homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Hell: Trisagion and the Catholic Bishops - accessories to murder (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Hell: Trisagion and the Catholic Bishops - accessories to murder
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I often appreciate Trisagion's contributions on the boards, but I have to say I was surprized with this little case of the brain-staggers!

Thank you.

quote:
I mean, what was the final straw?
Difficult to say really: somewhere between exasperation of the sheer predictability of the argument, the denial of the presumption of good will on the part of one's interlocutors, the shoddiness of the argumentation, the failure to understand that sexism works both ways and my own concupiscence.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This has nothing to do with Aristotelian ethics or social engineering in antiquity / the middle ages or whatever. It is an utterly inescapable conclusion from observing the anatomy, physiology and biology of humans just as much as of any other sexually reproducing animal. Really and truly, sex is primarily about reproduction, just as heart beating is primarily about pumping blood around and lung breathing is primarily about getting oxygen into the body.


Wronger than a wrong thing in Wrongville! The heart is not 'primarily' about keeping breath in the body; it is ONLY about keeping breath in the body. Whereas sex is not ONLY about reproduction.

Now now, let's not confuse the poor man by suggesting that the body is capable of having parts with multiple functions.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I suspect there may be something to that.

That's because in the fantasy world you occupy it is clear that the only people who are entitled to the presumption of acting in good faith are your fellow 'liberal "peace first" hankie squeezers'.
Lots of people -- maybe even most people, if I'm not feeling too misanthropic -- deserve to be presumed to be acting in good faith. The Catholic bishops just don't fall into that category at the moment.

quote:
So you build a logically flawed argument based on a completely erroneous premise, your error is pointed out to you and yet, rather than display a shred of intellectual honesty, you simply reassert the original argument in more aggressive and less logically coherent form, with a little ad hominem attack on a straw man thrown in to attempt - unsuccessfully, as it turns out - to score a cheap political point. I don't know what that's called where you come from but around here we call that being a four-fisted fuckwit.
The only particularly fuckwitted thing I'm guilty of here is trying to argue about what the RCC does and does not do with a Catholic canon lawyer. But hey, I'll probably learn something.

I said that the RCC doesn't "recognize" the marriages of non-Catholics. You said it does, and Chesterbelloc said it considers them actual marriages but not sacramental ones. You could have gathered that I meant it doesn't consider them sacramental marriages, but apparently chose not to put that construction on my post. You won't like the loose wording coming up next, either. It seems to me that if the Catholic Church took non-Catholics' marriages seriously -- whether you think that falls into the definition of "recognizing" them or not -- it wouldn't disregard them so easily, as it apparently has in Gingrich's case. (I'd argue furthermore that it doesn't even take American Catholics' marriages very seriously, or expect them to take their own marriages seriously, considering the way it hands out annulments.)

quote:
quote:
Finally, the reason I think the RCC's bullshit about marriage is relevant to a discussion of contraceptives is because it's all part and parcel of one of the biggest problems in that church: a huge institution with a lot to say about personal details of many people's lives is run entirely by men.
First, there is no evidence on this thread - or elsewhere on the Ship - that you are capable of thought at all let alone sufficient thought to link together cause and effect in any cogent way in respect of even simple physical phenomena. That you would claim to be able to do so in something as complicated as the factors affecting the beliefs of a global body as large, long-lasting and complex as the Catholic Church, is just simply laughable.
I made no claim about cause and effect. I wouldn't have said "part and parcel of" if I had meant to made a more precise causal argument. But having only men making important decisions that affect the lives of over a billion people is obviously problematic.

quote:
Second, your argument reveals all too clearly the fact that you are, in fact, nothing more than a cheap feminist, sexist bigot.
I'm not cheap, I'm thrifty. On my wage, it's necessary. I'm a feminist, certainly; thank you for noticing. I doubt I'm a sexist; I certainly try not to be. If I am, my liberal boyfriend is cool with it. I may very well be a bigot. Again, I try not to be, reminding myself that without the Catholic Church and without the presence of certain Catholics in my life, I might not be a Christian today.

quote:
Third, if you displayed even an ounce of self-knowledge, you might begin to consider when your 'liberal "peace first" hankie squeezing' prejudices are ever subject to any kind of critical engagement with anything even faintly resembling a second-cousin to Christianity.
I have my prejudices. We all do. And Christianity is by no means coterminous with liberal politics. Christianity is radically far beyond both liberalism and conservatism is ways that are exciting and scary. Liberalism is unfortunately the best I can do most of the time. But since liberalism has given us such things as child labor laws, civil rights, women's suffrage, and the end of chattel slavery, I sleep okay at night.

quote:
Admit it, sweetie, you are doctrinaire liberal ideologue who claims for her half-baked prejudices an infallibility that would have made even the most purple Ultramontanist blush with embarrassment.
If having this crazy idea that women should have some political power, makes me a doctrinaire liberal ideologue, I'm fine with it.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Oh, but there is such information. It is reported that he attends church regularly, and no mention is made of his not approaching to receive communion, so it seems a fair assumption that he does. His pastor says his current marriage is valid. His second wife has said that she received a notice about having her marriage annulled. His first wife apparently isn't talking, but she's still alive, so one way or another that marriage has been dealt with to the church's satisfaction.(Source)
Where in any of that, even in the shabby opinion piece you cite, is there any evidence that the Catholic hierarchy are hypocrites for not publicly taking issue with Gingrich's marital status or eligibility to receive the Blessed Sacrament? It looks to me as if they've gone to the trouble of investigating it, and have concluded that he is currently married according to the criteria of their own Church. What, exactly, is the issue here?
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You imply that we shouldn't be privy to such information

Actually, I don't - I just think one shouldn't assume such stuff hasn't been looked into just because we don't know about it. The fact that we don't know the ins and outs of process doesn't tell us anything, except perhaps that the details themselves may be confidential.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
but in the midst of the 2004 presidential campaign, the man who is now pope issued a memo saying Catholic politicians who support legal abortion should be denied communion.

Right. If, that is, they not only don't practise but actually publicly dissent from the Church's teaching on a matter of the utmost seriousness - the right to life itself. Not keeping the Church's teaching on marriage is one thing - and may be enough to excommunicate oneself anyway - but the equivalent to what Kerry did would be not just to receive Communion when in an adulterous state but to dispute that the Church had got marriage teaching right in the first place. What's that evidence that Gingrich has done either of these things? If you can point to where Gingrich has publicly disssented from the Church's teaching since his conversion, or has flouted any ruling issued by the Church just say so and we can talk about that.



--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Sorry, all. The following paragraph is mine, not Ruth's - massive edit-f*ck:
quote:
Where in any of that, even in the shabby opinion piece you cite, is there any evidence that the Catholic hierarchy are hypocrites for not publicly taking issue with Gingrich's marital status or eligibility to receive the Blessed Sacrament? It looks to me as if they've gone to the trouble of investigating it, and have concluded that he is currently married according to the criteria of their own Church. What, exactly, is the issue here?



--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Geneviève

Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098

 - Posted      Profile for Geneviève   Email Geneviève   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Wait, wait, do I apprehend correctly from the previous post that someone (anyone?) is supporting Newt's marital adventures from a religious standpoint?

[Killing me]

--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)

Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Genevieve, what is your point?

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Genevieve, what is your point?

That the trees of formally correct marriage are blinding you to the wood of adultery.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sine Nomine

Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66

 - Posted      Profile for Sine Nomine   Email Sine Nomine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Apparently if it wasn't Catholic adultery it doesn't count.

--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...

Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
...Chesterbelloc said it considers them actual marriages but not sacramental ones...

Chesterbelloc's wasn't correct either. Marriages between baptised persons, whether Catholic or not, are sacramental marriages if the are between individuals who are free to marry (i.e not impeded), capable of entering into the married state, do not exclude the ends of the married state, intend to keep the marital vows and are not coerced. Sacramental marriages are incapable of dissolution.

Marriages between the baptised and non-baptised and marriages between the non-baptised are natural marriages. They can only by dissolved where the Pauline or Petrine privileges apply.

quote:
It seems to me that if the Catholic Church took non-Catholics' marriages seriously -- whether you think that falls into the definition of "recognizing" them or not -- it wouldn't disregard them so easily, as it apparently has in Gingrich's case. (I'd argue furthermore that it doesn't even take American Catholics' marriages very seriously, or expect them to take their own marriages seriously, considering the way it hands out annulments.)
I couldn't agree more - although Id rather not comment on the process for Mr Gingrich as I have no idea of the grounds on which he was granted the decree of nullity.

quote:
But having only men making important decisions that affect the lives of over a billion people is obviously problematic.
Absent the divine constitution of the Catholic Church and the dominical guarantee of her teaching authority, that would be an undeniable statement.

quote:
Liberalism is unfortunately the best I can do most of the time. But since liberalism has given us such things as child labor laws, civil rights, women's suffrage, and the end of chattel slavery, I sleep okay at night.
Claiming these as wins for your own particular brand of liberalism has more than a hint of anachronism. Heigh Ho, you get to sleep at night. So that must be fine then.

[ 16. February 2012, 21:33: Message edited by: Trisagion ]

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Genevieve, what is your point?

That the trees of formally correct marriage are blinding you to the wood of adultery.
I have NO IDEA, from a Catholic point of view, whether Gingrich is an adulterer or not. I'm neither defending not criticising him, because I don't know enough to do either. I'm healthily sceptical, but I stop short of judging without evidence of the pertinent facts. What do you want me to say?

Gingrich converted just two years ago. He will have had to go through the same process as anyone else for the Church to determine whether he was married to his existing wife or not. If that process was waived for him for political reasons or if he lied to achieve the recognition or if anything else that in Catholic teaching is lacking for him to be in good standing with the Church, I will be just as critical as anyone should be about that.

I just try to assume the good faith of Gingrich, his pastor and whoever else was involved. It's kinda a Gospel thing, yeah?

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Apparently if it wasn't Catholic adultery it doesn't count.

Cute but off-beam.

The Catholic Church, prima facie, does accept the validity of non-Catholic marriages. If he was indeed validly married (as the Catholic Curch defines marriage) to either of his previous wives he would currently be an adulterer, and I would reprehend that. I don't know whether he was or not. Do you?

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Given that Ginrich has 2 children from his first marriage and they were together 18 years, the proposition that they might not have been validly married is a fairly startling one.

Somewhat reminiscent of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, and we all know how well that declaration of nullity went.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
...Chesterbelloc said it considers them actual marriages but not sacramental ones...

Chesterbelloc's wasn't correct either. Marriages between baptised persons, whether Catholic or not, are sacramental marriages if the are between individuals who are free to marry (i.e not impeded), capable of entering into the married state, do not exclude the ends of the married state, intend to keep the marital vows and are not coerced.
Absolutley - apologies for that. What I meant to say was that non-Catholic marriages were not necessarily considered sacramental by the Church. For reasons that needn't detain us here, I have good personal reasons for knowing this sort of stuff.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Given that Ginrich has 2 children from his first marriage and they were together 18 years, the proposition that they might not have been validly married is a fairly startling one.

Why? The only grounds for nullity that would exclude is non-consummation. It's seven years since I saw a petition on those grounds and in our little diocesan tribunal we see up to sixty petitions per year.

quote:
Somewhat reminiscent of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, and we all know how well that declaration of nullity went.
Not reminiscent in any way. Henry VIII's petition wasn't on grounds of non-consummation but that the putative marriage was forbidden on the ground that he was not free to marry his deceased brother's widow.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Somewhat reminiscent of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, and we all know how well that declaration of nullity went.

Not reminiscent in any way. Henry VIII's petition wasn't on grounds of non-consummation but that the putative marriage was forbidden on the ground that he was not free to marry his deceased brother's widow.
Um, no, reminiscent in the sense that a powerful political figure can probably get a church to reach the desired ruling.

Also, with your extreme focus on grounds of invalidity (you little canon lawyer, you), you've missed the rather obvious point that the alternative is the man was having sexual relations outside of marriage for a very long period of time. Is THAT a good look for a moral values campaign?

[ 16. February 2012, 21:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sine Nomine

Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66

 - Posted      Profile for Sine Nomine   Email Sine Nomine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I don't know whether he was or not. Do you?

Why yes I do. He was an adulterer. That's what we normally call it when you're married and you run around on your wife. Adultery. In the common parlance. That may not be Catholic Adultery According to Canon Law or whatever, but us peons knows it when we sees it.

--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...

Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Sine, I don't know what else to say.

Yes, prima facie, he was an adulterer in that he was apparently married to one woman whilst having sex with another. That's a fair assumption. Whether he was actually married to the first (or second, or third...) woman is something which Catholics have specific criteria for deciding for themselves. But cheating on anyone putatively one's wife is wrong.

Will that do?

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Somewhat reminiscent of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, and we all know how well that declaration of nullity went.

Not reminiscent in any way. Henry VIII's petition wasn't on grounds of non-consummation but that the putative marriage was forbidden on the ground that he was not free to marry his deceased brother's widow.
Um, no, reminiscent in the sense that a powerful political figure can probably get a church to reach the desired ruling.
Forgive me, but I'm struggling to see how the powerful political figure of Mr Gingrich getting the Catholic Church to reach the desired ruling is, in any way, reminiscent of the powerful political figure Henry VIII being singularly unable to get the Catholic Church to reach the desired ruling.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Somewhat reminiscent of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, and we all know how well that declaration of nullity went.

Not reminiscent in any way. Henry VIII's petition wasn't on grounds of non-consummation but that the putative marriage was forbidden on the ground that he was not free to marry his deceased brother's widow.
Um, no, reminiscent in the sense that a powerful political figure can probably get a church to reach the desired ruling.
Forgive me, but I'm struggling to see how the powerful political figure of Mr Gingrich getting the Catholic Church to reach the desired ruling is, in any way, reminiscent of the powerful political figure Henry VIII being singularly unable to get the Catholic Church to reach the desired ruling.
He got the local branch to do it. The local branch gets to, yes? Or do you send all those petitions you get to Rome?

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I don't know whether he was or not. Do you?

Why yes I do. He was an adulterer. That's what we normally call it when you're married and you run around on your wife. Adultery. In the common parlance. That may not be Catholic Adultery According to Canon Law or whatever, but us peons knows it when we sees it.
Now now Sine, he might not have been an adulterer. He might just have been fathering children out of wedlock.

So long as he was only shagging non-Catholic women without marrying them, there's no problem. We can ignore THAT kind of pre-marital sex. It's just young Protestant hijinks.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
He got the local branch to do it.

[Killing me] You're not even joking, are you?

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
...Chesterbelloc said it considers them actual marriages but not sacramental ones...

Chesterbelloc's wasn't correct either. Marriages between baptised persons, whether Catholic or not, are sacramental marriages if the are between individuals who are free to marry (i.e not impeded), capable of entering into the married state, do not exclude the ends of the married state, intend to keep the marital vows and are not coerced. Sacramental marriages are incapable of dissolution.

Marriages between the baptised and non-baptised and marriages between the non-baptised are natural marriages. They can only by dissolved where the Pauline or Petrine privileges apply.

See, I said I might learn something.

quote:
quote:
It seems to me that if the Catholic Church took non-Catholics' marriages seriously -- whether you think that falls into the definition of "recognizing" them or not -- it wouldn't disregard them so easily, as it apparently has in Gingrich's case. (I'd argue furthermore that it doesn't even take American Catholics' marriages very seriously, or expect them to take their own marriages seriously, considering the way it hands out annulments.)
I couldn't agree more - although Id rather not comment on the process for Mr Gingrich as I have no idea of the grounds on which he was granted the decree of nullity.
I only seized on the example of Newt Gingrich because he is a public figure. Since we are in agreement on the general point, all I'll add is that since the Catholic Church in the US does not take the sacrament of marriage seriously, I think it's hypocritical of the American RCC bishops to try to prevent married people in the employ of Catholic-affiliated institutions from obtaining birth control from their health insurance companies.

quote:
quote:
But having only men making important decisions that affect the lives of over a billion people is obviously problematic.
Absent the divine constitution of the Catholic Church and the dominical guarantee of her teaching authority, that would be an undeniable statement.
A divine constitution and guarantee which of course you know I don't think exist. And you could argue that it doesn't matter whether I think they exist or not, because the truth of the claim does not depend on my opinion of it, and because I'm not Catholic.

But the Catholic bishops in the US are trying to affect the lives of a whole lot of non-Catholic people, and they are doing so under the guise of asserting their rights under the United States Constitution, in contravention of other people's rights. This means it really does matter that non-Catholics don't accept the authority of the church, that a body comprised entirely of men is trying to have a say in the personal details of the lives of a lot of non-Catholic women and not a few non-Catholic men.

quote:
quote:
Liberalism is unfortunately the best I can do most of the time. But since liberalism has given us such things as child labor laws, civil rights, women's suffrage, and the end of chattel slavery, I sleep okay at night.
Claiming these as wins for your own particular brand of liberalism has more than a hint of anachronism. Heigh Ho, you get to sleep at night. So that must be fine then.
Women's suffrage is of course a win for my brand of liberalism, and I'd say the others are as well, because what I'm arguing for is the right of all people to be regarded equally as free people.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So long as he was only shagging non-Catholic women without marrying them, there's no problem. We can ignore THAT kind of pre-marital sex. It's just young Protestant hijinks.

And, like I said to Justinian earlier in the thread, if the Catholic Church taught anything like that, you might have a point.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, with your extreme focus on grounds of invalidity (you little canon lawyer, you), you've missed the rather obvious point that the alternative is the man was having sexual relations outside of marriage for a very long period of time. Is THAT a good look for a moral values campaign?

Sorry for the double post but its late.

I wasn't seeking to comment on anything other than the validity or otherwise and I carry no brief for Mr Gingrich, who seems to me to be pretty much par for the course for a politician. However, if you want a comment on that, then I'd say that it seems to me that his behaviour was morally reprehensible, putatively a grave violation of the sixth commandment and a cause for scandal. Thank God, for his sake - but chiefly for mine - that the merciful living God has given us the Sacrament of Confession, in order to allow us the assurance of His forgiveness and the gift of His grace, without which I, for one, would be surely lost.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
He got the local branch to do it.

[Killing me] You're not even joking, are you?
Well no, I'm not. It gets into all sorts of very complicated questions about how the new governance arrangements in the church of England were considered on all sides, but the point is that a person with sufficient political power can go a long, long way to get the result they want.

Meanwhile, it's hardly the case that the Catholic Church (the 'real' one over in Italy) denied Henry on grounds of pure moral principle either, is it? There was the King of Spain standing over them in a very noticeable manner, also keen to get the 'right' ruling.

I just find it highly disingenuous to suggest that when dealing with a powerful figure, political interests don't come into a church ruling.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sine Nomine

Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66

 - Posted      Profile for Sine Nomine   Email Sine Nomine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Thank God, for his sake - but chiefly for mine - that the merciful living God has given us the Sacrament of Confession, in order to allow us the assurance of His forgiveness and the gift of His grace, without which I, for one, would be surely lost.

You're not planning on running for POTUS whilst taking a high moral tone, by any chance are you?

--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...

Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Definitely no cigar, orfeo.

[ 16. February 2012, 22:14: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
And since I'm busy learning things, no one ever answered this one:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What I've always wondered is why "artificial" birth control is such a bad thing when medical intervention to save life isn't. Shouldn't one be just as willing to accept God's will when God's will is that you die a miserable death as to accept God's will when God's will is that you get pregnant?

I also don't understand why a Catholic couple can't be regarded as being open to having children when all they want is to not have them right after they're married or to space them a bit. Someone's going to say "make me holy, Lord, just not yet," but I don't see why God would be offended at them wanting to build the strength of their marriage for a few years before introducing the unbelievably life-altering phenomenon that is a child.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I just find it highly disingenuous to suggest that when dealing with a powerful figure, political interests don't come into a church ruling.

Ted Kennedy's annulment comes to mind.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
He got the local branch to do it. The local branch gets to, yes? Or do you send all those petitions you get to Rome?

But Henry VIII couldn't get the local branch to do anything of the sort because it didn't have competent jurisdiction. Since his petition relied upon setting aside a prior dispensation granted by the Pope, jurisdiction belonged to the Pope and not to the local branch - hence all that legatine court business. When Henry VIII couldn't get the desired result, he separated the local branch from the Church and suborned it into giving him the appearance of the desired result - a power which that self-same local branch did not possess. What's worse, he attempted to marry Anne even before the local branch purported to give him the desired result. Gingrich - like him or loathe him - isn't I the same league and his case isn't remotely reminiscent of Henry VIII's.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Though in fairness, that annulment was eventually overturned. It took 9 years for them to do it, and it took them 2 more years for them to inform his wife. But Rome did overturn it.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
You're not planning on running for POTUS whilst taking a high moral tone, by any chance are you?

High moral tone? I dont think I could carry that one through until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in last November let alone this one. Thankfully, I fail under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution and can.285 of the Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Gingrich - like him or loathe him - isn't I the same league and his case isn't remotely reminiscent of Henry VIII's.

No shit. Disposing of four wives, two by behaving, really does put Henry VIII is a class by himself.

The doctrinaire feminist ideologue in me can't help but point out that if the society of the day would have accepted his first-born child as queen more readily, Henry would only have had lust as a motivator instead of also needing a son. And they still eventually got Mary as queen, not to mention her younger sister.

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
No shit. Disposing of four wives, two by behaving, really does put Henry VIII is a class by himself.

That is quite the funniest typo/auto-correct I have seen since my Church History Prof's name was auto-corrected in my licentiate thesis by my Amstrad 9512 (this was 1988) from Fr Fenlon to Fr Felon.

quote:
The doctrinaire feminist ideologue in me can't help but point out that if the society of the day would have accepted his first-born child as queen more readily, Henry would only have had lust as a motivator instead of also needing a son. And they still eventually got Mary as queen, not to mention her younger sister.
The reflexively conservative Tory in me can't help but rejoice that the UK's constitutional arrangements remain, in this regard at least, gloriously and discriminatorily unaltered.

[ 16. February 2012, 22:37: Message edited by: Trisagion ]

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So long as he was only shagging non-Catholic women without marrying them, there's no problem. We can ignore THAT kind of pre-marital sex. It's just young Protestant hijinks.

And, like I said to Justinian earlier in the thread, if the Catholic Church taught anything like that, you might have a point.
I was using irony. My point is that because the Catholic Church doesn't teach anything like that, spending time trying to prove that Marriage No.3 is really Marriage No.1 strikes me as a futile and meaningless exercise. It involves trading one form of wrong for another, arguably much bigger one purely for the sake of form. People would be much better off just accepting that Marriage No.3 is Marriage No.3 and deciding how to deal with that fact.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
No shit. Disposing of four wives, two by behaving, really does put Henry VIII is a class by himself.

That is quite the funniest typo/auto-correct I have seen since my Church History Prof's name was auto-corrected in my licentiate thesis by my Amstrad 9512 (this was 1988) from Fr Fenlon to Fr Felon.
Ha! I did not see that. Though I'm not sure it's as amusing as your citation of Canon Law (I had to look it up, of course, but did get a giggle when I did).
quote:
quote:
The doctrinaire feminist ideologue in me can't help but point out that if the society of the day would have accepted his first-born child as queen more readily, Henry would only have had lust as a motivator instead of also needing a son. And they still eventually got Mary as queen, not to mention her younger sister.
The reflexively conservative Tory in me can't help but rejoice that the UK's constitutional arrangements remain, in this regard at least, gloriously and discriminatorily unaltered.
Perhaps you are being ironic. I'm American, I wouldn't know. If William's first child is a girl, she will be queen. I read it in the Telegraph, so it must be true.

[ 16. February 2012, 22:45: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
People would be much better off just accepting that Marriage No.3 is Marriage No.3 and deciding how to deal with that fact.

Except that, if Marriage No. 1 wasn't a marriage because it simply wasn't valid, it would be unjust to bind the parties with the sacramental obligations that would have flowed from that marriage had it been valid. Put very, very simply: why should a party to an invalid marriage be obliged to behave as if it had been valid?

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
And again, because the American RCC hands out annulments like candy when compared to the practice of the rest of the church, we simply don't believe them when they say his first two marriages weren't valid by their own criteria. They might actually be truthful in this particular case, but they have undermined their own moral authority too thoroughly to be believed in general on this kind of thing.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Ha! I did not see that. Though I'm not sure it's as amusing as your citation of Canon Law (I had to look it up, of course, but did get a giggle when I did).

[Big Grin] But see section 4 of the canon.

quote:
Perhaps you are being ironic. I'm American, I wouldn't know. If William's first child is a girl, she will be queen. I read it in the Telegraph, so it must be true.
The key line in The Torygraph article is the one that goes "Mr Cameron intends to introduce the legislation in the next session of Parliament." It hasn't happened yet. [Cool]

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Geneviève

Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098

 - Posted      Profile for Geneviève   Email Geneviève   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
an example of the American RC church on marriage/adultery/annulments. A friend of mine who lived in a northeast state was married for 20+ years, had two children and grandchildren (a good RC marriage). After this her husband got pretty crazy, sometimes violent and left her to live with another woman. Much nastiness. My friend decided to get a divorce, rather than an annulment, because in her eyes they had been married (had been legally competent, etc. when they entered the marriage). She did not want to declare her children bastards, if you will, in the ordinary person's understanding.
So she did. But here's the rub. She was employed by the RC diocese. She was forced to get an annulment if she wanted to keep her job, which she desparately needed. So she had to go through all the expense, the hassle, the lies, to declare that she had never been sacramentally married for 20+ years. What horseshit. She hated it.

--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)

Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And again, because the American RCC hands out annulments like candy when compared to the practice of the rest of the church, we simply don't believe them when they say his first two marriages weren't valid by their own criteria. They might actually be truthful in this particular case, but they have undermined their own moral authority too thoroughly to be believed in general on this kind of thing.

An issue of long-standing not lost on those at
the highest level.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Sine, I don't know what else to say.

Yes, prima facie, he was an adulterer in that he was apparently married to one woman whilst having sex with another. That's a fair assumption. Whether he was actually married to the first (or second, or third...) woman is something which Catholics have specific criteria for deciding for themselves. But cheating on anyone putatively one's wife is wrong.

Will that do?

Well, I'm sure it will be a great comfort to his putative wife and family (whoever they happen to be at the time).

--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geneviève:
an example of the American RC church on marriage/adultery/annulments. A friend of mine who lived in a northeast state was married for 20+ years, had two children and grandchildren (a good RC marriage). After this her husband got pretty crazy, sometimes violent and left her to live with another woman. Much nastiness. My friend decided to get a divorce, rather than an annulment, because in her eyes they had been married (had been legally competent, etc. when they entered the marriage). She did not want to declare her children bastards, if you will, in the ordinary person's understanding.
So she did. But here's the rub. She was employed by the RC diocese. She was forced to get an annulment if she wanted to keep her job, which she desparately needed. So she had to go through all the expense, the hassle, the lies, to declare that she had never been sacramentally married for 20+ years. What horseshit. She hated it.

She wouldn't have needed a declaration of nullity to keep her job, unless she proposed to remarry. Since she believed she was already married what made your friend think she was free to marry someone else. Did she believe it is possible to be married to more than one person at the same time?

Secondly, what expense?

Third, so this friend of yours, for whom we are supposed to feel sorry, is prepared to lie under oath in order to obtain something to which she knew she wasn't entitled.

Fourth, any Tribunal in any diocese in America could have told her how to obtain a canonical separation (cans 1151 to 1155).

Either your friend was scandalously lacking in integrity or you know or have given us something short of the full picture. I suspect either the latter to be most likely.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Geneviève

Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098

 - Posted      Profile for Geneviève   Email Geneviève   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yup, of course my friend was scandously lacking in integrity! And I'm likely giving you less than the whole picture, but it's the picture I know.
More seriously, Trisagion, I never thought of you as an ass, but after your post I do. My friend, scandalously lacking in integrity though she was, was devastated by the whole process.

[ 16. February 2012, 23:24: Message edited by: Geneviève ]

--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)

Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
You might want to consider, too, that not every employing individual/group in a church actually FOLLOWS that church's teaching and/or policies in employment matters. It's entirely possible that a pompous supervising jackass or three might have demanded such a thing of her, even though the RC church itself would not.

[ 16. February 2012, 23:28: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You might want to consider, too, that not every employing individual/group in a church actually FOLLOWS that church's teaching and/or policies in employment matters. It's entirely possible that a pompous supervising jackass or three might have demanded such a thing of her, even though the RC church itself would not.

I doubt that very, very much. The climate of litigation within which US dioceses have to operate, especially in areas of employment, make the chances of anyone in any authority making the kind of threat, implicit or explicit, suggested by Genevieve's post vanishingly small.

Frankly, I don't care a tinker's dam whether you think my post was pompous, Genevieve. If you dont want your anecdotes subjected to scrutiny, youve come to the wrong board. I think your example is so hopelessly incomplete as to be entirely worthless. Either you don't know or aren't telling us the whole story. If the former then you're a jackass for attempting to use the example to make a point: if the latter, clearly a lack of integrity is far from uncommon in the circles within which you move.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
People would be much better off just accepting that Marriage No.3 is Marriage No.3 and deciding how to deal with that fact.

Except that, if Marriage No. 1 wasn't a marriage because it simply wasn't valid, it would be unjust to bind the parties with the sacramental obligations that would have flowed from that marriage had it been valid. Put very, very simply: why should a party to an invalid marriage be obliged to behave as if it had been valid?
Because absolutely everybody behaved for many many years as if it WAS valid. Are you familiar with the concept of estoppel?

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The issue isn't that Genevieve's story doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but that you refuse to believe it. I am fully willing to believe that it shouldn't be true by Catholic law, but apparently it happened. I, for one, find it much easier to believe that some Catholic boss sinned than that Genevieve made that story up out of whole cloth just for the purpose of this thread. YMMV

I think what really chaps my ass about the Catholic position on this is that they/you all are outraged that the federal government wants to control their behavior, but they want to control my* behavior. Seems fair enough to me.

*I am a non-Catholic who gets her health insurance through her husband who works at a Catholic organization

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
If William's first child is a girl, she will be queen. I read it in the Telegraph, so it must be true.

The key line in The Torygraph article is the one that goes "Mr Cameron intends to introduce the legislation in the next session of Parliament." It hasn't happened yet. [Cool]
He went through the business of getting the explicit consent of the other realms and territories. Canada/Australia/New Zealand et al are not likely to be pleased with him, in the least, if -- having done this -- he now reneges on something they all support. Cameron -- and the UK -- are going to look more than slightly out of touch with the modern world if they are the only ones standing in the way of this reform, especially as he/it is the one who brought it up in the first place.

John

[ 17. February 2012, 00:48: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools