Ask A Catholic II

[GhostWriter16]

I was referring to a possible relationship between the Pope and his secretary, that's not heresy, but you never know how he'd take it.

Pope Benedict is now quickly going down the Bill Clinton path

I did not have sex with that woman

However moving away from unsubstantiated and quite likely fallacious rumourmongering,

So not much like the Clinton case

oh and Civ-King, I am watching you, very, very closely.

Umm... You're in Australia. He's in Califorrnia.

That said, neither of you are being very smart. If you want to kill someone in America, you buy a gun

Now, for some real questions:

What was the purpose of the Crusades, and were they justifiable?

What was the purpose of the Inquisition? I know they excommunicated people, but I also know that they tortured Protestants to get them to recant, and of course the latter function has been discontinued. Can I assume that most Catholics today condemn these tortorous actions?

Why does the Vatican condemn Capital Punishment (I know the moral opposition isn't dogmatic, but still) when both Old and New Testaments clearly allow it?

Are pro-choice Catholics (Note, pro-legal choice, not pro-moral choice) excommunicated for heresy?

 

[civ_king]

Im afraid a sword isn't my style. I would much rather use an axe...

-

However moving away from unsubstantiated and quite likely fallacious rumourmongering, he is correct when he says that what is the sin is the homosexual act ie sodomy, not having the inclination itself. Although the homosexual inclination is in itself an intrinsically disordered desire in that homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law it is not in and of itself sinful.

oh and Civ-King, I am watching you, very, very closely.

I had a feeling about that...

true, it's unsubstantiated and quite likely fallacious rumourmongering, but have you seen Monsignor Georg Gaeweins?

Pretty handsome. It's not that common for someone in the Vatican to make girls swoon, and guys too, his good looks even sparked a line of designer clothes.

So, by homosexual inclination are you referring to inclination for homosexual sex, inclination for homosexual love (loving someone of the same gender), both or something else.

Now how about them heterosexual urges, are heterosexual urges to engage in intercourse with someone who isn't your spouse intrinsically disordered?

How kinky

Pope Benedict is now quickly going down the Bill Clinton path

I did not have sex with that woman

So not much like the Clinton case

Umm... You're in Australia. He's in Califorrnia.

That said, neither of you are being very smart. If you want to kill someone in America, you buy a gun

Now, for some real questions:

What was the purpose of the Crusades, and were they justifiable?

What was the purpose of the Inquisition? I know they excommunicated people, but I also know that they tortured Protestants to get them to recant, and of course the latter function has been discontinued. Can I assume that most Catholics today condemn these tortorous actions?

Why does the Vatican condemn Capital Punishment (I know the moral opposition isn't dogmatic, but still) when both Old and New Testaments clearly allow it?

Are pro-choice Catholics (Note, pro-legal choice, not pro-moral choice) excommunicated for heresy?

No he's not, not at all. If the rumor was actually true it doesn't actually imply an sex between either. It's like a platonic love on steroids with homoaffectiveness throw in (which doesn't mean one is gay either).

Sorry, in the Catholic Church we find only wusses use guns, real men use old school weapons like a flair or a sword or an axe (my favorite is the long sword).

Which Crusades? Baltic? Iberian? Albigensian? Outremer? Other-ones-I'm-not-remembering-ATM?

There was no unified Inquisition, which one do you want to talk about?

The allowances for Capital Punishment were for the time and place, when they were prescribed how easy would prison have been? How easy is life long prison now?

I do believe supporting abortion is an ipso facto excommunication. Now, there are exceptions such as ectopic abortions which aren't actually exceptions to the moral justification for opposition. In normal abortion the primary goal is to kill the unborn, in an ectopic abortion killing the unborn is an unwanted secondary effect (oh and to continue it would kill both of them BTW).

 

[GhostWriter16]

No he's not, not at all. If the rumor was actually true it doesn't actually imply an sex between either. It's like a platonic love on steroids with homoaffectiveness throw in (which doesn't mean one is gay either).

Well, Clinton claimed he didn't either

That said, t'was a joke.

Sorry, in the Catholic Church we find only wusses use guns, real men use old school weapons like a flair or a sword or an axe (my favorite is the long sword).

2nd amendment and our Founding Fathers were not wusses! Should we just condemn "Manly" Catholics as un-American?

Which Crusades? Baltic? Iberian? Albigensian? Outremer? Other-ones-I'm-not-remembering-ATM?

The ones where they attacked the Holy Land since it was controlled by Muslims.

There was no unified Inquisition, which one do you want to talk about?

Let's go with the Spanish Inquisition since its the most well known.

The allowances for Capital Punishment were for the time and place, when they were prescribed how easy would prison have been? How easy is life long prison now?

So is the Church eventually going to dogmatically state that executions are wrong, since it is a moral issue? Or is it something that will continue to be left up to the opinion of the indivudal Catholic?

No he's not, not at all. If the rumor was actually true it doesn't actually imply an sex between either. It's like a platonic love on steroids with homoaffectiveness throw in (which doesn't mean one is gay either).

Sorry, in the Catholic Church we find only wusses use guns, real men use old school weapons like a flair or a sword or an axe (my favorite is the long sword).

Which Crusades? Baltic? Iberian? Albigensian? Outremer? Other-ones-I'm-not-remembering-ATM?

There was no unified Inquisition, which one do you want to talk about?

The allowances for Capital Punishment were for the time and place, when they were prescribed how easy would prison have been? How easy is life long prison now?

I do believe supporting abortion is an ipso facto excommunication. Now, there are exceptions such as ectopic abortions which aren't actually exceptions to the moral justification for opposition. In normal abortion the primary goal is to kill the unborn, in an ectopic abortion killing the unborn is an unwanted secondary effect (oh and to continue it would kill both of them BTW).

What is Ipso Facto again?

 

[civ_king]

Well, Clinton claimed he didn't either

That said, t'was a joke.

2nd amendment and our Founding Fathers were not wusses! Should we just condemn "Manly" Catholics as un-American?

The ones where they attacked the Holy Land since it was controlled by Muslims.

Let's go with the Spanish Inquisition since its the most well known.

So is the Church eventually going to dogmatically state that executions are wrong, since it is a moral issue? Or is it something that will continue to be left up to the opinion of the indivudal Catholic?

No he's not, not at all. If the rumor was actually true it doesn't actually imply an sex between either. It's like a platonic love on steroids with homoaffectiveness throw in (which doesn't mean one is gay either).

Sorry, in the Catholic Church we find only wusses use guns, real men use old school weapons like a flair or a sword or an axe (my favorite is the long sword).

Which Crusades? Baltic? Iberian? Albigensian? Outremer? Other-ones-I'm-not-remembering-ATM?

There was no unified Inquisition, which one do you want to talk about?

The allowances for Capital Punishment were for the time and place, when they were prescribed how easy would prison have been? How easy is life long prison now?



What is Ipso Facto again?

No one is suggesting a sexual relationship

Guns aren't visceral enough. That said guns are good for hunting.

That's not why we attacked, notice that the was hundreds of years between Muslims conquering Jerusalem and the Crusades. The reason was that pilgrims were no longer safe, the Seljuks brought it one themselves.

Unlike what people think the inquisitions in general weren't very trigger happy with torture or death. Ignoring the deaths due to Torquemada and the yearly average is pretty low. The Spanish Inquisition was hijacked by the Spanish Crown, it was no buenos.

Unlikely, but as execution becomes less and less necessary the Church is going to get more vocal about execution being unnecessary.

I'm talking about from the people's perspective. They couldn't support people being in prison all life. Now we can.

by that very fact/act

 

[timtofly]

No one is suggesting a sexual relationship

Guns aren't visceral enough. That said guns are good for hunting.

That's not why we attacked, notice that the was hundreds of years between Muslims conquering Jerusalem and the Crusades. The reason was that pilgrims were no longer safe, the Seljuks brought it one themselves.

Unlike what people think the inquisitions in general weren't very trigger happy with torture or death. Ignoring the deaths due to Torquemada and the yearly average is pretty low. The Spanish Inquisition was hijacked by the Spanish Crown, it was no buenos.

Unlikely, but as execution becomes less and less necessary the Church is going to get more vocal about execution being unnecessary.

I'm talking about from the people's perspective. They couldn't support people being in prison all life. Now we can.
by that very fact/act

Actually they could. Life was shorter on average and if one is not fed well, they die sooner. Nowdays support does drain money and does cause national debt. Would that not be the same, just less humane? Seems to me killing is more merciful on all accounts. Of course keeping one drugged up all the time might work also?

 

[civ_king]

Actually they could. Life was shorter on average and if one is not fed well, they die sooner. Nowdays support does drain money and does cause national debt. Would that not be the same, just less humane? Seems to me killing is more merciful on all accounts. Of course keeping one drugged up all the time might work also?

This is the Ask A Catholic thread, what's the question? Drugging people isn't ethical.

 

[timtofly]

This is the Ask A Catholic thread, what's the question? Drugging people isn't ethical.

Is it more ethical than killing them? Is it ethical leaving them un-remorseful and locked up constantantly thinking about what they did?

 

[civ_king]

Is it more ethical than killing them? Is it ethical leaving them un-remorseful and locked up constantantly thinking about what they did?

Drugging them or killing them sounds like a false dichotomy. Letting them live gives them a chance to repent. Besides it is cheaper than death row and a bit lower chance of killing innocent people.

 

[Takhisis]

That's not why we attacked, notice that the was hundreds of years between Muslims conquering Jerusalem and the Crusades. The reason was that pilgrims were no longer safe, the Seljuks brought it one themselves.

Given that Jesus neither mandated pilgrimages to anywhere nor established any holy sites, one wonders… why were these pilgrimages so needed other than as an excuse for bloodlust, plunder and territorial expansion? The mask of piety fell in the very First Crusade when the Crusaders rejoiced in the blood of their enemies etc. etc. and the Fourth proved that it was all about the money.

Unlike what people think the inquisitions in general weren't very trigger happy with torture or death. Ignoring the deaths due to Torquemada and the yearly average is pretty low. The Spanish Inquisition was hijacked by the Spanish Crown, it was no buenos.

And that's the reason why it was called the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[NBAfan]

Given that Jesus neither mandated pilgrimages to anywhere nor established any holy sites, one wonders… why were these pilgrimages so needed other than as an excuse for bloodlust, plunder and territorial expansion? The mask of piety fell in the very First Crusade when the Crusaders rejoiced in the blood of their enemies etc. etc. and the Fourth proved that it was all about the money.

The 1st Crusade was obviously a military reaction to Islamic conquest.

 

[Takhisis]

An Islamic conquest that had happened centuries before… if it had been intended that the Byzantines recover control of Palestine then it clearly failed

 

[civ_king]

Given that Jesus neither mandated pilgrimages to anywhere nor established any holy sites, one wonders… why were these pilgrimages so needed other than as an excuse for bloodlust, plunder and territorial expansion? The mask of piety fell in the very First Crusade when the Crusaders rejoiced in the blood of their enemies etc. etc. and the Fourth proved that it was all about the money.

And that's the reason why it was called the Spanish Inquisition.

Pilgrimages had been going on for centuries before the conquest of Jerusalem let alone the First Crusade.

bloodlust? When cities resisted armies and the cities were captured after a long siege it wasn't uncommon for there to be a lot of slaughtering to happen. The Crusades were very unprofitable and most of the land was controlled by people who pledged to protect pilgrims.

I'd like to point out that the Pope warned the Crusaders that if they attacked Constantinople they would all be excommunicated, the leaders didn't pass this down. When the attack it, you guessed it the Pope excommunicated them all.

The 1st Crusade was obviously a military reaction to Islamic conquest.

notice the gap between conquest of Jerusalem and the First Crusade. The Arabs who conquered Jerusalem were just that, conquerors In fact there were good relations between Christians and Arabs, a key part of that was Arabs protecting pilgrims..

 

[Ajidica]

The 1st Crusade was obviously a military reaction to Islamic conquest.

Balderdash. The impetus for the First Crusade had been the Byzantine Emperor Alexius appealing to the Pope for military aid. The Papacy and the Empire has worked together on various projects and breifly were allied in their failed attempt to eject the Normans from Italy. The pope at the time, Gregory, was really into the whole idea of Papal Supremacy over the kings of Europe to keep him safe on the throne and to add to the majesty of the office which had transitioned into an honorary position transfered between various patricians. Gregory was unable to do anything. When his sucessor, Urban II came to power, he decided to build on Gregory's work by proclaiming a holy war which would in theory cement the concept of Papal Temporal Supremacy and get all of the mercenary knights who were causing havok out of Europe. Helping the Byzantine Empire was an after thought.
The Byzantine Emperor was not a huge fan of the crusade, both the Peoples Crusade (which got itself massacred a few miles inland) and the 1st Crusade (which was comprised mainly of Normans who had recently fought a massive war with the Byzantine Emperor). Alexius' cooperation with the Crusaders did result in the Byzantines taking a few fortresses back, but it was mainly a "lets hope that the Crusaders don't decide to enjoy our lands a little too much".
So yeah, the 1st Crusade has no direct, or even closely indirect response to the expansion of the Four Righteous Caliphs.

You can make the mediocre argument that the First Crusade was a response to the near collapse of Byzantine authority in Anatolia, but not that it was a response to the expasion of the Four Righteous Caliphs.



Anyhow, question time! Yesterday I went to a Latin Mass, so it was about as close as I can come to a pre-Vatican 2 mass without actualy being before Vatican 2. When I went up for Communion they had me kneel in front of a marble railing where the priest came by and put the host into my mouth. Is there any reason they have the kneeling and everying? I had been to another very traditional Catholic Church where they put the host in my mouth, but they didn't do the kneeling.
Also, the priests were wearing these square looking black hats with a knob in middle. I had never seen anything like that before. What are they?

 

[Jehoshua]

notice the gap between conquest of Jerusalem and the First Crusade. The Arabs who conquered Jerusalem were just that, conquerors In fact there were good relations between Christians and Arabs, a key part of that was Arabs protecting pilgrims..

I would beggar to disagree, it was indeed a reaction to muslim aggression, not just in the holy land but against christendom generally. Byzantium was under siege and had requested aid, Iberia was almost conquered and Rome previously had even been sacked by arab armies. It was overdue that christendom would respond to this.

Indeed the reconquista began at around the same time, and they were even told not to go to jerusalem as the reconquista was just as important as reclaiming hte holy land (incidentally the Church of the Holy Sepulchre had recently been destroyed by Fatimids). The reconquista was just as much a crusade as the ones in the middle east, we simply don;t call it as such.

Anyhow, question time! Yesterday I went to a Latin Mass, so it was about as close as I can come to a pre-Vatican 2 mass without actualy being before Vatican 2. When I went up for Communion they had me kneel in front of a marble railing where the priest came by and put the host into my mouth. Is there any reason they have the kneeling and everying? I had been to another very traditional Catholic Church where they put the host in my mouth, but they didn't do the kneeling.
Also, the priests were wearing these square looking black hats with a knob in middle. I had never seen anything like that before. What are they?

When one is going up to communion one is recieving Christ, who is really present under the form of the Eucharist. Thus it is normative to kneel in reverence before the Lord when recieving him in the Eucharist. As cardinal Arinze once said, if you are going before God, why don't you kneel, why don;t you crawl?

Indeed kneeling is even normative in the ordinary form. Under canon law kneeling while recieving on the tongue is the normative mode of reception in the universal church, however a states bishop conference can request an indult to do so otherwise. In the united states the bishops requested and were granted an indult to permit reception on the hand, however in much of the rest of the world this is not the case. Standing and recieving on the tongue is also a valid method.

As to the hat, it is called a biretta and is a liturgical article.

 

[Ajidica]

I would beggar to disagree, it was indeed a reaction to muslim aggression, not just in the holy land but against christendom generally.

Not really. Byzantium had its own problems, but that was due to aristocratic feuding rather then any concerted Muslim attack. The Byzantines only lost control of Anatolia to the Turkomen/Seljuks because they managed to alienate their Norman mercenaries and were getting attacked by the Siculo-Normans in the west. Sicily had pretty much been stabalized with little going on there besides pirates, and in Iberia the northern kingdoms were starting to get involved in the small scale warfare in the taifa states. The days of the "Islamic Conquest Menace" were long gone. If anything, during the time of the Crusades the Arab world was collapsing under the influence of the Turks.

Byzantium was under siege and had requested aid,

Byzantium was not 'under siege'. They were suffering a devestating round of civil wars because of craptastic emperors and invasion by the Christian Normans in the west. They had requested aid yes, but that was on a minor scale and had been used before, as I mention above when the Papacy and the Empire tried uncessfuly to kick the Normans out of Sicily.

Iberia was almost conquered

And they were back fighting in the free-for-all in the taifa states.

and Rome previously had even been sacked by arab armies.

Muslim pirates being able to sack Rome because of Italian incompetance is not "sacked by Arab armies".

Indeed the reconquista began at around the same time, and they were even told not to go to jerusalem as the reconquista was just as important as reclaiming hte holy land (incidentally the Church of the Holy Sepulchre had recently been destroyed by Fatimids).

I would just like to point out the Caliph that destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was insane and his sucessor helped rebuilt it. Insane rulers do insane things.

 

[civ_king]

I would beggar to disagree, it was indeed a reaction to Muslim aggression, not just in the holy land but against Christendom generally. Byzantium was under siege and had requested aid, Iberia was almost conquered and Rome previously had even been sacked by Arab armies. It was overdue that Christendom would respond to this.

Indeed the Reconquista began at around the same time, and they were even told not to go to Jerusalem as the Reconquista was just as important as reclaiming the holy land (incidentally the Church of the Holy Sepulchre had recently been destroyed by Fatimids). The Reconquista was just as much a crusade as the ones in the middle east, we simply don;t call it as such.



When one is going up to communion one is receiving Christ, who is really present in the Eucharist. Thus it is normative to kneel in reverence before the Lord when receiving him in the Eucharist. As cardinal Arinze once said, if you are going before God, why don't you kneel, why don;t you crawl?

Indeed kneeling is even normative in the ordinary form. Under canon law kneeling while receiving on the tongue is the normative mode of reception in the universal church, however a states bishop conference can request an indult to do so otherwise. In the united states the bishops requested and were granted an indult to permit reception on the hand, however in much of the rest of the world this is not the case. Standing and receiving on the tongue is also a valid method.

As to the hat, it is called a biretta and is a liturgical article.

Relations were in fact good early on, but it changed, the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre was a catalyst of fury. Later it became a religious conflict, Seljuk hordes were slaughtering Christians for being Christians in Anatolia, the Emperor asked for help (you know stuff is bad when an Emperor would ask a Pope for help). It became a religious war when the Muslims made it a religious war.

I actually meant the Reconquista by Iberian Crusade, Christian Iberia was hemmed into a little corner, that was a catalyst for the Reconquista.

Not only is Christ really present in the Eucharist he is the Eucharist! Kneeling is good, kneeling is proper, the only exceptions should be people who can't kneel.

Proper nouns my friend deserve to be capitalised. Likewise i before e except c (unless the i was originally a y)

 

[Takhisis]

The Reconquista in Spain started the very moment the Visigoths lost control of the peninsula. Later on there were a lot of Frankish colonists, as long as you call a war 'holy' then no one's going to bother about details.

And yes, exterminating an entire town does speak of bloodlust and is unChristian no matter what.

 

[civ_king]

The Reconquista in Spain started the very moment the Visigoths lost control of the peninsula. Later on there were a lot of Frankish colonists, as long as you call a war 'holy' then no one's going to bother about details.

And yes, exterminating an entire town does speak of bloodlust and is unChristian no matter what.

That was pretty standard MO, but it was never full extermination, after all the survivors of the siege of Jerusalem thew all the bodies out of the city. Do you really expect the Normans a people who are descended from freaking Viking to control themselves in the heat of battle? Serious question.

Actually I have no idea what I'm talking about.



This week I'm going to spend many hours in Eucharistic Adoration to find inner peace.

 

[Ajidica]

Do you really expect the Normans a people who are descended from freaking Viking to control themselves in the heat of battle?

Bad question is bad.
The "Vikings" were not some unwashed horde in battle. More often then not, they were just as disciplined as their Anglo-Saxon enemies. However, the Normans who made up the majority of the first crusade were very disciplined by early medieval standards. As it was demonstrated under William at Hastings, they were capable of some pretty good tactical maneuvering and at Durrazo Robert Guiscard demonstrated they were quite capable of working with combined arms tactics, crushing the Varangian Guard.

 

[civ_king]

Bad question is bad.
The "Vikings" were not some unwashed horde in battle. More often then not, they were just as disciplined as their Anglo-Saxon enemies. However, the Normans who made up the majority of the first crusade were very disciplined by early medieval standards. As it was demonstrated under William at Hastings, they were capable of some pretty good tactical maneuvering and at Durrazo Robert Guiscard demonstrated they were quite capable of working with combined arms tactics, crushing the Varangian Guard.

Actually I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Look, the killing of civilians after a siege was not that unusual. Some people take where it says ..."rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins" literally, there were not enough people in the area let alone Jerusalem. the whole "waded in blood up to their ankles..." is also kind of dubious, that's a lot of blood from a lot of people.