For those upset about the Pope-bashing who are asking for understanding...

there's something you need to understand in return. I don't think some of you realize how offensive some of us find it when you say "yeah I disagreed with his stands on women's issues and gay rights...but he was anti-death penalty and against the war so he was still a good guy and you shouldn't bash him". It is upsetting because it implies that issues that effect over half the population of the world (the half I happen to be in no less) are considered expendable or less important.

If you want to hang onto your admiration of the man...that's fine. If you're upset over his passing...you have my condolences. But while you're asking for understanding of your feelings...you might want to try to do a little understanding as well.

"If you're upset over your loved one's passing, you have my
condolences, but you might want to try to do a little understanding as well."

There is such a thing as "decorum."

How many of us have love/hate relationships with certain members
of our own families? When they die, we try to remember the good.

I don't think that is inappropriate here. We can and should
remember the good. If you want to critize other parts of his life...
write a book.

Your analogy doesn't really work. The Pope is not a member of anyone's family on DU. He's a head of state and the head of a major religion. He injected himself into politics in ways that helped some people and hurt others. If you want to talk about how wonderful the Pope was and not have to hear any contradictory opinion then maybe a political forum is not the place to be.

That said, I do think it's possible to talk about the Pope in his entirety as a human being without being snotty to each other.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that better have been a joke.

*taps foot and waits for poster to return and explain self before hitting alert*

It seems that some here are resentful that others here don't resent him enough.

represents that institution. He fronts, represents and supports views that should have lost credence centuries ago.

On the other hand, the use of the Virgin Mary was a very clever way to convert pagans from their female based beliefs. Too bad they didn't keep it up.

DU is a forum for discussing the politics and is not a place for catholic families to gather to seek condolence. (Not in General Discussion, anyways.)

This is a perfectly appropriate place to discuss the politics of a head of state upon his or her death. In fact, it may be the ultimate place.

I kinda of thought of DU as my "family."
Guess I was wrong.

But there are different kinds of families. (But that's probably why you put family in quotes.)

If I want to discuss religion, I do so with like-minded people. If you open your belief system up to the general public on a discussion board with 68,000 members, then don't be surprised if someone disagrees with you.

By George, I think he's got it.

:eyes:

Lots of drama, very little common sense - seems like the whole country (& DU, just a bit) has turned into a huge 'Running Man' show, lots of angst, melodrama & death w/cheesy commercials in between!

Not speaking specifically @ the Pope, it's the Schiavo hysterics, religion threads, etc. Out of control drama! Nice to see an ambassador of good ol' common sense! Has it always gotten so wound up so easily on the forum? I have gotten a blister on my mouse finger clicking on the ignore button in the last week, LOL!

DU on a cranky day is still better than anywhere else, though.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Nice personal attack. :eyes:

There are rational Christians here-the majority of this board-that don't fall in with the squeaky wheels who get offended by atheist/agnostic opinions.

Since I've never conversed with you on DU, and you don't know me, how can you make a judgement based on the events on DU over the last week? I am nothing if not consistent in my opinions and beliefs.

counter any argument rationally. it's a sad thing to watch and common amongst a certain mindset.

aaah, those voices again... :crazy:

I'm oh so certain Jesus would have said the same thing.

who alerted and got a post deleted? You know that means the admins won't take us out for ice cream now. :(

I wanted it to stand as a testament to narrow-mindedness. I guess my opinions are under scrutiny by the 'ON BEHALF OF MANY OF US'. :eyes:

you and I have the same attitude on that kind of thing...when people get snotty with me I want what they say to stay out there for everyone to see.

you can respect appreciate value the man, but how much "grief" could there be, he was old, lived a good good life, had a horrible illness, and now he gets to be done with this world and go on.

further we are talking religious people with a religious man, going to god.

again i dont have the "loss" feel of death. i just dont deal in death the way so many. but isnt it a bit dramatic to say there is a grief going on with an ill 87 year old man

anyway,...........a journey well traveled. to me it is more the celebration and honoring of his life

84, for Christ sakes!!! I'm not even Catholic and I know that.

still i am hoping to make it to 70 and call it a good life. i have been seeing 87 on a lot of posts, again i say, i didnt know him personally.

It's not really up to us, or very compassionate to tell them who they are allowed to grieve over or how to do it, or what they should be feeling.

before you start re-hashing things that have been discussed and worked through further down.

I know it's long, but I'm sure it serves any purpose to come in 12 hours after the fact and start bayoneting the wounded.

*ahem*

I've been in some subliminal choas about JP for years. Today, none. Just sorrow. Thanks for letting that space just be. B.

I don't understand the lamenting of this man's passing. He's a symbol, a politically elected figurehead who managed to stay quiet while children were hurt, over and over and over, and never spoke out about it.

As for his positions on women (yeah, like me) and gays and contraception and poverty, I lament for all the damage he did to the beautiful promise of Vatican II and Pope John Paul XXIII. This Pope had a chance to bring people together and to allow so many disenfranchised to come home, but he chose instead to take the regressive, authoritarian, exclusionary route.

Besides, a good Catholic would be happy that the Pope is going to be with God. Mourning for him is simply selfish and not hardly in accordance with the teaching of the Church.

should not be stiffled here at DU. There is NOTHING wrong with us expressing our views on a person who was very powerful in the political arena. I'm at a loss as to why some here believe otherwise.

Well said, LeftyLawyer!

NO opinion should be stifled on DU. I have been tip-toeing all over the place today because I am afraid I am going to offend somebody, start a flame-war and/or get tombstoned.
I live a lousy part of the country where bigotry is not only tolerated, it's expected. I put up with this shit all day and come home, log on to DU for a dose of sanity and I have to be scared that I'm going to offend someone.
I would never disrupt one of the threads where members are mourning or paying their respects, but I am not doing those things. This is GD and
I should be allowed to come in here and talk about whatever I want. There are fucktards everywhere. I choose to ignore the fucktards I have to listen to all day because they have a right to be fucktards, the same goes for DU. If I see a thread that I find offensive, I stay the hell out of it. If I'm in a thread and someone comes in just to dis, I hit alert. If someone pisses me off, sometimes I feel like scrapping, sometimes I don't, but nobody should have to censor their posts.
What the hell is going on here?

The folks who admired the Pope are upset he's dying. Personally I wouldn't care much one way or the other except the media and then a bunch of people on DU starting singing the praises of someone I have a real political disagreement with. Which put me in a more emotionally charged place. And when I voice my displeasure it sets the first group off even more and they say something that sets me off more and it turns into a nasty vicious circle. Which is why I tried to start this thread in a reasonable way to try to get people to acknowledge the feelings on both sides.

:applause:

because I don't go to Mass anymore. The reason I don't go is their attitude and behavior toward women.

That said, I don't think "over half the population of the world (the half I happen to be in no less) are considered expendable or less important" to many practising Catholics who do respect the Pope. I personally know Catholic women who are waiting AND WORKING for their time. They are just more generous and less angry than I am.

,...he was the Pope,...and he wasn't perfectly what we wanted.

Thank God, none of us were Pope. We'd ALL be thrown in the trash on the very day of our death.

where I have thrown the Pope in the trash. I am merely pointing out that those asking for understanding should be obliged to practice a little understanding as well.

Your hyperbole doesn't help your case at all.

a past that was filled with male dominated thinking.It's time to move forward and mend their abuses of the past now would be a goodtime to start.

:thumbsup: very SIMPLE concept, you would think.

I don't like John Paul and I'm willing to shut up about it during his passing out of respect for the Catholics on DU.

However. It's another thing to have to read post after post praising the man or excusing anything he has done because "he was a good guy" and expect those of us who disagree not to lose it and post otherwise.

I really don't think DU is a place to mourn for a religious leader, a Catholic forum would be more appropriate. It assumes those of us who do not mourn his passing should be silent and respectful while someone we may have serious problems with is given accolades. It's a very uncomfortable position for a non-religious board to have to stay silent in the face of this.

and that's why I started this thread. I was hoping that a sincere explanation and request for mutual understanding would help...couldn't hurt. :)

The fact that the servers have stayed up during Shaivo and now this is some evidence of the reality of "miracles", lol.

:)

democracy, are you?

has worked in public health, both in the US and internationally, I can not be more concerned nor sensitized to the harm done to women through the church positions on contraception, abortion and women's equality nor to the gay and lesbian community given the regressive attitudes towards gay rights. I've had to grit my teeth for years when some defended the Pope's stance on these vitally important issues.

I don't forget, but I do see the good that he did as well. That leaves him as a flawed human being and a flawed leader IMO. I'll be the first to argue the impact of his flaws and why it is so critically important that his replacement advance true reform in the Catholic Church doctrine and policies. But, given that I never put him on a pedestal to begin with, perhaps it is easier to put my tremendous disappointment in the man in perspective.

I will be hard pressed to offer any understanding of those who mourn the eventual passing of Bush Sr, GWB, Cheney and all that ilck. But, I'm content to allow the passing of JPII and my sincere disappointment on the lost opportunities, evolve into hope for the future. Those Catholics who truly live their lives in keeping with the teachings of Christ, but who have evolved in ways that put them at odds (with a Church badly in need of reform), deserve my sensitivity. They will get that-- along with my shared hopes for dramatic change under the leadership of the next Pope.

is the people talking about how he worked for economic justice or how he was an advocate for the poor. They don't see the connection between the continuing second-class status of women and these issues at all. *sigh* Advocating againsit birth control is not a way to alleviate poverty.

We've seen this with candidates too. Some people get very touchy when their candidate is being discussed objectively.

Humans are fallible. The pope and the Catholic church have taken some very regressive stands, despite the fact it IS part of their doctrine to adapt to changing times. Those positions have adversely affected millions around the world as well as our political system.

women's ability to control their own reproductive destiny. Similarly Mother Theresa-- who I do respect a great deal-- but struggle with the painful paradox of her support for policies which hurt the very people she did so much to help.


But, I think the point you are underscoring is the need to see JPII in his entirety--"warts and all." I agree.

Talk about "mortal sin". I can't imagine why he'd think that was right. The bible says to populate the earth...I think we have done that. Man isn't to waste his seed it also says but then why is the rhythm method OK, sex at infertile times or for infertile people? He was no prude, he wrote about sexuality and even the importance of making sure the woman got pleasure. It was a grave injustice to advocate against it.

The child abuse was horribly handled and the church truly lost moral authority there, putting the facade of the church above the children.

But many other things I disagreed with didn't make me think less of him. He's an old man and some things are parts of the time. A church being against abortions makes sense (except when they oppose birth control too!) Being against gay marriage is standard for people in their 80's and so on. He grew up in different times with ways and traditions we did not. I think he is wrong on these things...but it makes him a different person, not a lesser one.

We'd be appalled by anyone who agreed to owning slaves or was fine with women not being allowed to vote...but we admire many historical figures who did accept these things, people who grew up in the times when that was accepted even though we know it was wrong.

It is hard not to admire someone who worked underground against Nazi's, stood up to communism, tries to bridge religious gaps, tells off Bush. Even that he speaks 6+ languages, wrote plays and poetry, preaches peace loudly and on and on makes him a better man then many of our presidents!

Since I have not been reading pope threads I might not understand your issue here. If the problem is people are upset when he is criticized, I'd agree with you. But if you are saying that those who admire him are wrong then I do not. People don't have to be perfect or agree with us on everything to be admired

I agree 100%

I don't see how any Catholic who has grown up around strong and intelligent nuns could see the Church as anti-woman. I've never understood it. I also don't understand what's so horrific about valuing motherhood.

Birth control? Really, a religion shouldn't teach children do best when born into committed marriages? That sex is a special expression of love between committed partners, not a lustful game? That loving couples can restrain themselves for a few days in order to not have children?

I am totally pro-choice and don't even believe cells are life. I don't think the Church is right on condoms and AIDS at all. And I don't think the Church has handled homosexuality as well as they could have either.

But alot of people make blanket condemnations of Catholicism without even understanding what they're condemning.

will be allowed to have a vote in chosing the next Pope?

We both know the answer to that question. ZERO.

Also, please explain to me why "loving couples" should have to wait when there is medical technology available to ensure that they only have children when they fell they are ready to? Why is this particular medical advance not ok while the one's currently keeping the Pope alive are just fine?

Somehow or other, all my 8 Catholic aunties managed to NOT have a cazillion children in the 50's. No medical technology about it at all. Just self restraint and knowledge about biological functions.

and even condoms were less readily available. So more natural methods of family planning were necessary. Fortunately we have advanced medically since then and there are a multitude of options available.

I'm not sure how old you are, but you might want to talk to you aunts sometime about exactly how they managed it. You might get more of an answer than "self-control".

Sad. Self control couldn't possibly be the answer. All 8 of my aunts had multiple abortions. You betcha. :eyes:

is that if you were young at the time, you might not have all of the available facts about any of the methods of birth control that were available at the time that your aunts might have used. :eyes: yourself

Oh come on, how many women are regular enough to plot birth by their menstrual cycles? Maybe your aunts weren't particularly sexual or weren't particularly fertile.

Yeah, all eight of them. Okeedoke. If you only knew, and no, I'm not telling.

how they ought to be keeping their legs crossed- don't you know anything?

Well mine sure as hell did :)

I managed to get these 8 Catholic aunties who not only didn't have a cazillion kids each, but were also outspoken, intelligent and incredibly unique. I hit the Catholic auntie jackpot I guess.

I don't know your age, but being raised Catholic in the 50's and 60's I can ASSURE you that the woman's place in the Catholic Church I attended was to a) have kids and b) raise kids - period. I can recall sermons on Sundays that railed against woman who left the home for the workplace - they were literally demonized. No woman was told she could be anything else, and anything else was being a "bad Catholic."

I can recall women talking among themselves in clandestine little groups about wanting to go to work, but not wanting the church to know.

If your Catholic upbringing avoided such things, I am very glad for you. Mine did not, which is why I steer clear of it today.

I also experienced some of the most disgusting bigotry I have ever witnessed while in the company of long-time (and in several instances) well-respected church officials, but that is another story altogether. I will say, however, that I have seen these folks as recently as 2 months ago, and their bigotry has not abated, nor has their love for the church. I can't let bygones be bygones in this case.

Did you experience any thing like this growing up in the church?

Since I did, when taken in context I hope you can see why I have a hard time with Catholicism today.

Some of my aunts worked at varying points in time. One was always a nurse. Another worked in a department store. One was a waitress on occasion and later opened a burger joint. The others didn't work outside the home. I do recall my uncles telling them to do whatever made them happy. I know other Catholic women who worked as well. In fact, thinking about it, I knew more Catholic women who worked when I was a kid than didn't.

Bigotry? Some of my uncles are just awful, their one true fault. Some aren't. My 82 year old uncle hates Reagan and thinks Bush stole both elections and went to war for oil. Is distraught about the plight of the Indians. He was a railroad engineer.

I really don't know why my experience was different.

:shrug:

ya big lug... :) :)

married a Catholic in the '40s, a man she met during WWII when she was a WAC -- huge mistake. She did not want to convert so could only marry into his family and in the church if she signed a contract saying her children would be raised Catholic. What tyranny. What total lack of tolerance and respect for the right of each person to follow his or her conscience. My aunt wanted children. Eventually, she miscarried at least one child and had a stillborn child. Her relationship with her husband was wonderful. But I always asked myself if her problems in having children were due to her emotional conflict about having to raise the child in the Catholic religion. The Catholic church was quite cruel to people like her. How dare one religion require that the children of a marriage be raised in that religion as a condition for getting married in that religion?

Not to disparage the current pope, but the history of the Catholic church before him was one dominated by arrogance and intolerance. This Pope was much more tolerant, and that is how he earned so much love and respect even from non-Catholics who don't agree with him on certain issues. Unfortunately, this Pope has had to bear the burden of the acts of previous Popes and was unable to heal the resentment in non-Catholics that arises from a long tradition of intolerance in the Catholic church toward non-Catholics.

Read the letters between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. You will be surprised at the anger they felt toward certain elements in the Catholic church, especially the Jesuits. This is the legacy of Catholicism that they don't talk about in Catholic schools and churches.

or by a judge. They wouldn't have had to sign that contract. If her husband, however, wanted to be married by the Church, then that was the decision that they made together. Jointly.

I have many friends who have married people outside of the church. Some jointly chose to do so outside of the Catholic Church. Sure, the marriage would be invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church, but they have to make the decision together. The Church will not hunt them down, kidnap them, and prevent them from getting married if the non-Catholic partner doesn't agree to raise the child Catholic.

If marrying within the church is really important to the one partner, then so would be raising their child Catholic. I would insist upon raising my child Catholic if I were not married to a Catholic man. It's just the way that I feel, and I personally would not want to marry a man who did not agree with me.

Perhaps I am closed-minded about that, but I've made no bones about how important my religion is to me.

immediate family has members of various religions. Based on my experience, the best policy in an interfaith marriage is to let children experience each religious heritage and make their own choice. That is what we did with our children, and it has worked very well. I would never wish that my children did or did not have a particular religion.

One of my daughters told me that, according to an on line test, her that beliefs are closest to the Reformed Jewish religion. I'm not Jewish, but if she wanted to convert to Judaism, I would support her. If my children wanted to convert to Catholicism, I would also encourage them to do that. Religion is an intimate matter between the individual and his/her God -- and, like it or not, each of us has his or her own idea and feelings about what God is. I just want my children to do what is right for them.

At the time my aunt married, the Catholic religion was very intolerant of other religions. It is much more tolerant today. The changes are incredible and very positive, but there is still a lot of room for improvement. Catholics are not the only intolerant group at there, I'll grant you.

One of the most amazing experiences to me was living and traveling in Catholic countries and discovering how diverse the Catholic religion is. I lived in Germany and Austria part of the time and am very familiar with their cultures. I can tell you that the anti-Jewish traditions that gave rise to the Holocaust were born and nurtured in the intolerance of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, I don't think that the anti-Jewish sentiment is very strong among American Catholics. Sorry for rambling on. Tolerance is just something we all need to work on.

Actually, mine did, too! (6, 7, and 9 respectively!). But, they also all took great care of their families, and I don't think that there is a problem with having that many children. (There are varying opinions on that, though!) :)

I'm just sayin'

;)

Was she?

:)

You don't see how condemning birth control and abortion is anti woman?

What about women priests? What message does that send out about women?

"But alot of people make blanket" praises "of Catholicism without even understanding what they're" praising.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Catholic Church is not anti-woman.

George W. Bush is a "compassionate conservative," for example.

The Church has done more to elevate the position of women than other religions. Why does that never register with people?

I can see where changing views on sex can actually be liberating to women and not put them in a position of needing to be the one constantly responsible for birth control or put in the position of having to have abortions.

The Priest issue has honestly never bothered me. The Church should bring women more into decision making roles, I would agree with that.

I didn't say the Church was perfect, but that few people consider the good.

that the Church has done more to elevate the position of women than any other religion. Because you just pegged my bullshit meter WAY over into the red.

Do you really not understand how keeping women from completely controlling their fertility impacts them economically?

Completely. But do you not understand that not holding men responsible for fertility impacts women's economics as well? That changing the psychology behind sexual expectations COULD lead to more independence and economic freedom for women?

Go back 1000 years. Just how did women move into roles besides wife and mother?

go back more than 1000 years...what types of religions forced women into those roles in the first place?

And nun is not really a prime 3rd option.

Frankly, the first part of what you said is a complete non-sequiter. No one is talking about making men responsible for women's fertility. If anything, it's the men in the Church who seem to want to make those kinds of decisions for all women.

And forcing women back into the stereotype of good girls who wait til they're married and only engage in sex in loving monogamous relationships...well, that limits the options for a helluva lot of women who don't WANT that. It should be up to me, not the Pope, what I do with my body.

I'm talking about making men responsible for fertility. The Church is absolutely talking about connecting sex to babies, for men and women. That's what restraint, for both sexes, even during marriage, is all about. I would hope you would think men should take responsiblity for where their sperm go.

Please tell me which religion promotes one night stands? I haven't heard of it.

Mind you, *I'm* not making judgements, I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of bashing the Catholic Church when much of what they teach in regards to sex is what all religions teach.

as a single woman who has no intention of ever having babies...I should NEVER have sex because the two should always be connected. Gee...that's not archaic or anything.

Of course men should take responsibility. So should women. Fortunately there are any number of highly effective means of doing so available.

Fact remains, religion promotes sex within marriage. And the point isn't whether you have any intention of having babies, the point is that you should ALWAYS consider a baby as a possiblity. Because NO birth control is 100%. And men should too. And that fact is completely lost these days. The Church's teaching on sex and family is attempting to make people think about it again. I don't think that's a bad thing. I think that if people took that approach, we'd have alot less unwanted pregnancies and children. Not because it would be turning women into sainted virgins, but because it brings the reality of children into the equation.

sterilization is usually 100% effective, how does the church feel about that?

I'm not arguing about birth control. I'm arguing about the pscyhology behind Catholic family planning.

women who would have had over a dozen kids but were not allowed to get a hysterectomy without excommunication (this was before the pill).
They said that some of the priests were sympathetic to their plight and would tell them that the church would accept it if a doctor said it was "medically necessary". Needless to say, the doctors, being sympathetic as well, were more than willing to provide such a diagnosis.
I could never understand that, it seemed so wrong, the women knew the truth, the doctors knew the truth, the priests knew the truth but yet they all had to lie in order to stay in the church. I understand loyalty but I still can't understand that.

But then again, I didn't know any women in that position. And I do know because I went through my aunties' menopauses and all the unexpected periods and the rest. And recall a Catholic lady who had two teen-aged children, and then a late in life baby. So I know all these women who managed not to have a bunch of kids, didn't have hysterectomies.

But I still think those kinds of games are silly. The really silly thing is that I'm not all that Catholic to begin with. There are just aspects of Church teaching that I understand in my head. I dispensed with the Church years ago because of all that silliness. I would never tell a woman to play such a ridiculous game, not to use birth control, abortion is a sin, or any of the rest of it. But I really get confused when people expect a religion to be anything but a religion. It's their job.

I grew up in a VERY catholic part of the country. It was so weird, so many people were such devout catholics but yet they never tried to convert me or even educate me. Nobody ever talked about religion in the New England town we lived in, it was impolite and too personal.
I learned most of what I know by asking my friends. I was fascinated by the church and the hold it had over so many intelligent people. It was beyond explanation. I have nothing but respect for most of the catholics I know. Most have never looked down on me or anyone else who wasn't catholic. I have several very close girlfriends who find it impossible to live their lives as catholics. They use birth control, a couple have been divorced, one is living with a man out of wedlock, I could go on and on but you understand what I'm saying. I asked one of my friends if she was going to have her sons attend catechism (not sure if I got the spelling right on that, spellcheck said okay)and she said she didn't know. She felt too guilty to go to mass because she didn't consider herself a true catholic.
I don't think she understands her feelings any better than I do.
Weird, huh?

It is hard to reconcile Catholicism with reality these days. I won't probably ever go back over the communion and campaign thing last year. I was already pissed over condoms and AIDS and their ridiculously harsh stance on gays. Birth control is just stupid and I think most women ignore it. I completely understand their position on abortion, although I completely disagree with it. But at least they're consistent.

On the other hand, when you get passed some of this silly making, there is some good theology in there. Having gone through every single religion out there, I never understood the Bible until I came back to Catholicism. And I can find value and comfort in some of the deeper spiritual parts, when I get past the silly making. Which I can't very often anymore.

And, you made me understand something.

I left the church when I was 11, just short of confirmation. Because even then, I couldn't tolerate the intolerance. :silly:

But, there is one part of the Church that is fascinating and that is, it has a long history of nurturing art and intellectual pursuits. Oh, there's also been horrible censorship and, there's no forgetting Torquemada.

But, in the "dark ages" they kept literacy alive. And all over Europe, there's art the Church sponsored.

And somehow, this collateral urge remains in that culture. When I was very young, it was nuns - not really family - who encouraged me to write, to sing, to play an instrument, to learn for the sheer joy of learning.

It is weird, this sort of parallel freeing of creativity that is part of the whole package, "the Church". And in a funny way, I bet many DUer's independence of thought was fostered by this Church who essentially tried to tank John Kerry. More than weird.

They remind me of nurses in a way, they are the ones who do most of the work. The church has much to worry about but IMO, if it cannot change the way it treats women, it will die. Many of my friends attended catholic school and they were terrorized by some of the mean nuns(really scary women). But for the most part, like you said, nuns were nurturers and not drill instructors, most of them also had a wicked sense of humor.
These women are truly unselfish-they are not allowed to have a voice in the church and will never attain the status males enjoy, but yet they still dedicate their lives to helping others.
I visited the Notre Dame cathedral in Montreal and also the one in Paris, and I was blown away . You don't have to be religious to appreciate the mystical energy present, especially in Paris. (although my favorite part was seeing the gargoyles)

Many have more natural and liberal views on sex. That is WHY they allow birth control.

It teaches that children should be considered when people have sex, and welcomed in the event they are conceived. It should be a life affirming act. The Church wouldn't promote natural family planning if it didn't recognize that sex wasn't ONLY for procreation, now would it.

It does teach that sex belongs within marriage and that it is a life giving act as part of marriage. That people should welcome and acknowledge the possibility of a child, even an unexpected pregnancy, as part of a loving married sexual relationship. Which is where gay sex doesn't fit. As far as Church teaching.

And just because I say that, doesn't mean I agree with it. I'm just explaining it, and that I think there is value in parts of it.

Other people don't agree with everything their religion teaches, I don't know why Catholics have to.

Come out Virginia, don't let me wait
You Catholic girls start much too late
Ah but sooner or later it comes down to fate
I might as well, will be the one

Well they showed you a statue and told you to pray
They built you a temple and locked you away
Ah but they never told you the price that you pay
For things that you might have done

Only the good die young
That's what I said
Only the good die young
Only the good die young

You might have heard I run with a dangerous crowd
We ain't too pretty, we ain't too proud
We might be laughing a bit too loud
Ah but that never hurt noone




So come on Virginia show me a sign
Send up a signal I'll throw you a line
That stained glass curtain you're hiding behind
Never lets in the sun

Darlin only the good die young
I tell you only the good die young
Only the good die young

You get a nice white dress
And a party on your confirmation
You've got a brand new soul
Mm and a cross of gold
But Virginia they didn't give you
Quite enough information
You didn't count on me
When you were counting on your rosary
And they say there's a heaven for those who will wait
Some say it's better but I say it ain't

I'd rather laugh with the sinners
Than cry with the saints
The sinners are much more fun

You know that only the good die young
I tell you only the good die young
Only the good die young

You said your mother told you
All I could give you was a reputation
Ah she never cared for me
But did she ever say a prayer for me?

Come out, come out, come out Virginia
Don't let me wait
You Catholic girls start much too late
Sooner or later it comes down to fate
I might as well, will be the one
You know that only the good die young
Tell you baby
You know that only the good die young

Sorry, couldn't help myself
:hide:

:smoke:

poster with a preverted sense of humor in this thread.
I really can't help myself, I get it from my dad, he was ALWAYS in trouble with my mom...

Ahh, Billy Joel.

I was born feeling guilty!
Amazing how many songs from our youth could have been written today...

Just ask the thousands of women who were elevated to the pyres and burnt at the stake as witches during the inquisition. They had a great view from the top.

BTW, just when was the church still debating whether or not women had souls? Was it less than two hundred years ago?

(VelmaD, I'm completely on your side)

not only did it get a big giggle here...it needed to be said and I was WAY too irritated last night to get it out nearly as well as you did. :loveya:

The "do women have a soul" thing still just floors me. But that's what happens when you have a completely homogenous heirarchy. It's like those men completely forgot they had mothers or sisters.

they simply hated women exactly that much so that the fact of HAVING mothers and sisters was completely irrelevent, if not actually further support for the question itself.

:)

Not so. It pales in comparison to the Quakers and the Episcopalians on elevating women.

Outlawing abortion, legislation that allows pharmacists and doctors to refuse to treat women for certain things is not politics?

Did you miss the announcements from bishops and the pope that Catholics should vote for a PRO LIFE candidate?

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/special_packages/election2004/10122797.htm
PHILADELPHIA - Alongside President Bush's overwhelming support from his evangelical Christian base Tuesday came another dramatic election result: Bush reversed his 2000 showing and convincingly captured the Roman Catholic vote

Analysts were unsure of the influence of Catholic bishops who had warned that parishioners should vote in accordance with church teachings on abortion and other "life issues."

"Surveys have shown that Catholics generally don't walk (in) lockstep with church prelates," said G. Terry Madonna of Franklin and Marshall College, who is director of the Keystone Poll. "But the bishops probably had some salience, particularly with ethnic groups and so-called Reagan Democrats, who tend to be more pro-life and against the Hollywood elite."

White, the Catholic University professor, believes the bishops "helped Bush enormously. If Bush's strategy was to enlarge his base, you do that by finding like-minded people and like-minded Roman Catholics who find life issues and religiosity important

That's impressive.

And I think the quakers and episcopalians have been around a little more than 5 years ;)

It was Quaker and Episcopalian women who travelled all over the world and did charitable work for centuries? I admit, I could have missed it.

about the negative effects on local societies of missionaries doing charitable work that wasn't always so charitable...particularly in centuries past.

*sigh* Can't think about the fact that the Church is the #1 provider of charity in the world, year after year. Can't take a balanced approach to anything. Church bad. America bad. White man bad.

for someone who knows nothing at all about me personally. When you pull out the hyperbolic attacks that generally means you've run out of anything useful to say.

I am officially not responding to you on this thread from now on. It's not worth it. :shrug:

I didn't attack you. Where do you get that?

"America bad" and "white man bad" this poster never said anything of the sort. And what does America and white men have to do with the catholic church? Nice straw man argument.

It seems to me that the bottom line is that you have your 'devout beliefs' and you will not listen to reason. To say that Catholicism is the most progressive religion for women is short of absurd. I mean, seriously absurd.

Yes, there was Sor Juana and Joan of Arc... but in the end they put Joan of Arc to death.

Thanks for not fighting for my rights.

The fact is, the Catholic church has been very detrimental to Gay rights and women's rights. Some are too blinded by the alliegance to see it.

First, yes, when somebody brings in missionaries and the sins of the Church, they are bringing in the history of the white man against native populations, which leads right to the history of America. It is repulsive and there is nobody who has posted against the sickness that is white Christian male more than I have. I get beat about the head for that too. Still, it isn't as simple as all good or all bad.

I have NO DEVOUT BELIEFS. That's the funny part. I don't hate the Church, I don't love the Church. I know about the Church, good and bad. And I've just formed the belief that people like Galileo, Luther and even Joan of Arc, don't gain that kind of strength and intelligence in a culture that kept all the people ignorant and enslaved. The Church WAS the social culture at that time, and if it produced those people, it simply could't have been horrific ALL THE TIME.

I also didnt say Catholicism IS the most progressive religion for women. It isn't today. What I said was that over the course of 2,000 years, women in the Church were given more respect than women had been given otherwise. That nuns, in particular, were the first women to do alot of things and went alot of places that had been traditionally seen as men's terrain. I just don't think that should be ignored.

for centuries. Moreover, the Quaker WOMEN were one of the LEADERS of the early women's rights movement and were instrumental in women gaining the right to vote.

Sorry, but your diversions aren't working: "bad males," "only the negative," "men's role in BC," "five years history, impressive," implying only Catholic women have done charity for centuries...etc

:eyes:

The earliest recordings of Quakers in Europe. Nuns go back 1,000 years before that, at least. They were educated and did much of the same work men did, except mass.

I didn't say NO OTHER RELIGION has had women in roles of responsibility or equality.

I SAID that the role of women in the Catholic Church, over its entire history, has been respectful and important in women not being seen as just wives and childbearers. Would there have been Quakers to lead the women's rights movement if Catholic nuns hadn't displayed their capabilities hundreds of years before?

And I'm not the one who keeps throwing in all these diversions in an attempt to ignore history and that nothing is all good or all bad.

and so is sex, instead of trying to suppress, discredit, or hold one back--- and trying to use the very natural desire for the other as an avenue to try to inflict guilt and exercise control over people.

You're right. Maybe "the Lord" wants people to risk getting pregnant every time they screw, and we should ditch medical technology which permits it to be a more planned event. Of course, by that same logic, maybe "the Lord" wants me to have 20/550 vision, in which case I should also ditch the unnatural medical technology which allows me to make it out the door safely and drive a motor vehicle without plowing over my neighbor's lawn.

Or maybe a religion should teach people to mind their own damn business, and not worry so much about what is going on in their neighbors' panties or boxer shorts.

I know, that's probably expecting too much.

i.e. discussing who will succeed him, asking will he be granted sainthood, etc. be moved to the Religious Forums, where they belong.

I am glad to see that some here agree, and that a discussion of his policies as they relate to how lives are affected re: political decisions are what should be discussed on this, a POLITICAL board.

I have not used the "ignore" or "hide thread" function since the primaries ended (I really do like to read as many different points of view as possible here on DU), but boy am I getting close.

you know this is SO not what they needed on the heels of the Schiavo thread nonsense. :)

People tend to use the forums they hang out in, even when it's not really appropriate.

If anyone posted a scathing indictment of the Pope, it would be locked, but one praising him without question is ok and not to be "bashed". Not in a political forum, it isn't, not to me. Neither post should be here. A discussion about the political influence of this Pope and the Church would be great, but unfortunately, like all religious "discussions" it usually winds up in flames.

There are others, however, who knowingly use an inappropriate board to try and spread their own personal "gospel." Even though the religion boards were set up specifically for this, they feel a board like GD will get wider "readership" (true), so they post here. Deliberately.

THAT is what upsets me - and they are VERY easy to spot.

(I better stop now, lest this devolve into a flame within a thread)

You will get none from me. I can safely avoid most religious threads here during normal times. Which I do. Debating religion online is something I avoid like the plaque. Right now.... it's a bit difficult.

Ain't it, though :)

GD is one constant duplicate thread. That's when I asked that some of the Swift Boat shit be contained during the campaign. So while I tend to agree, Admin could move Pope threads to religion, there is also the fact that current events have never been curtailed in GD.

Things like the Pope's impact on the general political climate both here and abroad, his stands on issues - all valid and "discussable."

However, there are those who look to discuss religion under the guise of GD -as I said before their transparancy is clear. Would you agree that these posts have no place in this forum?

Let's see, what do you do with a post that starts out with the Pope's work with kids, that turns into a flame war. Or a post that starts out against the Pope and his disrespect of women and hate for gays, that turns into a flame war. Or whatever. I don't think the Holy See has a military and any tax policy they might have doesn't affect most of the people on this board. So social issues are discussed. I actually don't see too much discussion about the trinity or the sacraments, that would be religion.

Which he did nothing to reform. Why should he, or the institution, be above criticism?

I am glad you had the courage to post this and in a very appropriate way.

As a Catholic, we were always taught that the Pope was infallible. Yes....that he could not make a mistake and to never question his directives.

Well, I am all grown up and now find this teaching lacking. As you say, the pope is a man. He is fallible and many of the pronouncements have been harmful. In addition, this pope became a political lightening rod, using a religion to government.

That is a big "NO" in my humble spiritual belief.

It's difficult for me to understand the idolation of the Pope as I am not Catholic. As a woman, I resent a man with the power he has being so openly chauvinistic and homophobic. I understand he bases his beliefs on his understanding of his religion. But he should be able to understand the dynamics of change. Afterall, the Pope enjoys the benefits of modern technology. He is now receiving the best medical attention available. Why can he not understand the dynamics of change regarding humanity in reference to gender and sexuality? This willfull ignorance is a disease which damages women and gays. So, idolizing this man is difficult for me to understand.

everything with. I don't bash them because of it. I hope I am not remembered for the sum total of "bad things", for I am not perfect. The only thing in life we can do is hope for understanding among all humans. We have much work to do. Bashing others (with notable exceptions for the truly evil) isn't going to accomplish this. :hi:

I'm not going to kick them when they're down, that's for sure. Save the bile for the Reagans and the Falwells. Great post, MrsG :hi:

Unfortunately, I was raised a SBCer, so I know much more about the Falwells, Grahams and Dobsons of the world than I should. But those churches actually do charity work as well, especially in a more localized and regional manner. There is a pretty conservative religious organization behind Feed the Children, and yet they provide millions of dollars in assistance. Is that church also now above criticism just because of *some* good that they do? Never mind that they still argue for the subjugation of women, both within the church and elsewhere?

I hope that no one feels I'm necessarily throwing bile at any particular person or organization. But it is honest to say that the Pope's policies have done a great deal of damage to poor and developing countries of the world by denying them access to contraception to prevent unwanted and unneeded births and to prevent the spread of deadly diseases. If you recall, the Earth Summit in Brazil was hijacked a few years ago by the Catholic Church when it refused to allow Catholic countries to sign off on any environmental accord which called for decreasing population by use of contraception. Falwell's never even done something *that* harmful to poor women and children, though he's come close many a time.

So why is the Pope any different than Falwell? :shrug:

Every one of us is a complex individual who is a mixed bag of good and evil. None of us is perfect, and none of us is or should be above criticism.

All my years of participation at DU, and fighting the good fight are all for naught, because I won't throw in my lot with the Pope bashers.

I don't mean to direct all of my aggravation at you. I'm just so angry. I got angry and defended the atheists (of which I am one) on DU against the whole "Christian persecution" thing, because I saw it as slandering the atheists of DU, and bashing us for what we believe. But, I'm seeing it in spades right now against the Catholics. I knew the Pope passing was going to open up Catholic bashing on DU. I didn't realize that defending them, as I defended my fellow atheists, was going to open me and my progressive beliefs up to scrutiny. I realize you didn't do that to me in this post, but I just got back on DU after having been away a day.

No one is above criticisms. I never said otherwise, and that was never my point. The Pope's positions on many things were deplorable. I don't think that excuses the treatment of some of the Catholics here at DU right now in their time of grief. And the Catholics of DU are our fellow progressives and fellow DUers. They deserve better. I don't think the fact that they're Catholic and grieving the loss of their leader means they sympathize with every single thing the Pope believed, did or said.

what I'm saying is that only allowing discussions about those "good things" is a slap in the face to those who were hurt by the bad things he did. And it has come across from some posts today that there are people on DU who don't think we should be allowed to talk about the bad things.

Again, the point of this thread was to try to get people to understand each other. I can't figure out if it's working or not. :)

usually point out the bad points of the person.

I think, with time, it will work! :hi:

Me, I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole thing. I look at it as the end of an era. A little bit of my childhood dying. I know that's weird but that's how it is for me.


a Side note: I consider myself a Catholic, but have not attended church since the moment the Archdiocese of Detroit started political pandering...re: Gay marriage. This is where change will take affect. The people...then hopefully the papacy. :hi:

Much love, BBJ

:hug:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3403917>

In particular, read posts 21, 22 and 26. :hi:

Two of those posts are mine! You saying I did good? I was just trying to be honest. :)

And I will understand, that you do not understand mine.

Further, I will notice that you assume all kinds of things about me and the way I think that simply are not true.

I do not privilege pacifism above my gay neighbors and their rights, just for example.

What I try to do is appreciate, applaud and encourage good when I see it.

I shouldn't be posting this. It's been a long day. Maybe I should go post a DUDQ thread. lol

But, while you wait for perfection, I'm going to be out there, every single day, appreciating the smallest gestures of acceptance and inclusion and appreciation. With volume and turning the bass up.

Have a good night.

Beth

For example, I do not assume that you value pacifism above gay rights. I'm just asking you to acknowledge that it could be viewed that way by someone who has been affected by the Pope's stand on gay marriage and that they might be understandably upset.

But, why on earth would you think I was less upset with his stand on gay marriage than you were?

You don't know if I'm gay or if my kids are or whatEVER. I guess the assumption hurts a little.

People tend to be mixed bags. Right on some things, really wrong on others. I grieve the right that is going out of the world with this death. The wrong, I'll keep addressing.

B.

Again, the comment was not directed at anyone individually. It was more intended to get people to think about the implications that could be taken from their words. There have been a lot of posts today from people saying how they admired the Pope for his stands on the war and on poverty. Then turn around and talk about how they disagreed on women's issues and gay rights. But he was still a good guy. And I will admit as a woman that ticked me off and I may well have let my emotions cloud my original post more than I wanted them to. It felt like a lack of respect from people who were demanding respect for their views in the same breath. A little hard to take.

I still may not be expressing myself well. But I feel better for the fact that we're discussing it. I'm blanking on my Sunday School lessons from a thousand years ago but I know it's in the book somewhere "come let us reason together". :)

You know, no one could POSSIBLY be more surprised than me that I've been crying all day over this one man.

Partly genes -- Latina ex Catholic. But, I betcha you and I would agree on all the stuff we dislike or challenge or downright hate about the "official" Catholic Church's policy.

Somehow, this one guy seemed to be bigger than that policy. And, that's why I care that we're losing him. We need more people that are willing to think beyond any dogma.

So, I'm in this really weird position of weeping over someone who I know didn't forward simple human rights as he should have. While he did more good than anyone ever in his position.

Ah, well, thanks for your graciousness. I really needed it, today.

Beth

that's what's making this day hard. Everyone is so emotional. I don't deal well with emotions. Some people who I really admire are very upset over the Pope's passing and I just wanta hug 'em. Other people that I really admire are very upset because the Pope said mean things about them. I want to hug them too. Mostly what I want is for them to stop hollering at each other and everybody hug. And I'm not setting a very good example because I got all snotty with someone in this very thread.

BTW, I think you're pretty wonderful yourself. :)

And I bet you're 100 percent right about agreeing on the things about the Church that we would like to see change. That's the really strange part about today...I think a lot of the people yelling at each other probably agree on that stuff too.

:cry:

There's a lot to process here, to use ugly clinical terms.

We can do it. Thanks again,
Beth

sorry the "clinical terms" thing just tickled me. Blame it on the Social Work degree. :)

I may have jumped the gun with you. I'm sorry about that.
You may have been the victim of my frustration with less
compassionate people. I now see your point. Sorry if I
caused you any frustration in not being understood.
Mea culpa.

from a perfect stranger. Caution!

:grouphug:

For whatever it's worth...

I had a very strict Catholic upbringing.
I went to a catholic military academy for boys.
To this day, I still do charity work for nuns.
As it turns out, they are my very best friends.
One of the nuns is 83 years old. I bought her
a box of chocolate turtles and when she saw me,
she broke down in tears. She said she hadn't eaten
any since she was a kid. She hugged me and told
me she was going to say a rosary for me every day
until I die. Made me cry. All of the nuns
at the "Motherhouse" (as it's called) are in their
80's and they are still getting up at 6:00 a.m.
to do charity for the less fortunate in town.

I'm not a good catholic. I'm really more Buddhist.
But I love them for the kind, generous, hardworking
people they are.

This is why I started this thread. I love to talk to people and try to understand each other. I know that just about everyone on DU agrees about 98% of all possible issues and that we tend to fight like siblings over that 2% where we don't. But if we keep talking good things always happen.

And I'm sorry if you were also the victim of my frustration with less compassionate people. :) (I like that...nice turn of phrase and don't be surprised if I steal it again from time to time)

:toast:

the people in it, aren't.

My family fled to Mexico from El Salvador. And, they survived, literally, because commie nuns fed the kids, taught them, helped them.

I'm not able to talk about the Church tonight, not really knowledgeable to enough do it ever.

But, those good people fed my mom. And this one good man did more to bring people together than anyone I can think of.
Thanks for sitting with me tonight. Velma, BBJ, I really appreciate that.

Well, here we are. Here's to appreciating what went before and trying to add to that effort.

And most of all, thank you for respecting a different viewpoint.

Beth

for staying and talking about it even at a time when you're upset.

And as for "respecting a different viewpoint"...when I was little someone told me that's what it meant to be a liberal Democrat...best reason I can think of to be one. If we didn't all respect one another...we'd be republicans. :evilgrin:

I hope you get to feeling better soon.

This was a hard day. The kind of day no one would sign up for.

But a good day, too, because I got to listen to you two.

Live, thrive, do what you're here for!

B.

I am inspired to do whatever good I can during the rest of my life. You both lifted my spirit today. I initially wanted to give up, but continued efforts cleared it up. I am encouraged.

Even the little stuff counts.
A small, kind gesture can sometimes make a HUGE difference in someone's life.

I just arrived home and I am having a glass of merlot in a toast
to our working together together as fellow human beings always striving
to understand each other. Communication is, indeed, the universal solvent.

Beth and Velma, have a peaceful night. You sure deserve it.
Dare I say, "God bless both of you."

Love,
BBJ

I don't think it much of a compliment to any intelligent person.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3401468#3401564

But when I went to respond, it had been locked.
I don't believe anyone can read this and still not "get it".

interesting thread you linked to..

I am a closet ATA forum lurker.
oh the shame!!!
:blush:

It was what really got me thinking earlier today and probably eventually led to this thread.

The Pope and Fred Phelps aren't even in the same universe. It's not that I didn't get what that person was trying to say. The hurt and anger were all too evident. I think that person was ranting about religion in general, and the hurt and misery it has caused throughout history.

Not to me, not to you, but I'll bet to some people they seem to be not only from the same universe, but the same planet.
Emotional, perhaps; ranting, maybe, but if they gave medals for portraying what it feels like to live in that world, that post would have taken the gold.
Just MHO, though.

I just wanted to point out why that isn't falling on deaf ears for someone to read that post, and still not want to bash Catholics in their time of grief. Because I've never known a single Catholic person to be tolerant of Fred Phelps and his ilk. I don't think the people on DU who are mourning the passing of the Pope would even want to be within 100 feet of that POS, let alone agree with anything he, or anyone else like him, says.

Anytime. I try never to bash anyone because of what they are (although I have been known to bash a few for being assholes-but they started it)
As I stated in my post above, my best friends are catholic, it's not about what kind of people they are, it's the position of the church when it comes to homosexuality. Not to mention there are many who will never forgive the church for not only allowing pedophiles to assault children, but protecting them and allowing them to continue their assaults in a different parish.
I would never dream of telling them their rage is inappropriate. And while I agree there is a bit of freestyle bashing going on, most of that comes from people who don't discriminate against catholics, they bash all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons. Most of the posters I see acting out in anger feel provoked because they are being told they shouldn't criticize the pope or the church at all.
As for the posters that want to make stupid, tasteless jokes, I say let them. They have a right to do so. Most of those threads seem to be clearly marked.
I personally have posting on beetwasher's asshole thread today. But that one is clearly marked too.
:evilgrin:

They both say that gays are going to hell, that they are evil and morally bankrupt, and they both use scripture to do it.

But because the Pope decides to use softer language, he's better?

I don't. But I have never felt the urge to talk about a person's faults on the day they are dying.
Maybe just for one day, it isn't about you just like it isn't about me.
I have my issues with the Catholic church, but this is not the day for them.

What is the difference in me sharing my opinions and the people who admired the Pope sharing theirs? Why are theirs more valid today than mine? Particularly on a political bulletin board?

were refusing to understand other points of view. Particularly the last sentence. I almost always agree with you, but I can't support what your OP stated. It really does nothing to soothe anyone's feelings. I'm not even Catholic, and it kind of ruffled mine. It makes me feel as though because I'm defending those who grieve for the Pope and calling for others to understand their pain, that I'm less understanding of the pain of others. Further down thread, someone else posted a link to a post by someone in pain, and couldn't understand why no one was affected by that, and that it fell on deaf ears. It seems to be reinforcing what you said.

I just have a feeling a big shit storm is coming to DU with the passing of the pope. I just do not think that Catholic DUers, or anyone who supports them, are less knowledgeable or understanding of Catholicisms stances on issues and how they affect people.

I wish the editing period wasn't up because I think I could express what I meant without sounding so snarky. And I can see where it could easily be interpreted as snarky. I apologize for that.

I hope by this point in the discussion people understand what I really wanted to say...which is this...mutual understanding is vital for us all to get through the coming "shit storm" without killing each other. At the time I posted this thread there had been plenty of requests for DUers to understand the feelings of the Catholics and others on the board who admired the Pope and are sad at his imminent passing. I would hope that same level of understanding would be displayed for those who have been hurt or insulted by things the Pope has said of done. We all use DU as a place to vent and there's going to be a lot of that on this topic and if we try to understand one another we can minimize the resulting damage.

I know it's a lot more wordy but I should have taken a deep breath and taken the time to write it in the OP. I'm sorry I didn't.

as long as I'm taking people to task over how their words can be interpreted...I figure I have to be willing to acknowledge when mine can be read with obnoxious intent. :)

not all of us are sucked up into the hyperemotionalism of it all.

it's really seeing so many people I care about get upset on one side or the other that triggered the emotional response for me.

And I'm not retracting the OP by any means. I just know I don't always edit enough when I'm het up to get across what I really mean. I don't mind holding the unpopular opinion. Do it all the time. But I want people to know exactly what my opinion is so they know exactly why they're pissed at me. :evilgrin:

and they don't wanna hear it. usually when somebody says that don't like how you worded something, that means you probably said that right thing, IMHO. :evilgrin:

or bumper sticker or something.

We should be able to express what we think and feel, and tolerate each other's views.

Not everybody here thinks the Catholic church and its representatives are right or good in everything they do. People have a right to think and say that; others have a right to think and say that hurts their feelings; and others have a right to think and say they might tolerate others' points of views; and still others like me have a right to say, I agree with you, VelmaD. :hi:

Especially that last loooooong sentence. Thanks :)

I've done the same thing. This is going to be a rough time for DU. I do think that mutual understanding is key. I definitely agree with you there.

to know that most people are likely trying to be reasonable and understanding about most things. I think the thing to remember is that we're all likely to fall down on that from time to time. I'm sure I'll get upset and post something snotty again sometime soon when I'm having a not so good day and I hope I can be half as forgiving of others as I need them to be of me. :)

The Christian/Atheist war we recently had tought me that. I got pretty heated and said some things I wouldn't say in calmer times. I wonder how many people who read my posts defending the atheists are scratching their heads that I'm defending the Catholics? :silly:

But as you know, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the wheels have been squeaking pretty damn loud lately. There are some who would like to use claims of persecution to squelch opposing views.

I guess these so called DU 'religious' wars are there if you look really, really hard. Mostly these wars of persecution are in the minds of a select few, and not the majority of Christians on this board.

where the current claims of religious persecution are coming from. How do you get to claim persecution when you're the majority? I don't really understand the motivations behind it.

see "Party, Republican"

They wrote the book. :)

:shrug:

I think it's similar to the candidate wars we saw during the primaries. Some become unhinged when their world view is threatened. Mature, well-adjusted people do not. I think it may be that simple.

one of my favorite topics to rant on...how most people don't ever actually become well-adjusted adults (I often have to include myself in that assessment) :)

But that would be high-jacking my own thread. :)

everyone has their baggage! :-)

It's just that some of us air it in public, and some of us torture ourselves privately. I prefer beating myself up in private! :-)

views.

to the choir on that one!
:evilgrin:

we have been talking about a bitterly divisive topic for over 130 posts and NO ONE has said anything to get a post deleted. Y'all ROCK!

You rock, Velma. What a relief this thread was!

:yourock:

but by the end I'm glad I started this thread and amazed at the way it went. DUers are amazing people some days.

I think I'm gonna check it to y'all. It's been a long week here and the bed is calling my name. I'll check in in the morning to see what y'all get up to without me. :) Have fun.

You did, imho, a great job of fielding the feedback.

May your pillow appreciate your head.

B.

/typing

I grew up in a traditional Roman Catholic home. All four of us kids went to Catholic elementary and high schools. Both of my brothers were altar boys and I was the "May Queen." (don't ask) I wholeheartedly bought into the whole shebang until my late teens and slowly drifted away as I saw how shabbily and shamefully pregnant girls were treated by the priests and nuns at my high school despite the fact that they didn't commit the ungodly sin of having an abortion. Horrible and totally unnecessary things happened to girls who chose to have their babies thinking they were doing the right thing and finding out the sexual double standard got them anyway.

Later, I watched in disbelief when JPI said he believed birth control was OK but died soon after being elected pope. When JPII came along I was skeptical in the extreme until I heard about his work in Poland. A year later, out of curiosity, I was in the man's presence while he said a public mass and I have to say that he was so incredibly devout it caused powerful waves of emotion and nostalgia to re-emerge and I started to go back to church.

However, when it almost immediately became obvious that women and gays were being told to move back to the back of the bus, I walked away and have never looked back. Had I stayed at that point, I'd probably be unreservedly defending him today.

I feel for those who will mourn his passing because I know what an incredible gift he gave to the faithful, but in good conscience I also must acknowledge what he denied those whose alternative or unsanctioned sexuality placed them outside of the approved flock. I'll shed a larger portion of my tears for the outcasts, excommunicated and the unmourned.

On edit: recommended for the level of sensitivity and sanity I've yet to see on a DU religion thread.

"for the level of sensitivity and sanity I've yet to see on a DU religion thread."

You are absolutely right, many different opinions were posted without flame wars because everyone realized that they were just that; opinions.

But of course, most of the credit goes to the OP, VelmaD, we were just following her lead.

Do tell!

I don't even know the significance of the Pope except he's like the leader of the Catholics. I have always wondered what role he plays for people in that version of the religion. Maybe that'll give you something to take your mind off it. I'm trying here.

And I'll admit I do get snippy sometimes on the issue of religion. I guess it's just because I was raised in the Christian Identity movement and went through years of hell at the hands of a brutal sadistic preacher/principal who enjoyed the beatings so much that he even beat me once for going to the bathroom in the bathroom in the church across from the school when the girl's bathroom was out of order one day. The next day he beat me even harder for going to the boy's bathroom across the hall from the girl's bathroom in the school because the girl's bathroom was still out of order. This is just one thing I was beat for.

Those kinds of things leave major scars, and yes, some of us do blame it on the religion. :shrug:

strong feelings against much that the Catholic Church stands for. I do. And they can have reasoned arguments that oppose much this pope stood for. You do. But it is possible to take these stances without insulting other people.

Further, one can have a wide range of views on issues such as "death with dignity," "sin," and human liberation, without having to resort to insulting others who have slightly different views.

When I read a post like yours, I think "that's it!" and want to engage in a further discussion that adds, in some small way, to the understanding we all have of the very strange days we are living in. I do not necessarily agree with everything you write throughout the thread, but I think "there's a smart person who THINKS about issues."

Compare that with some of the mindless posts that have been finding their way onto the discussions of the pope, Terri Schiavo, etc.

You also need to hate many church's leaders and leaders of other faiths as well if they don't change their religions by themselves. Spread your dislike around.

or did you just want to post a driveby?

And where the heck did you get from my OP that I hate the Pope? :eyes:

because you feel he represents oppression or supression of women.

"spreading venom" then I still think it's obvious you didn't read the whole thread. Or even the OP. Exactly how is it "spreading venom" to ask people to make an attempt at understanding one another?

anything else?

That was it.

Shame we couldn't have an actual conversation. You'd find out that my dislike is really for the church...and not just for the catholic church at that. It's not just about the man, although I have issues with him as well. Oh well.

I'm Catholic but I'm also liberal. I don't expect much as far as change from one man concerning the church. Best wishes.

I believe his stance has been that many women serve in other capacities in different orders in the church. Whereas I think all he has to do is make nuns eligible to say mass, he just doesn't think so. However, overall, I admire the way he tried to bring people together, was very conscious about the plight of the poor, and was very antiwar. It doesn't mean I agree with all of his stances. I also think there are many religious leaders that are verbally demeaning towards women and their roles whereas I don't think he was. But since he is so visible, he will be upheld as such.

"seperate but equal". I think we both agree he's wrong if he's trying to imply that women's "other capacities" in the church are considered as important as men's roles or have near as much power. They certainly don't get to have ANY say in the selection of the next man who will tell them what their role is. *sigh*

Also, in regards to the plight of the poor. This has always irked me. I don't see how the church or the Pope could claim to want to alleviate the suffering of the poor while at the same time working to deny them access to birth control. Women's economic status increases when they are able to control their fertility. I can't figure out if the church and the Pope just refuse to see this fact...or if they don't care.

then one has to know where the other is coming from. Whereas I agree with many of your positions, as a Catholic, I see where the pope enters from his position and recognize it as not any intentional malice or to keep women or the poor down. Take abortion, whereas an abortion rights person enters the conversation as its a woman's issue, he enters it as a human life issue. As far as the poor go, there can be an entrance into debate that contraception would help aleviate the poor's condition by alleviating the plight of more being born into poverty while the popes's position is to enter from an economic justice position. I can understand both positions as a Catholic liberal and thus don't view him as harsely.

from an "economic justice" position, once still has to address the subordinate status of women and how it is intimately ties to their continuing second-class status and whether or not they are allowed to control their fertility. By keeping women out of the church hierarchy they are not setting the best example in terms of promoting women out of the traditional subordinate position.

I think you are mis-framing what I had to say about poverty. It's not about having fewer people born into poverty...that position is taken up by too many racists as a code for wanting fewer dark-skinned people born. It's about women having control of when or if they have babies because it directly impacts their ability to earn a living.

with abortion as law nor contraceptive devices, he approaches from a different perspective. He doesn't view it as a way of ensuring second class citizenship for women. He's not saying that its ok for men to have sex and abandon their reponsibilities and consequences and "walk away" because they biological don't have to carry the child.

Whereas, I think he ought to give the ok for nuns to say mass and be in decision making of who the next pope will be, he doesn't. I don't think he's saying in secular society, they can't be heads of state or have political power.

a certain way...doesn't mean they don't still have that effect in the real world. And that's probably the crux of my biggest problem with the church hierarchy...they still live and work too much in a homogenous little world where they don't have to deal with the realities of everyday life. (Same problem I have with many of the other uber-wealthy "religious" leaders of other faiths.) They don't always seem to see how their decisions, taken in a vaccuum, effect real men and women.

a vow of poverty. Therefore, they don't own what they have access to. As far as his affinity for the poor, sick and dying, he walked the walk. As far as economic justice and liberation of populations from brutal rule, he walked the walk. As far as being antiwar, he walked the walk. Many politicians with power don't, they just give lip service.

about whether he walked the walk in terms of poverty but I figure you know how I think on that issue now.

Also, does it really matter whether you own the lifestyle or just have access to it? After a while it seperates you from everyday people anyway. And you can't argue by any stretch of the imagination that the Pope or anyone else in the high church heirarchy leads anything resembling a normal life anymore.

I can't see how anyone would say this pope showed no real affinity or effort for the poor or economic justice. When the Berlin wall fell, he was greatly dismayed at the rampant exploitation of the societies by uncontrolled capitalism.

I guess its because I understand he is neither conservative or liberal in the traditional ways people think. It wasn't for him to be either.

One problem I've had with my compatriots of the left has been it's approach to Catholicism. The left has always carried a sharper double standard with it as compared to other religious traditions. Let's face it, its a politically acceptable form of bigotry whereas no other religions are considered as politically acceptable to bash or desecrate its religious symbols, or to ridicule. But that's just life I guess. I've accepted it and don't expect that to change.

By the way, I'm not all that religious if you've kept up with my posts on DU. And I'm not arguing points from the pope's position, just from one of understanding from where it comes.

you have one particular understanding of where the Pope and the church is coming from. My understand of where they're coming from is a lot different. I see them coming from a long history of misogyny and male-dominance that they are in no hurry to let go of. I also see them coming too often from a history of hierarchical thinking and authoritarianism as evidenced in the way this Pope promoted arch-conservatives into the College of Cardinals and put down liberation theology.

But, that said, it's good that we can talk to each other about our differeing takes on this issue. :)

and the church standing up in Latin America to the point of being killed by rightwing death squads as standing up for liberation theology.

The next pope will bring in his thoughts but I don't think it will change its hierarchial framework as far as internal workings. Its still its fidelity to the apostolic laying of hands in the line of Peter's See which I don't see any break with.


I will continue to disagree with the church on issues just like Ted Kennedy or other politicians who happen to be liberal and Catholic do. But I also understand it. Peace.

remains the single most progressive school of thought that I am aware of. Although many non-catholic people have been among its moving forces in the past 40 years, the majority of those known to the general public have been Catholic. Father Jim Murphey of the Albany area was a state legislature who advocated for progressive jail reform. Although I was not a Catholic by the time I met him, he and men like Phillip and Daniel Berrigan were big influences on my life. There are wonderful, progressive Catholic leaders in the USA, as well as Central America. They just don't look for media attention.

exchanging opinion without attacking. While I am of a (slightly) differing opinion, I hold no malice toward Velma for posting her opinion. A good man is dying...let's not take it to the streets. :hi:

I appreciate that you've got my back. *big smooch* Fortunately the poster in question and I have started a dialogue. So I think it's gonna be ok. :)

without anyone getting a post deleted...I'm going to ATA and insisiting that they take us all out for ice cream. :) We've been good boys and girls.

But I can't do it. I cannot call you a bad name. ;) :hi: