1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeThe "Sanctity of Life" and "Right to Life" movements in the context of Ivanhoe's post, refer to anti-abortion/-euthanasia campaigns. Your little red herring is so far off topic that it hints ignorance of the relevant issue.
how is this a red herring?
1. The Spanish inquisition tortured many people to death.
2. The Spanish inquisition was condoned by the Catholic church.
3. The (Roman-Catholic) Church is the most staunch and consistent
advocate of the Sanctity of Life notion.
If you cannot see that 1 and 2 imply the falsehood of 3, then you really are hopelessly lost.
The same goes to the 2 morons who recced your nonsensical post.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy should an independent, fact finding body be "loyal" to the Holy See?
Interesting quote:
"I find the conduct of the international, historical Judeo-Catholic commission disloyal to the Holy See, academically unacceptable and incorrect," Father Gumpel said.
Why should an independent, fact finding body be "loyal" to the Holy See?
As Father Gumpel's meeting with the Commission predated the rele ...[text shortened]... the 47 questions requested in the preliminary report. Do you have any response to that question?
It shouldn't - unless he means "disloyal" in an administrative sense; i.e. not keeping the body that formed the Commission informed.
As Father Gumpel's meeting with the Commission predated the release of the preliminary report, you have not answered why the Vatican refused to the allow the Commission access to the documents relevant to the 47 questions requested in the preliminary report. Do you have any response to that question?
The point is - Father Grumpel did have answers and documents for many of the 47 questions (the interview mentions a few of them) - but the Commission never bothered to ask him for it. Fr. Grumpel's position is that the Commission asked a set of questions, didn't wait for the reply and then went to the press claiming "the Vatican didn't cooperate".
Originally posted by HalitoseThe moron could be me--I also find Sanctity of Life incompatible with the methods of the Inquisition. Such a standard must surely be applied across the board or risk accusations of double standards. (Of course the Inquisition doesn't exist today, so HG may be guilty of the heinous error of anachronism.)
I wonder who the moron is now.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe only thing I get out of all this chicanery is that the case for or against Pius is far from closed.
Fr. Grumpel's position is that the Commission asked a set of questions, didn't wait for the reply and then went to the press claiming "the Vatican didn't cooperate".
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBased on whatever evidence you've seen so far - do you believe PXII actively promoted or turned a blind eye to the Holocaust?
The only thing I get out of all this chicanery is that the case for or against Pius is far from closed.
Or do you believe that PXII was between a rock and a hard place and very probably made some dubious decisions?
Originally posted by lucifershammerI've seen such wildly exaggerated claims on both sides that I can't really venture an opinion.
Based on whatever evidence you've seen so far - do you believe PXII actively promoted or turned a blind eye to the Holocaust?
Or do you believe that PXII was between a rock and a hard place and very probably made some dubious decisions?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBe the Inquisition what it may - it does not detract from the fact that the RCC has been the staunchest proponent of pro-life movements in this last century. (which I think that was the relevant issue)
The moron could be me--I also find Sanctity of Life incompatible with the methods of the Inquisition. Such a standard must surely be applied across the board or risk accusations of double standards. (Of course the Inquisition doesn't exist today, so HG may be guilty of the heinous error of anachronism.)
Originally posted by HalitoseBesides, one cannot accuse the Inquisition of completely abandoning the sanctity of life - the Inquisitors did try to the best extent possible within their ambit to preserve the life of the accused.
Be the Inquisition what it may - it does not detract from the fact that the RCC has been the staunchest proponent of pro-life movements in this last century. (which I think that was the relevant issue)
Originally posted by lucifershammer"Pro-life" is a label given by the vatican to some of its practices in order to promote them with an emotional appeal.
Let me rephrase my question - how is the discouraging of condom use inconsistent with a pro-life position?
It is inconsistent when those practices lead to children being born with HIV and an overall increase in contaminated individuals. When the situation of Africa is what it is, I find it hypocritical to call such discouragements pro-life.
Originally posted by Palynka"Pro-life" is a label given by the vatican to some of its practices in order to promote them with an emotional appeal.
"Pro-life" is a label given by the vatican to some of its practices in order to promote them with an emotional appeal.
It is inconsistent when those practices lead to children being born with HIV and an overall increase in contaminated individuals. When the situation of Africa is what it is, I find it hypocritical to call such discouragements pro-life.
Actually, "pro-life" is probably a term that originated in opposition to the equally emotional "pro-choice" moniker.
It is inconsistent when those practices lead to children being born with HIV and an overall increase in contaminated individuals.
Is it? Do you have the actual statistics to back this up?
When the situation of Africa is what it is, I find it hypocritical to call such discouragements pro-life.
The Catholic teaching on contraception cannot be separated from its teachings on marital fidelity. It's silly to cry about one aspect of Church teaching without looking at other aspects. Besides, the abstinence-focus of the Church is one of the most effective responses to the AIDS crisis in Africa*.
LH
---
* http://www.avert.org/aidsuganda.htm
(See the "Why was Uganda's response so effective?" section halfway down the page)