New Pope: If you don't like the guy...

don't belong to his club.

I am amazed that everyone is surprised that the Catholic Church picked someone who was Catholic to be the leader. We know what the Catholic church has believed for millenia. Who is their right might thought that would change on April 19?

Politically, EVERYBODY should be interested in the guy and if they don't like him, discredit his Nazi ass.

and I agree that his Nazi past is frightening (but something in me says the he would not have been such close friends with JPII if he was an Aryan). What I don't understand is the dismay that people are showing at the choice that was made.

That's why.

because I am completely with you on that one, which choice would have been better on the "conservative" issues of the church?

Bernard Law.

Maybe even better according to me, too. But Benedict XVI is right in line with Church philosophy, and that, amazingly enough, is exactly what the Church wants.

I'll call the bastard a bastard and be proud I did!

there could have been only one worse choice, Bernard Law. Anybody else would have been a better choice than Joratz I.

I am defending him, you need to scroll back and reread my posts. I'm just not surprised that they picked a conservative catholic when 95% of the cardinals voting were appointed by a conservative catholic and when they themselves are, surprisingly, conservative.

The Nazis were fascists. Fascists are on the extreme right of the political spectrum. So, yeah, Nazi = conservative. I don't think all conservatives are fascists, though.

His election is truly a sign of the times. if you do not agree with
being stoned back into the dark ages by political dogma, then you cannot support (or ignore the election of) this Pope or any other entity that stands to control the hearts and minds of the people to their own detriment.

basically said that Bush was a huge turd and said that the Iraqi war was wrong. Yet bush got reelected. That's a lot of power.

Therefore your point would be moot. Please, no offense intended but,those that did vote for bush where I live are a bunch of red-neck protestants who believe the catholic church is all voodoo and idolatry. But put at the head of it a NAZI they can agree with, and there you have the catholic church bolstering the ideas of those who DO put the fascists in power. He's an idiot's best friend. Like we need more of those in high offices.:eyes:

I'll mull it over for a bit.

this post. :hi:

if they even thought about voting for Kerry - a Catholic - by their Catholic Church - how insane is that?


To pretend that having a more conservative pope is inconsequential to the rest of us is to be obtuse.

In what ways is Benedict more conservative than John Paul II? I don't think you will find many, but give it your best shot. I am talking about church doctrine. And I'm not interested that JPII was "nicer." Where do they differ on doctrine?

Gunter Grass and Jurgen Habermas were also in the Hitler Youth, but were never Nazi's.
They went on to become pillars of post-war German liberal democracy.
The Jerusalem Post reported on Tuesday "not even Yad Vashem considers the Hitler Youth issue worthy of investigation". Abe Foxman at the ADL said "His whole life is an open book of sensitivity against bigotry and anti-semitism".
People can disagree with his current conservativism, but the "Nazi" argument against the Pope is a non-starter.

election.

No passes on this one, unless he makes a heartfelt verbal apology in front of the entire world.

JPII was saying worse things about Bush and the Iraq war.

Actually Pope Ratty was kind of open in his advice in the last election. He said that it would be a sin to vote for a pro-choicer if that was the ONLY reason you were voting for him. But if you were voting for a pro-choicer for other reasons aside from his pro-choice stance, that it would be okay.

His stance on pro-choice folk taking communion is more troublesome. And his stance on contraception bugs me as well. But I'm a Lutheran, so I don't really have to deal with it exactly.

There's plenty to be critical of the guy for. But outright bashing is just ridiculous. Tying him in with Prescott Bush is downright tinfoil hat stuff, near as I can tell.

So don't shoot the messenger. But I understand what he said about kerry and communion. He thinks that being pro-choice and activity working for that is a sin...and a big one (again, I am not arguing that this is true). You cannot take communion if you have that level of sin. Since Kerry has not denounced his stand (and hence and confession would be invalid) he cannot take the sacrament.

telling the guy to Fuck Off.

and you might want to check out some grammar and spelling help...

"Who is their right might thought that would change..." WTF?

RL

But I wasn't surprised when he was picked.

And thanks for the grammar suggestions, I hope it made you feel superior to mention that. I am taking a few minutes during my prep period (while being an English teacher) to catch up on the news and read some posts on this forum. I am sorry that I do not take the time to make sure that I don't have some typos in the process.

between a typo and an incomprehensible sentence.

And if you are an english teacher, then you know better.

RL

1) Stop starting sentences with a conjunction.
2) Change "is" in my sentence to "in." That is clearly a typo.
3) Change "might" to "mind." Now the sentence is fine. I would argue that #3 is a typo as well, but it may have been a result of my thinking faster than I can type.

but a Vikings Fan in Wisconsin?

Damn... Just, Damn...

:hi:

RL

I have limited time (I take one of my preps to keep up with news since I have a 9 and 12 year old at home, I don't get any more time until they are in bed). I want to discuss issues and not grammar.

I grew up near Grand Forks, ND, and lived in that area until I was 27. So I have been a Vikings fan forever. I have gained respect for the Packers and their fans, but doubt I will ever convert (I don't fault my son for liking the Packers though--he is a huge Green fan {fellow asthmatic}).

I grew up in Chicago...

So imagine my own personal hell.

RL

and have a beer some time. We could have a "Displaced Non-Packer Northern Conference" meeting.

:hi:

RL

The Church is more than the pope. Most people will listen to their priests before they listen to their pope. Many priests are far more liberal than the pope is.

Catholics were hoping for another John XXIII.

I spent 3 years in a Catholic seminary. One of my best friends is a priest and was a clear socialist in high school.

I wasn't trying to be fallacious; I saying that people shouldn't be shocked that the church picked somebody who thinks basically like the last pope. (notice the correct usage of the semi-colon :) )

disgusted.

The Conservative wing of the Church is at the top. Third world and North American Churches are far far more liberal. But being that the top decides who gets there, conservatives are heavily favored. It makes the Church appear more conservative than it really is.

I'm not surprised. I'm not thrilled. I don't see any need to leave "his club." The Catholic Church is not monolithic, and no matter how much conservatives within and without would like to believe otherwise, it accommodates a variety of points of view.

I would be disappointed. I think that you have to believe the church IS monolithic. Sure there are individuals that think a certain way, but if the pope says "jump," you do it.

and looking into the myriad ways in which different populations have integrated traditional folk religion into regional catholic services/ceremonies/pomps and circumstances shows its far from monolithic. Clearly the balloting for Ratzinger wasn't unanimous. Those cardinals who voted for other candidates won't be openly disobeying the pontiff, but neither will they cease to have minds of their own, etc.

and you disobey, you are excommunicated.

Pope Joratz I seems to be a powermonger to me. He'll invoke all the old crap and he will have multiple Catholics in America excommunicated.

My expectation is he will start with Kennedy and Kerry.

or dispute anything in my last post.

and I eat a beef burger, I'm not REALLY a vegetarian. I can say it all I want, but it just ain't so. If you don't follow the laws of the church, as proscribed by the pope, then you aren't a catholic. I think that does dispute your last pope.

It would be more like:

If you were a vegetarian and you didn't wear purple pants, you wouldn't be a vegetarian.

The pope hasn't changed the tenets of what the Church believes and it is on THESE issues that he will invoke infallibility. For example: The pope says that Jesus was the son of God. He is infallible in this. If you don't believe that, you are not Catholic. However, we are NOT bound to follow his guidence in our everyday activities.

For example: The pope is NOT infallible on gay marriage, abortion or women's roles. He has not gone through the process to make those issues subject to his infallibility.

that gay marriage is OK, that abortion is OK, or that women should be in a role of power in the church, I have no idea why you are catholic. Those issues have been clearly defined in the faith for, oh, a couple thousand years. The pope may not have spoken "ex cathedra" on this (though I haven't checked, maybe he has), but most catholic theologians turn to the bible on these issues and, correct me if I am wrong, I think that document has passed the infallibility test in the catholic church.

Please don't knee jerk to this example, it could be anything. If you use birth control, it is sin. If you confess that sin, but still continue to use birth control knowingly, the sin has never been forgiven, and I'll see you in hell. That's the teaching of the church, and it hasn't changed. You and a lot of your "catholic" friends may think that birth control is ok. Hell, your priest may even say that it is ok. But all that doesn't mean shit. The church sees it as a sin, so it is.

This pope is no different on these issues than the last hundred popes.

The pope provides a guide to Catholics on issues, but it is not Church law that you have to follow it. No pope has ever made them infallible issues. And you are incorrect about "most Catholic theologians". There are many who take an approach to the Bible you might find surprising. Further, the issues you mention have not been policy "for hundreds of years" because they haven't existed for that length of time.

And you are completely wrong that "women should be in a role of power in the church" has ALWAYS been opposed because that is a relatively new development. For the first 1200 years of the Church, women were allowed to be deacons. Before you say this is not the same as a priest, there were no priests, only deacons.

This just isn't as black and white as you want to make it be. You can't just change religions as easily as changing hats. There are things Catholics believe that Protestants do not and vice versa. Further, as I said again and again, the pope has NOT made any of those issues rigid. He believes that people who do that will go to hell. Fine. But on that issue, since he has never invoked infallibility, he is admitting that he might be wrong.

If the pope speaks on matters of faith and morals, it has to be followed. If he says that gay marriage is a sin, it is a sin. Which issues that I mentioned haven't been around for hundreds of years? Homosexuality? Abortion? Those ain't new.

I didn't say "all" theologians, I said "most." I still stand by that. And certainly those in power (90%+ of all the voting cardinals) would fall into that. I know there are liberal catholics out there, but they are in the minority.

Women were allowed to be priests/deacons but in pretty limited roles. If I remember correctly, it was for smaller areas where they couldn't get anyone else to preach to the pagens. How many women bishops were there? cardinals? popes?

I agree that he may have not invoked infallibity which means that it could be changed (not that he thinks he could be wrong) but if he says it about faith and morals, catholics are BOUND to follow it.

I'm not saying that you should religion hop, but if you disagree with so many basic tenets of the church, why still be a part of it?

He has not claimed infallibility on it, so he could be wrong. And you are incorrect about women as well. They were allowed to participate and not just in a limited role.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_139.html

There are more dry sites out there they say the same thing. If the pope speaks on issues of morals and faith, even if it isn't "ex cathedra," catholics are bound by it. The use of birth control is a mortal sin even though "ex cathedra" hasn't been invoked.

You base your knowledge on what a stranger says? That's pitiful. Even Cecil says only the conservatives will say Catholics are bound by those things not spoken "ex cathedra". Also, women have only had limited roles since the medieval period. At the time women were deacons, THERE WERE NO PRIESTS.

You are looking for an answer that is not true, and as such, I will not provide you with it. If you are really intrested in true Catholic teaching, I suggest visitng an actual Church and discussing it with them.

You are correct. I am not currently a catholic.

But, I was baptised, received first communion and first reconciliation, and was confirmed at Sacred Heart Parish in Minto, ND. I was confirmed while attending my 3rd year at a Catholic High School Seminary in Fargo, ND where I graduated top of my class. Two of my classmates are now priests, one is a brother, and one is a deacon (out of a class of 13, that's not too bad).

When I get some time during my prep period tomorrow, I will find you some more dry catholic sites that talk about the pope when he speaks on matters of faith and morals. Did you give me any reference that says you don't have to listen to what the pope says about faith and morals? Didn't think so. He's not just a friendly old uncle that they give a white beanie to because he has lived a long time. He is the leader of the church.

And by the way, I'm still waiting for the names of those female bishops, cardinals, and popes that you were going to give me. Oh, wait, you did give them to me...because there are none.

I would imagine that I have spent plenty of time in an actual church talking to actual priests (lets see, morning prayer, mass, prayer after lunch, prayer after supper, evening prayers every day in a church for four years, plus retreats, reconciliation weekly, that's a lot of hours).

1. From the Vatican Council: (I assume that is a reliable source for you?)
"the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 -- old no. 1680).

Notice nowhere in there does it say that he has to go through the process of Church sanctioned infallibility, just that he has to be dealing with "faith and morals." If he says something about "faith and morals" it is defacto infallible and must be followed by Catholics.

2. The Catholic Encyclopedia states (I'm reading your mind about your next argument):
"the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible."

Hmmm. Seems like I was right. Pretty good for someone who "isn't even Catholic." Oh, wait, I was awake for my religion classes at the SEMINARY.

Basically there are three conditions (we had to memorize these word for word in 10th grade religion, my wording may be off): 1 He has to be speaking as Supreme Pastor 2. about faith and morals 3. to be held by the church as a whole. If he is doing all three of these, he is infallible. Apply my discussion of birth control here. In other words, if he says that broiled trout is the best food ever, we don't have to believe him in order to be a good Catholic. If he says that gay marriage is the greatest threat to the morality of the world and we must all do what we can to stop it (said this January, btw), then we do have to believe him.

Balls in your court. I want sources.

There are very few times the pope has invoked infallibility. You keep posting the same stuff over and over and over again and it says the same thing, if he speaks EX CATHEDRA.

And how many times must I tell you, there was no rigid hierarchy in the church for a long long time. How can you point out something that doesn't exist?

You have some beef with the Catholic Church. You provide no evidence for anything you are saying. Look.

From the Vatican Council: (I assume that is a reliable source for you?)
"the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent"


From Vatican II

The Second Vatican Council teaches: ‘Those under authority bring to the execution of commands and to the discharge of duties the resources of their minds and wills, and their gifts of nature and grace.’

Does that sound like Blind Obedience to you?

Also from Vatican II

Vatican II says: ‘The Bishops proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, they maintain the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, authentically teach matters of faith and morals, and are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.’

We know for a FACT that not all bishops agree on ANY of these issues, but even if they did, as Cardinal Ratzinger proclaimed in 1995, it doesn't mean SQUAT since the Church has never recognized the authority of that.

Holy Orders is holy orders, regardless of which position it is. Women were ordained for the first 900 years of the Church under full holy orders. You can look up the whole process.

You post snips that refute your own sayings. What are you trying to prove? :shrug: Perhaps you were taught by conservatives, who knows. In all my years at Catholic school, I was never taught that every single thing the pope says is infallible. Not once. I was taught by nuns, priests and brothers.

Also, since you used to be Catholic, you should know that there are intrinsic beliefs that Catholics have that are not shared with other religions. Since you have such a background in such matters, I will not bother listing them.

There is no magic dance to speak "ex cathedra"

"ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church --"

The part between the dashes defines what ex cathedra is. It is when he is acting as pope, talking about faith and morals, and addressing the church as a whole. If he is doing those things, he is, BY DEFINITION, speaking ex cathedra. So when he tells all catholics to denounce gay marriage, he is speaking ex cathedra and is hence infallible.

How the hell am I not providing evidence for my point and how does the Vatican Council deny my point? You snip about the bishops proves nothing in regard to the pope.

And when the hell did I say that everything the pope says is infallible? If he farts on the crapper it is not ex cathedra, but the quotation I posted tells when he is speaking ex cathedra. There is no special paper, no special stool to stand on, no vote needs to be taken, nobody needs to edit his paper for errors; if he speaks to all catholics about faith and morals and does so as the pope, he is speaking ex cathedra and is infallible.

And I do not believe that your Vatican II quotation says that you can pick and choose from what the pope is saying. It says you have free will, it doesn't say you don't sin by exercising that free will in violation of church doctrine.

I am just amazed that so many american catholics think that the church doctrine is a cafeteria plan. Don't like the view on birth control, don't follow it. Don't like the ban on sex before marriage, it's outdated anyway. That is not the way this organization works.

Sounds to me like you are really more of an episcopal. They split because they didn't like the infallibility of the pope bit. Go to one of their services, it is the catholic mass. They even buy the fact that the host actually turns into the body of christ and the wine becomes the blood (or maybe you can ignore that doctrine, too).

How many female bishops were there? cardinals? popes? Right. That's what I thought. Didn't get very far up the power structure, did they?

okay, I'm willing to work within that definition. But I still don't think it disputes my last post. If the Pope says jump, and you don't jump, that doesn't mean you're not Catholic (nor does it mean you necessarily will be excommunicated). Strictly speaking, violating doctrine might be a sin, but that would then make you a sinner, not a non-Catholic. Most sinners aren't excommunicated, of course.

Your analogy doesn't really apply, either. At what point can you be a vegetarian again? Are you banned forever from defining yourself as a vegetarian?

<<I think that does dispute your last pope.>>
I'm not ripping you for a typo, but that one was funny ;)

who could have been picked. Thats why everyone is so let down.

I don't know his name but I believe he was from Argentina. He was a much better choice and could have made some positive changes. Ratzinger was a big let down here. He was the one we were most afraid of.

didn't have your attitude back then.

My initial post said that we shouldn't be surprised that the catholics picked someone who is basically a, well, um, catholic. I don't understand how that means I am against advacement. Actually, I said that if you don't agree with the doctrine, there is nothing saying you have to be part of the club. It is a religious organization; if you don't believe what they want you to believe, you can find a place with people of like mind.

be allowed to have more power in the Church and so on and so fourth. If he were to say the use of condoms was OK then perhaps Millions could be saved from getting AIDS in Africa. Their is much left to interpretation as to what being Catholic means. Ratzinger was the MOST conservative on these issues. Thats why everyone is so upset around here. Thats why many Catholics here and around the world are upset.

then you have fun in your dreamland, Pollyanna. It isn't going to happen. EVER.

It is a political organistion that uses mythology to subjugate believers seems more like it to me.

Or to be kind, it is first a political organisation, then a religious organisation with lots of political baggage to carry around.

That there are some in this country who would defy the Pope and his authority, makes it all the worse, imo and leads to the snarky moniker "cafeteria Catholic".

Is that a religion?

If it is claimed to be equally as Catholic, where and who are it's leaders? In the end, they have no political power whatsoever--zero and must willingly submit to "authority" and the political authority to boot. There is no democracy in the religion at all.

It might be wise to look at the last election, where Catholics went for Bush because of the abortion issue--not the war issue mind you,something everyone should have had as their first concern and one that includes all people in this country, but the issue whereby they hope to overturn a law and force other people to adhere to their Pope's view. Moral imperative? None.

They have contributed to the demise of a great country under Bush, and the hatred expressed round the world toward the United States. They have enabled and contributed to the deaths of young Americans fighting a stupid war based on lies by ignoring that in their voting choice, so they can have the freedom to impose their religios views upon a woman and force her into a pregnancy she do not desire for whatever her reason.

I think it will get worse under Ratzinger and I for one, will not tolerate or show any respect to this religion, or the extremist right wing literalists.

If you think I am showing tolerance or respect to Ratzinger, then reread my posts. If a Catholic were to vote for Bush just because of the abortion issue, then they are morons. JPII said that Bush was wrong to go into Iraq, he said that he is wrong to support the death penalty and those people still voted for Bush and not the other candidate who is, irony not excepted, catholic.

... was going to drop its legal and legislative fight against marriage fairness in Massachusetts. :eyes:

Believe me, I'd welcome the day when the catholic church, or any other religion for that matter, became nothing more than its own "club."

you seriously thought that the new pope would come out in favor of gay marriage? Time to come back to reality.

politics?

Get real. The bastard had input into the last election and he's not a citizen. The Catholic church should lose its 501(c)3 non-taxable status over that shit!

if they are going to fuck around with our elections. Can someone take them to court over that?

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

Sounds like a challenge to me. I'm all aquiver.

Do you really think, absent the catholic influence in this country, that gay marriages would be allowed? Where are the numbers to support that? This goes way beyond catholicism. Bush isn't a catholic and he dumps shit on the gay and lesbian community all the time. Kerry is a catholic and would have been a lot better. There's a nice example that cuts against your argument. Is Delay a catholic? Frist? Gingrich? Cheny? Falwell?

We DO have some semblance of marriage fairness in Massachusetts... for the moment. The catholic church is one of the prime movers in the effort to destroy that. Has always been one of the prime movers in the effort to prevent it... or civil unions... or domestic partner registries.

And what am I to make of your odd statement that other politicians and religionists are also opposed to marriage fairness? Am I required to list them all each time I discuss one enemy of fairness? Or, if that's impractical, would you prefer I not discuss the topic at all?

Quiver, don't quiver. I don't care. Your initial premise was bunk. Your follow-up to my response managed to miss the point entirely. And you latest post teeters on the edge of incoherence.

Can't wait to see your next effort. :crazy:

1. I say that it should not have been a surprise that the catholic church elected who they did.
2. You respond to my use of the word "club" (which was clearly for effect). Then you ignore the point of my thread which was that it was no surprise (which is much like the Bush method--ignore it and it will go away--way to show off your analytic skills there).
3. I repeat my point that it should not have been a surprise.
4. You react to word choice again and not the argument ("dude"), which is bitchin' analytic skills btw. Then you say he should stay out of Massachusetts. Again, you chose to ignore my premise that it should not have been a surprise that the catholics elected someone against gay marriage (JPII said at the beginning of the year that it was the biggest threat in the world today). Then, just to really show off your analytic skills, you close with an ad hominem attack.
5. I say that absent the RCC, America as a whole would still be against gay marriage and give examples of prime political figures in our country against gay marriage that are not catholic.
6. You say those examples don't matter. Sure you can talk about the catholic church as being an evil bastard. I agree. But my initial point has always been that IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A FUCKING SURPRISE. When have you ever responded to that point? You attack me and say I am analytically weak, but you never are even on point. And it doesn't get missed that once again you close with a logical fallacy--ad hominem

As a side note, I have enjoyed this exchange .

What is this? The "I Know You Are, But What Am I?" stratagem?

:rofl:

What part of "they should quit trying to make me part of their club" do you not understand?

Edited to add: The lead to your post was "If you don't like the guy... don't belong to his club." Claiming now that this was simply for effect, and not a central point, is just a cop-out.

For someone who charges in to tell another poster to get a grip on "reality," you are awfully quick to whine about ad hominem attacks when the respondent takes the same tone.

And your reading comprehension score is slumping a bit as well, I'm sad to inform you, particularly for someone claiming to be an English teacher who uses language "for effect."

How embarrassing for you, really.

and I also realize they have been doing it for a couple thousand years. I said I used the word "club" for effect. See, it belittles the organization and tries to make it look weak. It doesn't mean that I don't understand their power. It is like calling Bush "shrub" or "*." Doesn't mean those people aren't aware of his evil powers.

About my statement of leaving the club, I still stand by it. There are a vast majority of people that say they are catholic in our country that don't believe in the teachings of the church. A lot of those people are bitching about the views of the new pope. To them, I say, stop supporting this church. The views of the new pope are (and always have been) the views of the church. Get over it. Don't you think that if hundreds of thousands of people (probably millions) quit going to church and, more importantly, stopped giving their money, that it wouldn't have an enormous impact on the RCC? Of course it would. That was my original point. I tried to put that paragraph into a pithy sentence. Apparently that did not work for a lot of people.

It didn't work for a lot of people. Didn't work at all.

we just got sidetracked. I have no love for the catholic church; that's why I quit the "club" 20+ years ago. It's not going to change. I wish they would stop spreading their brand of tyranny (along with a lot of other religions).

Even Shakespeare wrote some crap along the way, it just didn't get published. ;)

But until he calls off the lawyers and lobbyists the catholic church employs to make marriage fairness -- OR civil unions OR domoestic partnerships -- impossible in MY state... until he stops trying to make his club's rules MY rules... then I think I have every right to be concerned.

that those within should get out of the church so they, too, can criticize from the outside. He's trying to convince people to leave the church (don't belong to his club), not trying to convince people not to criticize it. Criticizing it, of course, is both a right and (at times) an obligation ...

Makes the point I was trying to make quite well. I don't think the criticism from within is going to make a change. The views of the church are pretty much going to stay the same. If you don't like what this pope stands for, my perception is that you don't like what the church stands for (I am not talking about individual members or even individual priests at this point, but the church as an institution represented by the pope). Stop giving the church your money and the political clout from including you in the number of members it claims to have.

I don't like the stance of the church on a lot of issues; I left. I criticize.

Again, the main point of the thread was against established religion and a feeling of confusion as to why people are shocked that the catholic church picked someone that is in line with their doctrines.

may well be the most cruel and dangerous "opinion" one could hold. IMHO, it ranks right up there with Limbaugh's "We puny humans couldn't possibly harm God's environment" nonsense.

As humans exceed the carrying capacity of the earth, we stretch said carrying capacity only with methods that will insure that the future ability of the earth to sustain humans will be less than we found it - we turn marginal cropland into chemically abundant cropland into deserts.

So, I'd love to think that the RCC is just a quaint believe system that I could take or leave. Unfortunately, it goes WAY beyond that.

She was catholic too.

The complaints aren't that they chose a catholic. It's that they chose pretty much the hardest-core RW candidate.

is the most hard-core RW catholic out there. Wow, where do you go to church?

among those in contention for the pope job, he's as extreme as anyone.

We were discussing who would be the next Pope after John Paul II. I said that maybe the Church would pick a more reform minded Pope. My Catholic friends said, "no way in hell". Their point was that the Church hierarchy is too conservative too change.

Somebody gets it. The views of JPII and Benedict are the views of the church. It shouldn't be a surprise.

I won't.:+

he's an old and new school fascist trying to influence OUR countries politics and worse of all siding with the neoCON christian pretenders.

psst... pass the word :bounce:

peace

Why should the Pope be immune from criticism?

He's a religious AND political leader. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but his history is very troubling and isn't encouraging.

He stated that politicians that vote for choice should be refused communinion. Fuck that.

he shouldn't be criticized. I'm saying we shouldn't be surprised.

but a lot of religious righties, including the Catholic Church's conservative hierarchy, try to inject their belief system into our laws and political discourse. That may be their right,but it means that I can end up being profoundly affected by the views of the religious extreme conservatives, even though I am an agnostic. I don't want to be told what I can and can't do with my body, for example. So I am more than a little interested in who the Pope is and what he is going to promote (or what rights he will try to get our government to suppress.)

and I'll make it clear. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I have no idea why anyone on a progressive community would be offended by criticizing a person that has a troubling history.

The Pope, as Walt stated has international inluence over the actions of millions around the world.

I don't expect the Catholic church to change its stance on abortion. I also understand its stance on birth control (stupid if you ask me but I gget it). I'm also not expecting it to have ceremonies for gay marriages.

I do think it's about damn time that this institution enters the 21st Goddamn century though...and stays the fuck out of American politics.

This means tolerance. Gays are people. They should be given respect. T JPII did a great job in sincerely apolizing for the treatment of Jews over time. He stated that one cannot be anti Semitic and Catholic. It was a profound statement.

How about it being the case that one also can't be homophobic and Christian? Or what about other religions other than Judaism and Islam? What about Eastern religions? I suppose those people shouldn't be given respect.

Maybe Ratzinger has made up for his time spent in the Hitler youth. I don't know. But his recent statements stating that Jews would eventually convert to Christianity sure did bother me.

Of all the things though, what pisses me off the most is his obvious attempt to influence this election here in the US. He stated that Catholics shouldn't vote for pro-choice politicians (Kerry) and that such politicians should't be given communinion. Sure he said that if there were other reasons...bla blah blah...Just a bunch of qualifiers. That's still a pretty blatant attempt to have a say in who should be elected. Why can't religious institutions stay the fuck out politics?

The guy's words are reminicent of fundy nutcases. I sense a huge emphasis on social wedge issues and little on caring and compassion. Atleast JP had some charisma.

The silver lining is that the chuch may make itself even more irrevelant. I don't like religious institutions having much influence on society anyways.

Oh and don't forget he blamed the pedophile/ abuse scandal on the media...rather than taking strong action against it.

Everything I've heard makes him sound like some nutcase fundy ass hole. Flame away.

1. I am not against criticizing the new pope. If it hasn't been clear in this thread, let me make it so. I THINK THE NEW POPE IS A GIANT ASS HAT. HE IS A THREAT TO ALL THAT IS GOOD AND DECENT IN THE WORLD.

2. That being said, I think even this guy would not condone homophobia. That being said, respecting a person/religion does not mean that they aren't going to hell.

3. The pope thinks he is part of the ONE TRUE RELIGION. All catholics do and say it every week (at least they should) because it is in the Mass nestled right in the middle of the Creed. He's trying to push that religion. Do you begrudge him that? I dislike the guy and his religion, but I realize why he tries to spread his mythology. My hope is that the Marketplace of Information finally rejects it (much like you are hoping at the end of your post, too).

4. "Why can't religious institutions stay the fuck of out politics?" :rofl: That's rich. Really. I would imagine that a millenia old crack habit is pretty hard to break.

5. I don't think I have flamed anyone for their views in this thread. OK, I went off when I thought the attacks were personal, but that is different.

Thanks for your response. I enjoyed thinking about it. NOT sarcasm.

Indeed.

1. to agree with the basic premise of my post. Thank you.
2. to point out a couple typos. Been there, done that. There is a whole discussion in the middle of this thread.

He's just a seat warmer. They picked an old guard, old guy who won't last long enough to really have any lasting impact. They didn't want to get doublecrossed with another John XXIII, who was somewhat conservative, until he got into the office.

They figure this way, they've got more time to develop a succession plan with a status quo-ist in the hotseat.

The Professor

Strom did.

I'm not holding my breath that the next guy will be a liberal.

Is the GAC in your screenname for the college in MN?

The Professor

out of American politics. I'll be cool. At the moment, they are not covering their end, so... expect people to be outspoken against it's intrusion.

Hell, shout away. Scream from the rooftops. I don't like catholicism either.

My point, this whole time has been:
1. Nobody should have been surprised that the person picked was conservative.
2. The church ain't gonna change; if you disagree, get out and fight from the outside--stop giving them your money and the power from counting you as a member that agrees with their doctrine.

They picked an arch-conservative former Nazi who doesn't believe in equal rights for all humans. Ratzinger is a guy whose idea of "modernizing the RCC" is taking it from the 13th cenrury and dragging it, bloodied and screaming, into 1930's Germany.

It's 2005, fer God's sake...can we start acting like it, please?!

I think the former Nazi think is a non-issue for this. I can't believe he would have been friends with JPII if he really thought like a Nazi.

What, specifically, does Ratzinger believe, in regard to church doctrine, that every other front-runner for the position of pope (I don't want to hear about some priest somewhere; I mean people that really could have been elected) didn't believe in?

I know it is 2005. The RCC has believed what it believes for 2000 years. It ain't gonna change.

... if ever there was going to be an overly religious, Christian tighwad... can that at least be the friggen' POPE?

:dunce:

LOL

Heyo

A lot of people REALLY misinterpreted what I was trying to say.

So, I think that everyone should be concerned by the new Pope, not as Catholics or nonCatholics but as Americans.