 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Bill3000
|
 |
of Soloralism
Jul 1999
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, my point is this. If the only reason you go to a church is because you have always gone, then perhaps it's better for you to leave.
I don't see any reason behind remaining a member of a church, if you cannot accept the moral teachings of that church.
I think there are plenty of Catholics, Americans and Canadians who love the church because of their firm stance, and they are willing to serve with their whole heart. |
If you think North American Catholics are Catholic because they wholeheartedly believe in the church's firm stance, think again. We pretty much, practically are a seperate religion from Catholicism proper, anyway. As someone said on another board, "Catholic Lite." Get all that juicy religion with only half the dogma!
As I had said, if the North American Caltholics who believed, there would pretty much be no catholics in North America. Not plenty, but none; look at the previous poll; 2/3rds said that they would not follow the pope's ideology. (And actually American Catholics are more liberal on abortion issues than Protastants.) Thus, not "plenty."
And speaking of which, I never was spiritually Catholic in the first place; I just never bothered to actually offically leave.  The last time I went to church was when my parents forced me to. I have been agnostic/semi-spiritual all my life and never really believed in christianty in the first place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill3000
If you think North American Catholics are Catholic because they wholeheartedly believe in the church's firm stance, think again. We pretty much, practically are a seperate religion from Catholicism proper, anyway. As someone said on another board, "Catholic Lite." Get all that juicy religion with only half the dogma!
As I had said, if the North American Caltholics who believed, there would pretty much be no catholics in North America. Not plenty, but none; look at the previous poll; 2/3rds said that they would not follow the pope's ideology. (And actually American Catholics are more liberal on abortion issues than Protastants.) Thus, not "plenty."
And speaking of which, I never was spiritually Catholic in the first place; I just never bothered to actually offically leave. The last time I went to church was when my parents forced me to. I have been agnostic/semi-spiritual all my life and never really believed in christianty in the first place. |
I donīt think that itīs much different from the german catholics.
Most of the catholics here donīt try too hard to follow all of the Vaticans rules, especially concerning contraception.
There was also strong restistance as JP II decided to get the catholic church out of abortion information centers (where women wanting to undergo an abortion could, after a consultation, get the needed certificate that they underwent a consultation concerning their abortion).
Sadly the struggle ended with a vistory for the vatican, as all the information centers were closed (despite strong resistance even from german bishops).
I have no doubt that the number of catholics will drop considerably if the vatican threatens to punish all breaking of rules harshly, especially if it is about contraception or sex before marriage.
Well, I have no doubt that it isnīt much different for most of the industrialized nations. People who try to follow all the teachings of the vatican without exceptions will rather be found in South america or Africa than in the modern western countries.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:25
|
|
As far as heresy goes, you are a heretic if you violate a defined dogma of the Church. A dogma is a core teaching of the Church above a normal doctrine which it is necessary to believe in order to remain a Catholic.
The clearest example for which infallibility can be defined is through extraordinary magisterium, or an ex cathedra statement by the pope. This has only been done in two places and requires a specific decleration that this is being done.
Another way a dogmatic statement is defines is if it done by a council of the church. So anything that has been declared by a council you are required to believe to remain a member of the Catholic Church.
Probably the most common way in which dogma is defined, but the most confusing to tell when it applies, is through ordinary magisterium. Ordinary magisterium is something that would be a Traditional teaching of the Church on Faith and Morals that the whole Church has consistently taught and believed, and a teaching that is for all time and all places. It can be unclear exactly what falls under this at what qualifies under this, and doctrine can develop so something that is the traditional interpretation of a teaching can change. For instance, it is a traditional teaching of the Church that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church(extra ecclesia nulla salus). However, while this was originally thought to mean no non-members of the Church can be saved, it is now believed that people who live a life of virtue can be members of the church without knowing it or without having explicit membership. So it is kind of hard to get some for heresy for disagreeing with this.
Of the sexual issues, sex outside of marriage has been condemned by a council(s), I think it was the Council of Orange that did this. As homosexual sex always falls outside of marriage(or at least those marriages recognized as valid by the church), that would fall under this. Masturbation and Abortion would both dogmatic under ordinary magisterium, if they are. Masturbation has been taught as gravely sinful consistently, however I am not aware of any specific dogmatic delcaration by a council this issue. With regard to abortion, while I don't think that is strictly dogmatic, the Church has attached through a canon law an order that procuring an abortion or assisting one leads to excommunication.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
I agree. The church should've excommunicated Kerry for good. But You can't say it was not completely ineffective - perhaps Kerry lost some votes due to it.
After all, He did lose. |
Why single out Americans? IIRC virtually every predominantly Catholic nation in Europe legalized abortion before the US did? Why doesn't the Papacy pick on some pro-choice Catholic politicians closer to home? Too chicken?
The net effect of the interference with American politics by the RCC will be fewer Catholic politicians. Currently catholics may be nearly one quarter of the US population, but they're no where near one quarter of its politicians.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
. Currently catholics may be nearly one quarter of the US population, but they're no where near one quarter of its politicians. |
 Maybe its growing up in NYC, but I thought they were pretty adequately represented. Maybe not on the national tickets, but at just about every level below that.
national tickets, Dem.
1972 Shriver for VP, Catholic.
1984 Ferraro for VP, Catholic
2004 Kerry for Pres, Catholic
Unfortunately the only times in recent years the Dems have WON (1976, 1992, 1996) was with two Protestants on the ticket.
Come to think of it they lost in 1988 (Dukakis for Pres, Greek Orthodox) and 2000 (Joe Leiberman for VP, Jewish)
So non-Protestants get nominated, just havent won since JFK. (GOP has never nominated a non-Protestant on the national ticket, have they?)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Maybe its growing up in NYC, but I thought they were pretty adequately represented. Maybe not on the national tickets, but at just about every level below that.
national tickets, Dem.
1972 Shriver for VP, Catholic.
1984 Ferraro for VP, Catholic
2004 Kerry for Pres, Catholic
Unfortunately the only times in recent years the Dems have WON (1976, 1992, 1996) was with two Protestants on the ticket.
Come to think of it they lost in 1988 (Dukakis for Pres, Greek Orthodox) and 2000 (Joe Leiberman for VP, Jewish)
So non-Protestants get nominated, just havent won since JFK. (GOP has never nominated a non-Protestant on the national ticket, have they?) |
Now you're beginning to understand. BTW, whatyever happened to JFK?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:25
|
|
Religious Affiliation of U.S. Presidents
code:
Denomination Number of
Presidents Percent of
Presidents Percent of
Current
U.S. Pop. Ratio % of Pres.
to % of Pop.
Episcopalian 11 26.20% 1.7% 15.4
Presbyterian 9 21% 2.8% 5.1
Methodist 4 9.5% 8.0% 1.5
Baptist 4 9.5% 18.0% 0.5
Unitarian 4 9.50% 0.2% 47.5
Disciples of Christ 3 7.10% 0.4% 18.7
Dutch Reformed 2 4.80% 0.1% 48.0
Quaker 2 4.80% 0.7% 6.9
Catholic 1 2.40% 26.0% 0.1
Congregationalist/
United Church of Christ 1 2.40% 0.6% 4.0
Keep in mind that in the table above, the % of the U.S. population for religious groups are current figures. Religious groups have had much different proportions at various time in U.S. history.
One of the most over-represented religious groups among U.S. presidents is Unitarianism. Despite merging with Universalism in the 1960s, the combined proportion of Unitarian Universalists in the U.S. population is just 0.2% of the population (one in every 500 Americans). Yet there have been 4 Unitarian presidents.
Another over-represented religious group among U.S. presidents is Dutch Reformed, by virtue of having two U.S. presidents, yet having only a small number of people left in the country who identify themselves as Reformed. The contemporary heir to the Dutch Reformed churches is the "Reformed Church in America," which has about 300,000 members in the U.S. and Canada. (Alternatively, one might count only a single president as Dutch Reformed, if Theodore Roosevelt is counted as an Episcopalian -- sources differ on this subject. Even only one Dutch Reformed president would constitute statistical over-representation.)
After that, Disciples of Christ, Episcopalians, and Quakers have also had representation in the White House far outstripping their proportion of the U.S. population.
On the other end of the scale, the most under-represented religious group is Catholicism, which has had only one U.S. president (John F. Kennedy), despite making up 26% of the current U.S. population. Also under-represented are Baptists, whose proportion of the U.S. population (18%) is twice their proportion of U.S. presidents (9.5%).
Major religious groups in the U.S. which have never had a U.S. president include: Lutherans (about 5% of the U.S. population); Jews (about 2% of the U.S. population); Latter-day Saints (2%); Pentecostals (about 1.8 %); Muslims (approx. 1 to 1.5%); Eastern Orthodox (approx. 1%); and Churches of Christ (1%).
http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Religious Affiliation of U.S. Presidents
code:
Denomination Number of
Presidents Percent of
Presidents Percent of
Current
U.S. Pop. Ratio % of Pres.
to % of Pop.
Episcopalian 11 26.20% 1.7% 15.4
Presbyterian 9 21% 2.8% 5.1
Methodist 4 9.5% 8.0% 1.5
Baptist 4 9.5% 18.0% 0.5
Unitarian 4 9.50% 0.2% 47.5
Disciples of Christ 3 7.10% 0.4% 18.7
Dutch Reformed 2 4.80% 0.1% 48.0
Quaker 2 4.80% 0.7% 6.9
Catholic 1 2.40% 26.0% 0.1
Congregationalist/
United Church of Christ 1 2.40% 0.6% 4.0
Keep in mind that in the table above, the % of the U.S. population for religious groups are current figures. Religious groups have had much different proportions at various time in U.S. history.
One of the most over-represented religious groups among U.S. presidents is Unitarianism. Despite merging with Universalism in the 1960s, the combined proportion of Unitarian Universalists in the U.S. population is just 0.2% of the population (one in every 500 Americans). Yet there have been 4 Unitarian presidents.
Another over-represented religious group among U.S. presidents is Dutch Reformed, by virtue of having two U.S. presidents, yet having only a small number of people left in the country who identify themselves as Reformed. The contemporary heir to the Dutch Reformed churches is the "Reformed Church in America," which has about 300,000 members in the U.S. and Canada. (Alternatively, one might count only a single president as Dutch Reformed, if Theodore Roosevelt is counted as an Episcopalian -- sources differ on this subject. Even only one Dutch Reformed president would constitute statistical over-representation.)
After that, Disciples of Christ, Episcopalians, and Quakers have also had representation in the White House far outstripping their proportion of the U.S. population.
On the other end of the scale, the most under-represented religious group is Catholicism, which has had only one U.S. president (John F. Kennedy), despite making up 26% of the current U.S. population. Also under-represented are Baptists, whose proportion of the U.S. population (18%) is twice their proportion of U.S. presidents (9.5%).
Major religious groups in the U.S. which have never had a U.S. president include: Lutherans (about 5% of the U.S. population); Jews (about 2% of the U.S. population); Latter-day Saints (2%); Pentecostals (about 1.8 %); Muslims (approx. 1 to 1.5%); Eastern Orthodox (approx. 1%); and Churches of Christ (1%).
http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html |
Which presidents were Unitarians? If they include Thomas Jefferson and the old deists they're wrong as many of them, like Jefferson, didn't believe in organized religion at all.
Oh, and Teddy Roosevelt was very much an Episcopalian. He had a regular pew at Trinity Church in NYC. It's marked by a placard. He was a vocal supporter of the Washington National Cathedral building program.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-04-2005 08:46
Attachment: 
|
