes and kings, scientism, etc. "Prove it to me!" we shout. "Why should I trust you?" If it is not independently verifiable in a lab, by my own eyes, it is not true.

I humbly suggest that, while this worldview has its merits, it is not universal. It has its own history, from Martin Luther through John Locke, etc.

Im not trying to convert *anyone*. But if youre at all curious, many millions of Catholics don't view their love for their priests and Cardinals as "requiring proof", or based on magic and myth. They, instead, are part of a tradition whose history includes people like Aquinas and Ignatius of Loyola, and in our own times Teilhard de Chardin and Charles Taylor. Authority is not something about which they approach with immediate skepticism. The very fact of holding an "office" CAN indeed inspire great love and reverence. An obvious example of this, of course, is the late JPII. When people kissed his hand, it wasnt because he wasn't a sinner or a flawed man. (Nor was it because they were childish or awed by magic). It was out of profound love, and a reverence that these hands were blessed by the hands blessed by the hands blessed by.... etc.

Does this sound strange and foreign and ridiculous to some people? Probably.

 

[A.Hidalgo]

I fear I am becoming a one-man-Cardinal-defending-machine here! :cheeky:

Trust me, this is far from the most important issue for me. However, I cant resist sounding a note of diversity in this thread.

You use the analogy of children respecting parents.

Note: I used *siblings* and *love*, not respect. The differences are small, but I chose them very carefully.

Since the reformation Catholics have been accused of being simpletons, people whose faith is in "magic and myth", and whose deference to authority is unhealthy and immature.

Because American (western?) culture is so dominant, I can understand where this comes from. The philosophical underpinnings of this culture celebrate "independence", individualism, do-it-yourself-ism, populism, de-throning popes and kings, scientism, etc. "Prove it to me!" we shout. "Why should I trust you?" If it is not independently verifiable in a lab, by my own eyes, it is not true.

I humbly suggest that, while this worldview has its merits, it is not universal. It has its own history, from Martin Luther through John Locke, etc.

Im not trying to convert *anyone*. But if youre at all curious, many millions of Catholics don't view their love for their priests and Cardinals as "requiring proof", or based on magic and myth. They, instead, are part of a tradition whose history includes people like Aquinas and Ignatius of Loyola, and in our own times Teilhard de Chardin and Charles Taylor. Authority is not something about which they approach with immediate skepticism. The very fact of holding an "office" CAN indeed inspire great love and reverence. An obvious example of this, of course, is the late JPII. When people kissed his hand, it wasnt because he wasn't a sinner or a flawed man. (Nor was it because they were childish or awed by magic). It was out of profound love, and a reverence that these hands were blessed by the hands blessed by the hands blessed by.... etc.

Does this sound strange and foreign and ridiculous to some people? Probably.

Interesting that you mention Teilhard de Chardin. He ran afoul with his superiors and his works were denied publication during his lifetime by The Roman Holy office. The office that the present pope used to oversee (not during de Chardin lifetime). Talk about not questioning your superiors I guess he is a good example. The Catholic church is run in a very undemocratic manner, but what can you expect when the pope is infallible in questions of faith and morals and the title of cardinal is next in line.

excuse for going a bit off topic

 

[atienoor]

Fightingirish and Don Juan,

There are some Cardinals that I would carry a torch for but I do have my reservations about this particular one.

And you do not have to be a western liberal to use your noggin!

Yeah, I would like to believe that I am a good catholic (depends on whom you ask), but that does not stop me from questioning the church leadership and doctrine. I tend to think that most catholics (including Dominicans - if the divorce rates, etc are anything to go by) are much more progressive than they are given credit for. If we were not progressive, I doubt if the catholic church would have authored social justice. And am not exactly western, I come from a world where people still "respect" leadership without question.

Unquestioning acceptance regardless of whether a person has risen through the ranks for a good or bad reason is contrary to freewill and our status as thinking beings. El Cardinal is entitled to his personal views, but as a leader, he should weigh his public utterances.

Don Juan, I could not agree more, humility as opposed to arrogance should be the centre-pin for good leadership. I must say that it is always refreshing to meet truly dedicated catholic leaders as opposed to the church political players. Yes, just like society, the catholic church is full of those...........and more.

 

[dv8]

let's straighten it up

Unquestioning acceptance regardless of whether a person has risen through the ranks for a good or bad reason is contrary to freewill and our status as thinking beings. El Cardinal is entitled to his personal views, but as a leader, he should weigh his public utterances.

cardinal has no personal views. same applies to other church dignitaries, political leaders and monarchs. the opinions expressed by them are statements...

the cardinal only refers the opinion of the catholic church in general, not a very liberal institution altogether.

 

[fightingirish]

cardinal has no personal views. same applies to other church dignitaries, political leaders and monarchs. the opinions expressed by them are statements...

the cardinal only refers the opinion of the catholic church in general, not a very liberal institution altogether.

Not sure how to read this. Perhaps a joke is going over my head!

But Cardinals have all sorts of personal views, as well they should. Another frequent misunderstanding of Catholicism involves the claim that Catholics must accept everything the Pope, the Bishops, and their local priests say. Papal infallibility -- a pretty complicated theological teaching -- did nothing to clear this up, when it was defined in 1870.

If some people think that everything any given Pope, Cardinal or priest says is doctrine, no wonder they would think Catholics are childish! This isn't close to being true, however.

The issue at hand, however, was that many Catholics strive to *love* their Cardinal, even when they disagree on something. And when, indeed, that thing on which they disagree is clarified as the authoritative teaching of the church, many of these Catholics (like Teilhard) pray for the humility to accept this on authority.

 

[dv8]

gee, fightingirish, i was brought up in a catholic country too.
read my lips, cardinals do not express their private opinions on a public forum. they may say they like tomato but when they speak about moral issues they express the opinion of the church.

de chardin has been forgotten by almost all, including fellow philosophers.

and indeed, many priests express more libereal and modern approach, yet somehow they never make it to cardinals....

 

[fightingirish]

gee, fightingirish, i was brought up in a catholic country too.
read my lips, cardinals do not express their private opinions on a public forum. they may say they like tomato but when they speak about moral issues they express the opinion of the church.

de chardin has been forgotten by almost all, including fellow philosophers.

....

Ah, the Old Switcheroo! First you say: "cardinal has no personal views. same applies to other church dignitaries... the cardinal only refers the opinion of the catholic church in general."

And then, when I point out that this is clearly fallacious, you throw in "public forum" and then "when they speak about moral issues".

Well.... "being brought up in a Catholic country", at least you picked up some of the verbiage ("moral issues" and whatnot). But what you write is still entirely false.

The Magisterium, which is made up of the Pope -- the Bishop of Rome, and his fellow bishops -- functions in two ways. One of which is called by Catholics "Sacred" and the other "Ordinary". The first function includes when a Pope is speaking "ex cathedra" or the dogmatic teachings of an ecumenical council (like Vatican II). The ordinary function includes all the other teachings of a Pope not specifically invoked as infallible (which was only done about twice anyway, as far as I know), as well as ALL the teachings of local bishops, like your man here in Santo Domingo.

Boring paragraph, right? No one said the Catechism is a page turner.

And no one says you have to agree with it. But as you reject it, at least get it straight what you're rejecting.

As for this other dude who posted, with the line about coming out of closets.... Is that a pick-up line? Aren't there other boards for that?

 

[fightingirish]

Ok... Im sorry. Im banning myself from this thread! lol....

I get too involved, my "irish" gets up, and no one's mind is changed on these things anyway, right?

I leave you your conviction that the Cardinal is a jerk, a closet pervert, etc, etc.

Best wishes

 

[Rick Snyder]

Geeeee, would this be any indication as to why religion and race aren't supposed to be discussed on this board??????? Hehehehe

 

[something_of_the_night]

Ok... Im sorry. Im banning myself from this thread! lol....

Best wishes

You shouldn't quit. You bring a diff. perspective, which I think it's interesting.

And as far as considering the Cardinal a pervert, well, that's just cynical generalization. But you read as one poster mentioned that not one of her friends thinks highly of him. That's not knocking religion, I don't think.

 

[dv8]

just to clarify

Ah, the Old Switcheroo! First you say: "cardinal has no personal views. same applies to other church dignitaries... the cardinal only refers the opinion of the catholic church in general."
And then, when I point out that this is clearly fallacious, you throw in "public forum" and then "when they speak about moral issues".

wow, you have found a major flaw in my argument. "no person views" is a simplification, commonly used in any rhetoric...
everyone has opinions, they are like a$$es, right? but it's a different thing when a public figure says "i don't like him, let's not invite him for dinner again" at home referring to their rude guest and another matter when they say: "i don't like him, off with his head!" publicly....

btw, to my knowledge the dogma about pope's infallibility refers to all the moral issues, si o non?

 

[dv8]

and, fightingirish, don't go, i am not directing my comments at you personally, it's a question of rhetoric, sometimes i am more socratic than sarcastic, even tho i never liked the guy...

 

[CFA123]

CNN has picked up the story of Haitians in the bateys.

CNN.com - Anderson Cooper 360° Blog