Pros And Cons Of A Living Constitution

The Pope is the head of the Church: he represents the ultimate religious authority. However, as a Bishop of Rome, the Pope is also in command of certain secular affairs, including some military aspects. Certainly, the Pope is a link between the earthly and the divine realms. Problems arise when the imperfect world the Pope physically lives in interferes with his heavenly objectives. Taking Pope Gregory I as an example, I am going to look at his letters to analyze how he reconciled his political and spiritual goals, whether he valued one category over the other, and how he justified it.

The United States Constitution was drafted up to help America grow as a country and be a country where everyone wanted to live. It was written as a guidline to follow to ensure its citizens rights and liberties, and their pursuit to happiness. There is a lot of controversy over the US constitution on whether or not some of the things in there are good or bad or what not. I think that the United States Constitution was very well written and it follows a very principalistic guidline and it has its own moral and principals. Just like the unalienable rights that everyone talks about. These rights are meant to stand for its people. They cannot be taken away from the government, they cant be tampered with by the government or anything like

Towards the end of the Middle Ages and into the duration of the Renaissance, the Medieval Church’s social and political power dwindled. Centuries prior the Catholic Church gained a surplus of control, largely due to the stability it maintained during the chaotic breakdown of the Western Roman Empire . Yet toward the end of the Middle Ages the Church set in motion factors that would ultimately lead to its downfall as the definitive figure of authority. However, despite political and social controversy surrounding the church, the institutions it established cleared a path for a new way of thinking, shaping society in an enduring way.

After the American Revolution, the US was in deep trouble. The Articles of Confederation had failed, and the nation needed a new form of government. The first option was using the Constitution. The Constitution provided a quick solution for the nation. It gave the national government the power to act in place of the people (i.e. the government would be representing the people). America would be a democracy. The people would be able to elect leaders into the government who are smart, strong, and will best represent what the people want. This democratic form of government has proven to work within individual states, so it will work to govern the nation as a whole. Also, the Constitution will not allow a monarch to form. Laws will consistently be enforced, which also means that everybody will be paying fair taxes. People's natural rights are provided and protected in the preamble of the Constitution, and the constitution will unite us as one large nation which will be stronger. Despite all of these strong aspects of the constitution, many people were concerned about having one government rule over so much land, and because of the crisis that the United States was in, the constitution had been rushed, and there were many little parts that had been overlooked when it was made. Another viewpoint said that a bill of rights had to be added to the constitution. This side believed that the constitution should be revised carefully and thoroughly before it is used to govern America.

The U.S Constitution states the basic rights of a U.S citizen and was signed at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 17th, 1787 (History.com, The U.S Constitution) . The document replaced the Articles of Confederation, after states decided the it was not fitting their certain needs. Because the needs of each state weren’t being fulfilled, the delegates of each state came together in Philadelphia to sign off and discuss the document and later would be called the Constitutional Convention. The Articles of Confederation wasn’t so much as the base or framework as the Constitution, but more as a deal or friendship between the states at the time. The Articles of Confederation also only setup one single type of government that was made up of Delegates representing each state containing one vote for each single state. The votes would collectively make decisions for all states and if nine out of the 13 states favored in an idea the decision and it would be enforced to all territories. Instead of revising the Articles of Confederation, the thirteen delegates from each state met in Philadelphia to create a completely new set of laws and government that would hopefully meet the standards for each state. This meeting, held in Philadelphia of 1787 would be called the Constitutional convention and would hold lots of problems between more populated states and less populated states.

Many people will argue that the new Constitution will take away individual and state rights, however, that is not true. The Constitution promises basic rights for all citizens and for the states in the form on the Bill of Rights. It improves many of the things that made the Articles of Confederation weak and balances the power throughout the government. People shouldn’t be afraid of a more powerful government because it will benefit not only the U.S. but the people as well.

New circumstances called for re-appraisal of the church: its position and purposes. A pragmatic response to changed

Our country should have heeded the advice our forefathers gave. They did, of course, write the Constitution which has perpetuated the United States for 240 years. Even in 1796, the first great president of the United States recognized the dangers of the issue that we are plagued with today. At his Farewell Address, George Washington preached, “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” He had observed the detriments of factions first hand over the conflict of ratification. The Federalists and Antifederalists each fought for their respective opinions over

The United States of constitution was written by American the forth president, James Madison, in 1787. It includes: Preamble, seven articles and a series of amendments. This document created a system of federalism which unified 13 independent colonies under the central government. I believed it plays a fundamental role in the governance. However, the constitution still exists various kind of problems, particularly respecting excessive centralization in one branch.

As time constantly presses forward and the earth continues to revolve, the world will never stop progressing and adapting to better suit the needs of mankind. The evolution of religion has greatly enhanced the quality of life for humanity by providing individuals with a strong belief system that is now the foundation of many peoples’ core values. One universal religion that has undergone extensive amounts of reform is Christianity. In particular, the Catholic church is well-known for the development of their famous ecumenical council meetings that help determine the future of the church. Numerous Councils have been conducted throughout the course of history, but none more significant than the most recent, the Second Vatican Council or Vatican II. The Catholic church was operating as if it was still the medieval period and desperately needed to be modernized. As a result, every Roman Catholic Church official was gathered to meet and devise a plan for how to introduce the church to the modern world. Consequently, the following will reveal the Second Vatican Council and the ramifications of the agenda, history and theology evolution, significant texts, and new developments.

On the New York Times opinion page Room for Debate, a question was pondered “How Radical is Pope Francis?” The debate centers on the issue of whether or not Pope Francis is focused on spreading Catholic beliefs or on dispersing a liberal point of view. A full version of the text written on September 17, 2015 can be found at the following link http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/09/17/how-radical-is-pope-francis. The issue is debated by two scholars, Megan J. Clark and Randy Boyagoda and a journalist Michael Brendan Dougherty. Clark is an Assistant Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at St. John’s University. Boyagoda is a Professor and University Director at Ryerson University. Additionally, both Clark and Boyagoda are published

A lot has changed the past couple years with the Church, by adding the new Pope Francis. Pope Francis has warned the Catholic Church about focusing way too much on abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues when they should be focusing on the Catholic Church and how to make Catholics better in life and in the Church. People has said that the Catholic Church has risks of overshadowing their pastoral mission which means that it’s threatening the church to bring it down “ like a house of cards”. Pope Francis doesn’t like how the church is going in this direction, he wants to keep the church the same as it has been. But people want the change in the church they don’t want it the same. So Pope Francis needs to change as well and he is willing to change the Catholic Church. Pope Francis has been distant between him and his two predecessors, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II.

The third and longest chapter of the book dealt with how the documents have been received and implemented in the church over the last forty years. What appears to be evident is there was a lot of confusion in how and what needed to be done to implement the teachings of Vatican II. Gaillardetz quotes John Henry Newman at the beginning of the chapter, “it is uncommon that a Council not be followed by great confusion.” Gaillardetz shows that the two major proponents for helping to understand the council documents were Pope Paul VI and John Paul II. There are several references to their writings as Pope that clarified misunderstandings or built upon the teachings in the documents. A key issue that Pope Paul VI built upon was the inclusion of the laity in the sensus fidei, in the discernment of church matters. Gaillardetz notes in the 1980s American bishops adopted a consultative process of listening to experts before drafting pastoral letters. “The bishops took seriously the assumption of both Vatican II and Paul VI that all God’s people, and not only the hierarchy, must engage in the central processes of ecclesial discernment.”

The arrival of Pope Francis as the successor of Peter has made a revolution within the Universal Church, because he has refreshed and given a new impetus and a new turn to the vision and proclamation of the Gospel. With Pope Francis we see the living proclamation of the Gospel. Pope Francis takes the merciful view that the Church should have. “Indeed, Francis’s Church wants to be recognized first of all as the house of mercy that, between human weakness and God’s patience, welcomes and helps find the ‘good news’ of the great Christian hope” (Preface, xi). He wants to present a Church that it can be seen as a mother, a teacher and who can also be a friend; a Church where forgiveness and reconciliation are the cornerstones to find peace, brotherhood and the love that Christians lose when they don’t allow the grace of God to guide them. His vision of the Universal Church is of a church that embodies the physical or moral sufferings of those living in distress and marginalization.

Many of you might not know that the incredible changes that have taken place in the Catholic world over the past 50 years in the areas of belief, practise and worship are a direct result of the Second Vatican Council, which took place in Rome between 1962 and 1965. But some have argued that the undeniable and revolutionary changes that took place after Vatican II were due to many misrepresentations of the actual teachings of the Council. In this response I will demonstrate from indisputable and well-documented facts that Ecumenism before the Second Vatican Council was always condemned and the Second Vatican Council had no absolute authority to change the Church’s view on Ecumenism and can not be