Top 10 works of religious fiction

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I'm 28 years old, having long outgrown Simon Says. You'll have to play with somebody else.

But you seem to have no troubles playing word games elsewhere (for instance, in this very thread you said: If they were fiction, the Catholics would not be so up in arms about them).

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Has it never occurred to you that the problem many of us have with the words of a Cardinal here a Father there and a "dude with a funny hat' over there is not hinged upon whether it is official church doctrine? The words of many of these men (Cardinals and the like) effect the behavior of hundreds or thousands of people OR MORE. If the church is reall ...[text shortened]... r merry way. It is clever but I'm not the only one who can see right through it.

TheSkipper

Let's suppose Senator Hilary Clinton favours partial-birth abortions on a TV interview.

Is this likely to affect the behaviour of hundreds (if not thousands) of Democrat viewers? Yes.

Does that make her views official Party policy? No. Is she speaking on behalf of the Democratic Party? No.

Tell me if that does not make sense to you.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Let's suppose Hilary Clinton favours partial-birth abortions on a TV interview.

Is this likely to affect the behaviour of hundreds (if not thousands) of Democrat viewers? Yes.

Does that make her views official Party policy? No.

True but you can be sure that Howard Dean would be fast to make a statement assuring people that Hillary's statements do not reflect the position of the Democratic party. He would do this to AVOID CONFUSION! It is my belief that the Church not only endorses the confusion they fail to avoid but count on it.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
True but you can be sure that Howard Dean would be fast to make a statement assuring people that Hillary's statements do not reflect the position of the Democratic party. He would do this to AVOID CONFUSION! It is my belief that the Church not only endorses the confusion they fail to avoid but count on it.

TheSkipper

True but you can be sure that Howard Dean would be fast to make a statement assuring people that Hillary's statements do not reflect the position of the Democratic party.

Why would I be so sure?

I mean - surely there are significant differences between the manifestos of candidates at the Presidential Primaries. Does either party come out and say that these policies are the views of the candidates and not that of the Party? (I don't know - they might, but maybe you're in a better position to tell me).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]True but you can be sure that Howard Dean would be fast to make a statement assuring people that Hillary's statements do not reflect the position of the Democratic party.

Why would I be so sure?

I mean - surely there are significant differences between the manifestos of candidates at the Presidential Primaries. Does either party come ou ...[text shortened]... t of the Party? (I don't know - they might, but maybe you're in a better position to tell me).[/b]

Sometimes, sometimes not. It depends on how far a field the particular candidate went.

However, you are forgetting a significant difference between politicians and religious icons. People of a given religion feel compelled to follow the example and words of the leaders of that religion. No such desire exists between politicians and members of their political party. Certainly not to the extent religious institutions enjoy.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Has it never occurred to you that the problem many of us have with the words of a Cardinal here a Father there and a "dude with a funny hat' over there is not hinged upon whether it is official church doctrine? The words of many of these men (Cardinals and the like) effect the behavior of hundreds or thousands of people OR MORE. If the church is reall ...[text shortened]... r merry way. It is clever but I'm not the only one who can see right through it.

TheSkipper

Here's another question - the State of Texas (I think) has the death penalty for murder. The State of New York (I could be wrong here) does not.

What is the stance of the US Government on the issue?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Here's another question - the State of Texas (I think) has the death penalty for murder. The State of New York (I could be wrong here) does not.

What is the stance of the US Government on the issue?

It is true that it is up to a given state whether or not to allow capital punishment or not. Consequently, some do, some don't.

However for purposes of extradition foreign countries label the US as a "death penalty country" and some of those countires have policies that dis-allow the extradition of prisoners to countries where they could be put to death.

The US accepts this blanket label even though it is an issue left up to individual states. Were the US the Vatican I believe we would cry foul at such a blanket statement, no?

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Sometimes, sometimes not. It depends on how far a field the particular candidate went.

However, you are forgetting a significant difference between politicians and religious icons. People of a given religion feel compelled to follow the example and words of the leaders of that religion. No such desire exists between politicians and members of their political party. Certainly not to the extent religious institutions enjoy.

TheSkipper

I understand this.

Now, if the comment in question had come from Cardinal Levada (in his official capacity as Prefect of the CDF) instead of Cardinal Bertone then I would've said yes, this is the official view of the Vatican.

But it did not. The CNBC article claims that Cardinal Bertone is "leading the Vatican charge". Are my questions invalid - Charged by whom? In what capacity?

Yes, Cardinal Bertone's comment is intended to influence the actions of Catholics. Many Catholics are going to take his comments to heart - but not because it is a "command" (as DrScribs alleges), but because of their respect for his position in the Church. Do they know the difference?

If they read about it on CNBC, then I would guess not.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The CNBC article claims that Cardinal Bertone is "leading the Vatican charge". Are my questions invalid - Charged by whom? In what capacity?

You've misunderstood "charge"--the article depicts the Cardinal at the head of the Vatican's assault--it's charge on the poisonous slander perpetrated by the likes of Dan Brown.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I understand this.

Now, if the comment in question had come from Cardinal Levada (in his official capacity as Prefect of the CDF) instead of Cardinal Bertone then I would've said yes, this is the official view of the Vatican.

But it did not. The CNBC article claims that Cardinal Bertone is "leading the Vatican charge". Are my questions invali ...[text shortened]... e Church. Do they know the difference?

If they read about it on CNBC, then I would guess not.

Ok, I see a light at the end of the tunnel here, perhaps we can reach some level of understanding on this.

I understand that the Church is HUGE and full of various Cardinals, Bishops, Knights and Rooks? (Rooks would be cool, especially in the "end days" ) Many of these chess pieces claim to speak on behalf of the Church and still many more allow people to think they do. Consequently even the Vatican would have a tough time keeping track of all the un-approved teachings coming out of everybody's mouths all over the world. I grant you that.

In return will you grant me that you can see how bad it looks from my perspective? It all seems very convenient for the Church from where I stand and I suspect the Church itself has found it convenient on more than one occasion. The good Dr's "Simon Says" argument while designed at least in part to be antagonizing is not wholly without merit in my mind.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
It is true that it is up to a given state whether or not to allow capital punishment or not. Consequently, some do, some don't.

However for purposes of extradition foreign countries label the US as a "death penalty country" and some of those countires have policies that dis-allow the extradition of prisoners to countries where they could be put to d ...[text shortened]... re the US the Vatican I believe we would cry foul at such a blanket statement, no?

TheSkipper

As I understand it (I could be wrong here) foreign countries only restrict extradition when the accused could face the death penalty. So, if a person has committed a crime that is solely within the jurisdiction of New York, but would merit a death penalty in Texas, then the country could still extradite him, right?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You've misunderstood "charge"--the article depicts the Cardinal at the head of the Vatican's assault--it's charge on the poisonous slander perpetrated by the likes of Dan Brown.

I understand that - but the article claims it is a "Vatican charge" - implying an official announcement or movement of some kind.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As I understand it (I could be wrong here) foreign countries only restrict extradition when the accused could face the death penalty. So, if a person has committed a crime that is solely within the jurisdiction of New York, but would merit a death penalty in Texas, then the country could still extradite him, right?

You have asked questions that are beyond my ability to answer, I'm afraid.

Also, I may have mis-represented the legal thought on the issue of Capital Punishment being up to the state. I'm not sure but it is possible that the US can execute people on the federal level whcih would make the label I mentioned earlier rather appropriate, thus hurting my argument. I'm not sure though.

I'm not even sure if particular states can request extradition or if it must be done on the federal level.

Geez, my wife is a lawyer you would think I would know more about this stuff. Maybe I will start listening when she talks to me...could be a good start. 😉

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Ok, I see a light at the end of the tunnel here, perhaps we can reach some level of understanding on this.

I understand that the Church is HUGE and full of various Cardinals, Bishops, Knights and Rooks? (Rooks would be cool, especially in the "end days" ) Many of these chess pieces claim to speak on behalf of the Church and still many more allow peo ...[text shortened]... signed at least in part to be antagonizing is not wholly without merit in my mind.

TheSkipper

Consequently even the Vatican would have a tough time keeping track of all the un-approved teachings coming out of everybody's mouths all over the world.

I think this is the point here - Cardinal Bertone's comments on do not constitute a "teaching" (in the sense the Church uses that term to refer to the Magisterium) in the same way as the Church teachings on abortion or birth control.

EDIT: The point I think you're trying to make here is that ordinary Catholics wouldn't know which ones were Magisterial teachings and which ones were pastoral exhortations, right? I can only speak from experience here - but most Catholics I know would know the difference.

If he did contradict Church doctrine at any point, you can be sure official Vatican bodies (mainly the CDF) would force a retraction (eventually - the CDF isn't known to be the fastest gun on the block).

The good Dr's "Simon Says" argument while designed at least in part to be antagonizing is not wholly without merit in my mind.

Maybe not completely without merit. But, when talking about Bishops and Cardinals, you have to realise that they have tremendous autonomy (disciplinary - not doctrinal) within the Church. So, for instance, one Bishop might decide that Catholic politicians in his diocese who support abortion should be denied communion. Another Bishop might take a more lenient view on the matter - preferring private persuasion. Until there is a definitive guidance on the matter from the relevant Congregation - neither is over-stepping his authority and neither is representing the official view of the Church.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Non-fiction, of course. They must be. If they were fiction, the Catholics would not be so up in arms about them.

The doctor has a point.