| Revision as of 23:27, 10 May 2005 editFlamekeeper (talk | contribs)297 edits highlight topicality -dispute user Str1977~~~~← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:25, 11 May 2005 edit undoStr1977 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,123 editsm rv vandalismNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| ==Intervention in the Civil Order & The Question of the Law== | ==Intervention in the Civil Order & The Question of the Law== | ||
| Dear Flamekeeper, | |||
| I did not censor your "entry"! I only moved it into the archive since | |||
| ::'''Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.''' | |||
| a) the talk page is quite long | |||
| (18) see Rom 3,8 | |||
| b) your "question" hadn't been discussed here for some time | |||
| c) your "question" neither has anything to do with Benedict XVI himself nor with editing the wiki page (as can be seen by your absence from the history. | |||
| This is the legal principle cited as the basis for the enciclical ] and is the foundation for the entire teaching concerning ] . '''It is the principle upon which Cardinal Ratzinger famously intervened in the ] therefore playing some large part in modern political affairs '''. ] concern exists that use of this law forbidding complicity with Evil increased the ] vote .Important historical concern abounds that in contravention of this church law ,the Papacy in 1993 crucially tipped the balance in favour of a dictatorship by Adolf Hitler and away from democracy . Evidence of a close negotiation between Hitler and Cardinal Eugeio Pacelli exists and the essential up-date on this controversy lies below . '''The application of this theological injunction which is so clear in reference to ] becomes extremely unclear when the church intervenes in ]'''. | |||
| If you want to discuss this, you should do so on the pages of Kaas, Pius XI and Pius XII, but it'd best to concentrate on one page to concentrate the discussion (if it is that what you want) | |||
| For my part I will address your post in time on the ] talk page and nowhere else. | |||
| The world enquires into the breaking of this Law in direct intent by ] , Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli the future ] , and Monsignor ] , Leader of the Catholic ] in Germany, against the moral order of the Church and of all societies in general. '''Numerous''' especially ] but also political writers narrow in on the negotiations conducted by these figures and point to the extra-ordinary degree of facilitation given by them to Hitler as a potential political saviour . | |||
| ] 09:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The defence against the accusation of this particular quid pro quo of the ] for the ] within the dying days of ] Germany resides in a ] quote from Dr ], the leading German historian of the era , such that even should they have willed it , the Centre Party would not have had the numbers to make a difference in the vital tipping vote . However this is not borne out by the figures which are stated on the Pope Pius XII reference and analysis which is under discussion . | |||
| This defense addresses none of the accusation , which is of a several years long process of political influence , from ], which has a quite calamitous specific dual culmination prefiguring the worst Evil the World had yet seen . | |||
| It is reported by the Catholic League that Cardinal Pacelli wished to exorcise ]- that he considered him to be possessed by the Devil but a real reckoning of the Pius XII dealings towards and opinion of Hitler needs to be specifically chronologued . | |||
| Relevant link : (http:www.//geocities.comvisplace/vatican10p2.htm)] explains the concerns of the Holy See , the Kaas importance and the monarchist factor in negotiations with the Centre (, and explains closely why there is a dearth of Vatican documents. | |||
| The ] for the Pius XII beatification, Dr. ] SJ wrote in 1999 that ] had been blinded by the writings of ] , accepting Bruning's hatred of Papal Prelate Kaas and extending this to Pacelli since "'''Kaas worked with Pacelli'''".The Vatican claims that the archives relating to this era have been accessible , but this does not seem to be borne out by the experience of Cornwell . No clearer reference is made to Kaas and Pacelli's ''work'' together and the issue is unattended on one side and on the other simply stated as a matter of complicit fact by holocaust historians . The issue is a confusing one which in the 20 th century historical sphere resolves to the Church preference for a Fascist tyranny over a Marxist one . The history is past but the '''theological conundrum remains centre stage in both people's private lives and in church influence on voting in democracies''' as is shown by Cardinal Ratzinger's american intervention . ] 01:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:25, 11 May 2005
Church doctrine and personal theology
I'm reposting my query from the Benedict main page:
- Dear all,
- I feel somewhat uneasy about a lack of distinction between Ratzinger's personal emphasis and stances as a theologian and his pronouncements as head of the CDF. Not that there is a disagreement, but I don't think it appropriate to e.g. list his condemnation of Boff or of female priests as a personal view. This is why I moved these two to the CDF section. But this might be appropriate for other paragraphs as well, e.g. the Homosexuality paragraph (but needs rephrasing to start with statement, not with critics) or the abortion paragraph.
- Also, if anyone has greater knowledge about the theological writing of Ratzinger please post it.
Of course the creation of the subpage makes it more complicated. Maybe we should put in some passage here, distinguishing the two. Str1977 09:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thats fine with me. Though I do apologize if this sub-page put a wrench in anyone's plans, but if yall want to link to the main page in the various passages, thats cool with me. I am mainly just watching the page for vandalism. Zscout370 (talk) 18:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dear all again, I moved some stuff over from the main page. It still needs some editing, as some things are now double. I will look into it again, but also feel free to edit and add what you think right. Str1977 20:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Dear all,
I am removing the Uganda reference as it is disputed, in the AIDS section, if one looks at the letters responding to the washington post/times? article, it is claimed that the study cited was only done in the Rakai district which accounts for 2% of the population, and is not representative of the general trends in Uganda.
Intervention in the Civil Order & The Question of the Law
Dear Flamekeeper, I did not censor your "entry"! I only moved it into the archive since a) the talk page is quite long b) your "question" hadn't been discussed here for some time c) your "question" neither has anything to do with Benedict XVI himself nor with editing the wiki page (as can be seen by your absence from the history. If you want to discuss this, you should do so on the pages of Kaas, Pius XI and Pius XII, but it'd best to concentrate on one page to concentrate the discussion (if it is that what you want) For my part I will address your post in time on the Pius XII talk page and nowhere else. Str1977 09:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)