As reported on Rentapriest, Cardinal Carlo Martini, who has been considered pope material in the past, has just published a new book in Germany, Jerusalemer Nachtgespräche (Nocturnal Talks in Jerusalem). In his book, Martini asks that the Church reconsider the ordination of women and married men (I guess he didn't get John Paul's memo, see earlier post). He is very critical of a priesthood which demands celibacy for all. He views this as a charism not also always associated with the call to the priesthood. He also believes that the prohibition against condoms as set down in Humanae Vitae should be repealed and that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with condoms. He also speaks of his friendship with gay couples and how it has never occurred to him to condemn them.
Martini sound to me to be the perfect Cardinal, but maybe that's just me.
A Faithful Catholic
20 comments:
Ho-hum.
Martini, SJ and Friend of Rembert, has been off his meds for years.
There are definitely a few Cardinals in the Church who have gone off the reservation. There is a reason why they have generally been marginalized. Cardinal Martini was always the exception as he maintained a position of prominence, probably because he represented those who wanted Vatican II to go further in throwing out Traditional Catholicism and oppose John Paul II's (and now Benedict XVI's) Orthodoxy.
Cardinal Martini's time has come and he will slowly fade away.
James, do you regard Vatican II as authoitative? I can't tell from your comment. What is "Traditional Catholicism?" Is that a new religion? You accept Trent, Vatican I, do you not? What is a "cafeteria catholic."? I'll take this council; which one do you want? Is that the way it goes? Do I see a little heresy here?
Vatican II is an authoritative Church Council. What is at issue is the hermenutics of rupture attempted by Progressives which attempted to do more than Vatican II intended. Vatican II did not intend to throw everything out, but merely open the windows of a Church that had grown far too insular. That is a let down to a number of Catholics who hoped Vatican II would eliminate large portions of the Magisterium, liberalize morality and ecclesial policy, etc.
What is a Cafeteria Catholic? One who picks and choose what church teachings to accept.
You don't see heresy from me, you on the other hand, based on your blog, are overflowing in it.
"who has been considered pope material in the past"
Sort of the Adlai Stevenson of papabile.
James, you are getting so...well..touchy. I shall continue to hope you can accept more teachings of the catholic religion and not create your own religion, Traditional Catholicism, what ever that is. Jack
Oooohhhh, Jack! Such FEEEEEELings for poor James!
"Traditional Catholicism" is the one which was founded by Christ and which has persevered for about 2000 years since.
It includes the ENTIRE deposit of Revelation and Tradition--including everything which occurred before 1963.
Terry: I think Martini's shoes are not ventilated.
dad29, thank you. I try to be helpful. Help me with this question. When two medievel popes issued bulls permitting torture, were these part of the entire tradition of "Traditional Catholicism". Jack
I am not the one creating my own brand of Catholicism Jack. You are doing quite well doing one of your own. I would point to your blog of May 6th, April 15th, and April 12th (and that's just three) where you openly mock or dissent from Church Teaching. You claim the Catholic Church is sex-obsessed, it would appear you are. You appear to be the one who wants licentiousness and free reign.
I accept the Teachings of Holy Mother Church. I believe in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. I acknowledge her Church teachings and obey them (you are yet to point out where I disagree with them, since I am not in favor of exploitation of the poor, of child sex, of rape, of pollution, etc as you so disingenuously allege). You are the one who rejects Her teachings.
James
James, I wish I could be sex-obsessed. Frankly at 75 I can speak quite objectively about past events. Listen, just for me could you stop using terms like "Holy Mother Church" and "The Spendor of Truth." Just a bit dorky, maybe. Listen have you ever thought for yourself or do you simply say the Church is always right and I do what SHE says. Sounds like a dominatrix. What would you have done when the church approved torture?
And you do say child sex rings are no worse than thinking Roe v. Wade was a good decision.
I probably need to give concrete examples for you. Say you buy a house. Neighbor on the west believes Roe was rightly decided. Neighbor on the east runs a child sex ring. You have to invite one to dinner. Which one do you choose? Straight answer please. Granted as you would say that the neighbor to the wast is involved in intrinsic evil and the one on the east is just involved in evil. Jack
Jack,
You love straw-men. It's quite simple, you invite neither and I call the Cops on the Child Sex-Ring guy and pray for both of their souls.
As for The Church, I do think for myself, but ultimately, I defer to Her teaching and authority because She has existed for nearly 2000 years and my quibbles and qualms pale in light of the Deposit of Faith.
Where the Church allows for a variety of opinions, I have one. Where the Church states definitively, I say Amen.
I'll admit that personally I wrestle with some of the Marian dogmas (I believe, yet I doubt). But I defer to Her authority and accept them on Faith.
James, you keep dancing away from my questions. Which of the two neighbors do you think is more evil. James, I honestly believe you are afraid to answer this. You KNOW as does "mother church" who is the more evil.
You kind of lost me on what you said:Are you saying you must get church approval to have an opinion? Does the man who justs has an OPINION on Roe engaged in intrinsic evil Seems rather harsh.But, if you say so. Jack
I am not dancing around the question. Both men (or women) are Evil. I would have neither over for dinner. Just because B is in engaged in what the Church terms an intrinsic evil does not necessary make him/her more or less evil than person A who is engaged in evil acts as well. Intrinsic Evil refers to the action, not the person. A person who has an abortion engages in an intrinsically evil act, but they themselves are not evil (though they are guilty of a mortal sin). A person who engages in child abuse commits an evil act, and, ceteribus paribus, they themselves are evil. But we are dealing with the acts themselves, not the people.
As for the person who has an opinion on Roe (support of it), they are choosing to support an intrinsic evil. I won't say they are evil, but they do support evil (The Hitler's willing executioners line of thinking).
Didn't Jesus eat with everybody? Though I admit that the sex ring leader is guilty of the worse sin.
Faithful,
You are right, but He was also God and Perfect. I am neither and fall quite short of the glory of God.
Still dancing, James. So to support evil is not as bad as doing evil? Well that seems logical.
I'm having a hard time with that fist paragraph. Are you sure that's what you want to say?
Has the church ever had a bad judgment? What does 2000 years have to do with it? Is age a proof of correctness? After all, they supported torture. Were they right then?
You have dodged so many of my questions, I don't know what to think. BTW is contraception an "intrinsic evil"?
Newman ask to toast the Pope: I toast the Holy Father, but my conscience first. If the church had told you to torture someone, would you just say "amen?"
The Church says you should not go against your conscience. Do you disagree?
But Jack, you must also inform your conscience with the norms of Natural Law and the Church. You deride both. As for dancing, you are the dancer with all your wonderful straw-men. I've noticed you've yet to respond to that. Probably because it is all you have.
James, questions are not straw men. I really just didn't pay attention to your saying over and over "straw man." I'm afraid your "straw man" is just a straw man because you won't , or can't, answer some of my questions. I agree evil should be punished, and as the church said before Vatican II no religion had a right to exist except Catholicism. You obviously want the state to enforce Catholic morals. Please give maximum prison sentences or fines for the folloing: Use of contraceptives(Griswald), disagreeing with church on any moral matter, third week abortion, masturbation, sex prior to marriage, making fun of Pope's pink shoes,contributing to Planned Parenthood. I could go on. PLEASE DO NOT DODGE!!! All of the above are sins or evil--you pick the term. The state should suppress sins against God for the good of the people should they not. Remember, don't dodge. Write to you tomorrow. You are a good guy, I think, so do yourself proud. Jack
Hi
I have to ask, in what possible sense are you a "faithful Catholic"? You obviously have heretical views on a number of matters. What in your nature incites you to confuse the matter by picking such a label for yourself?
Why then condemn Archbishop Milingo who favours Married Priests ? Cardinal Martini is a great theologian and is so couragous. He is truely a traditionalist - as he wants to revert back to the eariler and more noble traditon were the priests and indeed Apostoles were married !!!
Jamie
Post a Comment