They puffed "white" and rang the bells [Archive]

Blue Velvet

Apr 19, 2005, 12:44 PM

Ratzinger (ultra conservative) sorry for typos...

Benedict the 16th

--------------------------------

From the BBC.co.uk

The suggestion that 78-year-old Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger could become the next pope has raised eyebrows in his native Germany - a country where the Catholic church does not arouse the same passions as it does in Italy or Poland.

Cardinal Ratzinger was born into a traditional Bavarian farming family in 1927, although his father was a policeman.

His studies at the seminary were interrupted during the war when he was drafted into an anti-aircraft unit in Munich.

His supporters say his experiences under the Nazi regime convinced him that the church had to stand up for truth and freedom.

But his critics say he stands for suppressing discussion within the church.

Wolfgang Cooper, a commentator on religious affairs in Germany, says the cardinal could become a divisive figure.

"I think if Cardinal Ratzinger was pope a large distance could grow between the leadership of the church and the faith," he says.

The cardinal is a "scientist" who "prefers intellectual discussions", says Mr Cooper, whereas many Catholics want priests and bishops "who will touch the hearts".

Cardinal Ratzinger has been a head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the Vatican's guardian of orthodoxy since 1981.

As such, he has also taken some uncompromising political positions, calling for pro-abortion politicians to be denied communion during the US election campaign for instance, or arguing that Turkey should not be admitted into the European Union.

As pope he would give the church a clear, if sometimes radical voice.

takao

Apr 19, 2005, 12:46 PM

Ratzinger (ultra conservative) sorry for typos...

or better ;)
Benedict the XVI.

well 25 years ago he was a liberal but nowadays he's a conservative ... could have been worse ..(at least he is already 77)

iGary

Apr 19, 2005, 12:47 PM

Quick girl.

puckhead193

Apr 19, 2005, 12:52 PM

Does this mean we're getting dual-core G5's?! :p
I guess not, i would have guessed that G5 powerbooks were out :rolleyes:

takao

Apr 19, 2005, 12:53 PM

Cardinal Ratzinger has been a head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the Vatican's guardian of orthodoxy since 1981.

BBC making an error ;) the insitution of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (congregatio pro doctrina fidei) was founded as Congregatio Romanae et universalis Inquisitionis on the 21 July of 1542 ;)

it just got renamed twice
...

mactastic

Apr 19, 2005, 01:09 PM

Well so much for hopes of a more modern Church.

Ratzinger's got some big shoes to fill.

stubeeef

Apr 19, 2005, 01:10 PM

In St Malachy's (http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabbag/malachy.asp) prophecy of the Popes till the end of time, the indication of who this Pope would be is "Gloria Olivae" or "the Glory of the Olive".
The Order of Saint Benedict – not St. Malachy – has claimed that this pope will come from its ranks and Saint Benedict himself prophesied that before the end of the world his Order, known also as the Olivetans, will triumphantly lead the Catholic Church in its final fight against evil.
And we now have Pope Benedict XVI. It makes one wonder if things are done to fit the prophecy or the prophecy is correct. If the former, what happens with the 269th Pope?

I am not Catholic, and neither defend or attack the validity of this prophecy. I submit it for your digestion.
I personnaly go by Rev. 3:3 (http://www.christnotes.org/bible.asp?Keywords=Revelation+3%3A3&Version=KJV) .

PlaceofDis

Apr 19, 2005, 01:11 PM

Well so much for hopes of a more modern Church.

Ratzinger's got some big shoes to fill.

indeed, and iAgree with both your points :D

quackattack

Apr 19, 2005, 01:13 PM

The suggestion that 78-year-old Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger could become the next pope has raised eyebrows in his native Germany - a country where the Catholic church does not arouse the same passions as it does in Italy or Poland.

78 years old. Wow, looks like we may get to guess the color of the smoke every few years at this rate!

MattG

Apr 19, 2005, 01:14 PM

:rolleyes:

I'm looking forward to not having to hear about it any more.

miloblithe

Apr 19, 2005, 01:17 PM

Oh goody. A conservative pope. One who's not even liked in his own country:

A recent poll for Der Spiegel news weekly showed Germans opposed to him becoming pope outnumbered supporters 36 percent to 29 percent.

CanadaRAM

Apr 19, 2005, 01:32 PM

:rolleyes:

I'm looking forward to not having to hear about it any more.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming, "Purient Details from the Michael Jackson Trial"

;)

Balin64

Apr 19, 2005, 01:39 PM

I'm a bit disappointed in the Cardinals' choice, but I can see the political/transitional reasons. There are many disappointed that the new Pontif is not from Latin America, where more than half the world's Catholics reside... but they should not be. Now, if the next Pope is not from Latin America, then even I would start to become uneasy.

Benedictus XVI is VERY conservative. He's a hawk. I just hope he does not offend/ruffle too many feathers during his Papacy.

IJ Reilly

Apr 19, 2005, 01:47 PM

... a more modern Church.

This is an oxymoron anyway. The entire purpose of the papacy (try that three times fast!) is to resist change. To that end, the Cardinals made the perfect and obvious choice.

miloblithe

Apr 19, 2005, 01:50 PM

But for the next one, don't you think they'll choose another Italian? Three non-Italians in a row seems unlikely, to me, who knows nothing about the Catholic church.

mactastic

Apr 19, 2005, 01:59 PM

This is an oxymoron anyway. The entire purpose of the papacy (try that three times fast!) is to resist change. To that end, the Cardinals made the perfect and obvious choice.

I don't mean an actual modern church, just one that is slightly more modern than the previous one. I'm aware that cardinals are, by design, conservatives, but I think JP the Two did a decent job of moving forward. At least in certain areas he did.

Would you suggest that the cardinals made an imperfect choice in 1978?

miloblithe

Apr 19, 2005, 02:03 PM

Let's be realistic. The Catholic church does evolve and is more modern than it was in the past. I'm pretty sure they don't advocate Inquisitions or Crusades any more.

zimv20

Apr 19, 2005, 02:12 PM

Pope Anthony Hopkins?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/04/19/international/POPE.slide.468.1hp.jpg

http://www.boxsetauthentic.com/images/misc/Hopkins_JS066693836.jpg

iGav

Apr 19, 2005, 02:25 PM

Well he sounds like a nice chap (http://www.newint.org/issue327/worldbeaters.htm) :rolleyes:

stubeeef

Apr 19, 2005, 02:33 PM

while the church moves slowly, it should. I would hope that their beliefs are not made on the whims of each generation. Christianity is a choice, and shouldn't be a popularity contest or marketing scheme. I hope the choice that was made was because they felt he was the right person not necessarily the most popular amongst one country or another. There are certainly examples of wrongs committed by and for the church, let us hope that this Pope will emphasize the virtues of Christianity.

FoxyKaye

Apr 19, 2005, 02:43 PM

Ratzinger (ultra conservative) sorry for typos...

Charming to know that the Hitler Youth have had such an impact in his life: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1572667_1,00.html

Well, I suppose if we can overlook Bush being a war criminal, we can overlook the Pope being involved with the Nazi regime.

Caio! :D

takao

Apr 19, 2005, 03:02 PM

Well he sounds like a nice chap (http://www.newint.org/issue327/worldbeaters.htm) :rolleyes:

well actually surprisingly besides being a hardliner in dogmatic issues (which is no surprise) he's not an unlikable personat least that's my impression from the interviews shown in the past and the re-runs which the austrian tv stations put in the program fast...(at the moment a dokumentation about the vatican is on called "Joseph Ratzinger - Mein Vatikan" = my vatican where he leads through the city, including pictures about the vaticanian soccer league (_20_ teams), through the archives etc. ) ...

Juventuz

Apr 19, 2005, 03:03 PM

Charming to know that the Hitler Youth have had such an impact in his life: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1572667_1,00.html

Care to share what impact it made on him, because the article you linked to doesn't seem to tell us. It only mentions that he was in the HY after it was made compulsory and then he was given an exemption, then drafted by the military (of which he deserted).

The only impact I can think of is that he didn't really care for it, which for some reason (could be the way you wrote it) doesn't coincide with what you're thinking.

Thomas Veil

Apr 19, 2005, 03:09 PM

Let's be realistic. The Catholic church does evolve and is more modern than it was in the past. I'm pretty sure they don't advocate Inquisitions or Crusades any more.Don't forget Vatican II. The church does change when it has the right man at the helm.

But John Paul stacked the deck with conservatives, so gee, surprise...we got another conservative.

I wouldn't be surprised if Karl Rove's hand was at work somewhere in this. ;)

But it doesn't exactly increase my desire to participate more in my faith.

(BTW, for those of you who don't know what Vatican II is...it was the last famous soccer game between the Catholics and the Lutherans. Final score: Vatican II, Lutherans I.)

FoxyKaye

Apr 19, 2005, 03:19 PM

Care to share what impact it made on him, because the article you linked to doesn't seem to tell us...

Simple:

* He's anti-Semitic
* Predicted Buddhism would replace Marxism as the Catholic Church’s main enemy this century
* Rejects the notion of human rights for gays
* Also calls Hinduism a "continuous circle of hell"

This from facts in the article I posted as well as this earlier post here:
http://www.newint.org/issue327/worldbeaters.htm

In short, I also believe that just as in present-day United States, there were ways of resisting the German fascist regime that didn't include going along with their mechinations and then making excuses later. He might not have agreed with what was going on, then deserting the army, but certainly the intolerance and single-minded egoism with which he pursues leadership within the Church (and bear in mind, I'm far from Christian) is appalling to watch - especially given the cowtowing world leaders (including Bush) pay to the Pope.

I use HY as an example because even though he claims to hate fascism based on his experiences in WWII Germany, in fact his leadership is extraordinarily fascist. In short, he's a good Catholic.

mactastic

Apr 19, 2005, 03:28 PM

Gotta watch out for those Buddhists... Who knows how many wars THEY'VE started!
:p

sebisworld

Apr 19, 2005, 03:28 PM

I suppose in Germany everyone is dancing naked on the streets now. Oh - they aren't? I'm terribly disappointed by this election and so are many Germans I know. When was the last time a Pope was elected that was not welcomed in his home country? It really is a lot of fun to read German internet boards right now.
I just hope he will do what's good for the world now instead of what he thinks is good, but I know he won't. By the time he dies, nothing will have changed. Africa will be even more overpopulated, Aids will keep spreading (no condoms!) and priests will have male students instead of wives. But at least we might live in peace (as white male in Western Civilization that is).

I hope that in 50 years from now, no one will remember this Pope. If he tries to change something, it is only going to get worse. Hm.
I disliked Johannes Paul II because of his views and sometimes even wished he'd died earlier... had I just known this.

Well, I'm gonna call the only German I know that is happy right now, because he got to meet Ratzinger in person a couple years ago. But until then I'm going to search for "afterlife" and "Heaven" on eBay (I just have to promote this somehow :) )

And yes, I know that most of my views are very black/white.

aloofman

Apr 19, 2005, 03:32 PM

takao

Apr 19, 2005, 04:15 PM

I hope that in 50 years from now, no one will remember this Pope. If he tries to change something, it is only going to get worse. Hm.
I disliked Johannes Paul II because of his views and sometimes even wished he'd died earlier... but had I known this.

i would say it's way too early to tell that this Pope won't make any changes etc. or what he will accomplish or not ...

he might be not that popular in germany asuria etc. but his choice to use the name Benedict is actually i good sign IMHO (the last Benedict the XV was during WW1 one of the biggest speaker for peace and set the anti-war course of the church for the last hundred years) ... JP II declared the holy benedict as the "Patron" (whats the english word for that) of whole europe ...
he will be different from JPII that's for sure, more of an intellectual theologist ... and we can be happy that there will be much better new bishops that's for sure (JPII choices in austria weren't very glorious)

CubaTBird

Apr 19, 2005, 04:23 PM

hrm... 78? wasn't pope john paul II 58 when he was elected? are they going for an older fellow this time around? you would think they would want young blood in there.. :rolleyes:

nbs2

Apr 19, 2005, 04:34 PM

From what I'm reading, it seems as though many would like to see the papacy and the RC church change with the times, adapting to the beliefs of the era. I wonder why this seems to be so needed. As mentioned earlier, nobody is being forced to be a member of the RC church. Rather I think that those who are upset should look elsewhere for spiritual fulfillment.

As for the fact that the leader of the 1.1 billion member church wields significant power - isn't he really speaking for those who believe that God will not allow his church (as they believe) to be led astray? That would mean that about 1/6 of the world does not disapprove - or at least spiritually should not. I would hope that the election of a pope is not viewed as a popularity contest but rather an inspired decision. I guess what I'm wondering is why Catholics should be upset about the choice of pope if they believe that God will inspire a proper desicion. Obviously the pope has his agency and can choose to follow the will of God or not, but I believe that Benedict XVI is a God-fearing man who will do what is right under the teachings of Christ and not what is right under the teachings of modern men.

As a non-Catholic, I believe that this decision is bothersome to many who are quoted in the news because they believe religion should adapt to society rather than society adapting to religion. Am I advocating a reversion to times past when disbelievers were persecuted? No. But, I do advocate that people who prefess belief in a faith to abide with the decisions of their religious leaders. If they believe that a decision is no inspired, perhaps they should look elsewhere for their religion.

As for the accusations that Benedict XVI has made hardline comments and was a Hitler Youth, I say so what? Do we persecute those who are forced into acting on behalf of their government? Especially when they choose to desert - an act of betrayal to that government second only to treason? And his comments are those of a true believer. Did he ever express a desire to deny those who do not believe an opportunity to believe? No - just that they are wrong. I hold similar beliefs regarding those who do not believe as I do - but I do not wish to deny others the right to worship as they see fit.

Juventuz

Apr 19, 2005, 04:34 PM

Simple:

* He's anti-Semitic
* Predicted Buddhism would replace Marxism as the Catholic Church’s main enemy this century
* Rejects the notion of human rights for gays
* Also calls Hinduism a "continuous circle of hell"

This from facts in the article I posted as well as this earlier post here:
http://www.newint.org/issue327/worldbeaters.htm

Your article fails to mention that he was a proponent of the Vatican II and was considered to be very liberal at one point. He started to change to a more conservative viewpoint in the early seventies.

In short, I also believe that just as in present-day United States, there were ways of resisting the German fascist regime that didn't include going along with their mechinations and then making excuses later. He might not have agreed with what was going on, then deserting the army, but certainly the intolerance and single-minded egoism with which he pursues leadership within the Church (and bear in mind, I'm far from Christian) is appalling to watch - especially given the cowtowing world leaders (including Bush) pay to the Pope.

He was forced in the Hilter Youth, you do realize that right? What did he do then? Get out of it. What would you have expected a 14 year old to do?
He was then forced into the military, what did he do then? He deserted it. What would you have expected a 17 year old to do?

I use HY as an example because even though he claims to hate fascism based on his experiences in WWII Germany, in fact his leadership is extraordinarily fascist. In short, he's a good Catholic.

Right because we all know good Catholics are fascist :rolleyes:

I'm not a fan of the guy, to be honest I wish they picked somebody else but to say that his days in the HY had an impact (and by your account a negative one) on him is wrong.

Juventuz

Apr 19, 2005, 04:36 PM

hrm... 78? wasn't pope john paul II 58 when he was elected? are they going for an older fellow this time around? you would think they would want young blood in there.. :rolleyes:

Many believe that he's a transitional pope (why? don't ask me) and the next one will be somebody that is younger.

nbs2

Apr 19, 2005, 04:37 PM

hrm... 78? wasn't pope john paul II 58 when he was elected? are they going for an older fellow this time around? you would think they would want young blood in there.. :rolleyes:
I don't find it too surprising - a "caretaker" pope is good for right now. Someone who will continue the course of John Paul II, with significent knowledge. I think this is right for right now, as in these turbulent times, a bastion like the RC church must remain steady and not allow itself to be blown by every wind of doctrine that the world wishes to espouse.

zimv20

Apr 19, 2005, 04:37 PM

should we take bets on whether this new pope will be for, or at silent on, US troops staying in iraq?

mactastic

Apr 19, 2005, 05:07 PM

Link'd (http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/19/1678/13588)
Today has seen the third papal election in my lifetime. There are many reasons to criticize the election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI, like his stances on women and gays in the church, social issues, his work in crushing liberation theology, his comments in regards to the priest sexual abuse scandals, and his generally conservative views.
Calling him a Nazi, however, is unfounded and unfair, and only serves to demean us.

The man is 78 years old. He was 18 when the war ended. He is of the right age group where you were required by law to join the Hilter Youth. Membership in the Hitler Youth by no means made you grow up to be a confirmed Nazi, although that was certainly the intent. Belonging to a Luftwaffe AA battery is also not a sign that he was a Nazi; had he been a fanatical Nazi, not only would he have volunteered for the Waffen SS, but he wouldn't have deserted in 1944. That desertion in itself is not an unremarkable act. They still shot deserters at that time. Being in the German Army does not mean that you were a Nazi.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize this pope and the policies he's likely to enact. Unfounded accusations are unfair, and will only serve to give the wingers more ammunition.

Call him conservative, call him reactionary, call him old, call him surly, call him the wrong choice. Just don't call him a Nazi.

paulypants

Apr 19, 2005, 05:12 PM

Upon choosing the papal name "Benedict" the "Gloria Olivae" prophecy of St. Malachy has been fulfilled. Kind of scary, there are doubts of its authenticity, however the doubts are most likely based out of fear of the eerily accuracy of the prophecy itself. According to the prophecy, this will be the second to last pope, he will promote world peace, but move to battle the enemies of christianity and persecution of catholics before the seven hilled city (Rome) is destroyed along with the church and Peter the Roman returns in the final days of judgement to lead christianity.

Bummer.

Blue Velvet

Apr 19, 2005, 05:13 PM

...a bastion like the RC church must remain steady and not allow itself to be blown by every wind of doctrine that the world wishes to espouse.

What? Like the earth going round the sun? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Church_controversy)

nbs2

Apr 19, 2005, 05:24 PM

What? Like the earth going round the sun? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Church_controversy)
More along the lines of morality/doctrine rather than science. My point there was that the RC church is in position A, and that they are not going to change to position B on a dime. I personally am not Catholic and do not believe that the pope is God's representative here on the Earth today. But for those that do believe he is, the RC church really should be their moral compass.

And the wind of doctrine line was a my attempt to throw in a Biblical reference, trying to be all educated and such (please don't turn me in for not giving a proper citation:o). It's Ephesians 4:14 (http://tinyurl.com/dqrff).

absolut_mac

Apr 19, 2005, 05:28 PM

Thanks for the link iGav.

In 1986 Ratzinger issued a letter to the Catholic Bishops in which he wrote that homosexuality was a ‘tendency’ towards an ‘intrinsic moral evil’. A few years later, in 1992, he rejected the notion of human rights for gays, stressing that their civil liberties could be ‘legitimately limited’. He followed up by remarking that ‘neither the church nor society should be surprised’ if ‘irrational and violent reactions increase’ when gays demand civil rights. Not a man to mince his words, Ratzinger urgently set to work to ferret out gay-sensitive clergy.

So I guess now we can expect to see him extradite Bernard Law to the USA to be indicted for furthering homosexuality in general and pedophilia in particular by enabling the pedophile priests under his supervision to move from congregation to congregation to foist their evil upon thousands of unsuspecting innocents?!?!??

I'm not holding my breath.

It seems strange to me that he seems bent on taking away the civil rights of innocents - gays/homosexuals - while ignoring the blatant evils of his fellow pedophile priests who, by the way, do not necessarily restrict their evil ways to innocent little boys, but corrupt and ruin the lives of thousands of innocent little girls too :(

absolut_mac

Apr 19, 2005, 05:30 PM

What? Like the earth going round the sun? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Church_controversy)

Well, the pope thought - no let's correct that, knew - that Galileo was wrong :rolleyes:

mactastic

Apr 19, 2005, 05:32 PM

More along the lines of morality/doctrine rather than science. My point there was that the RC church is in position A, and that they are not going to change to position B on a dime. I personally am not Catholic and do not believe that the pope is God's representative here on the Earth today. But for those that do believe he is, the RC church really should be their moral compass.
Those of us who aren't Catholics have a right to voice our opinion of the new pope, right? He's not my moral compass, so I feel comfortable criticizing the church's rate of change.

zimv20

Apr 19, 2005, 05:38 PM

He's not my moral compass.
nor mine. i'm not quite so hateful.

IJ Reilly

Apr 19, 2005, 05:40 PM

What? Like the earth going round the sun? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Church_controversy)

Come now, it took the church a mere 400 years to get over Galileo. Who knows what other blindingly obvious facts they're capable of accepting in another 400 years?

FoxyKaye

Apr 19, 2005, 05:42 PM

Your article fails to mention that he was a proponent of the Vatican II and was considered to be very liberal at one point. He started to change to a more conservative viewpoint in the early seventies.
Actually, no he wasn't a proponent of Vatican II (whatever that is), from the same article as before:
He was particularly upset by what he saw as destructive, liberalizing influences unleashed at the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). These ‘wild excesses’ extended to the introduction of a non-Latin Mass after Vatican II which Ratzinger characterized as a ‘tragic breach’ in tradition.

Right because we all know good Catholics are fascist :rolleyes:
From CNN.com today on Ratzinger:
In the Vatican, he has been the driving force behind crackdowns on liberation theology, religious pluralism, challenges to traditional moral teachings on issues such as homosexuality, and dissent on such issues as women's ordination.
I dunno, that sound's pretty fascist to me, and it pretty much sums up the entire Catholic Church. But then again, it's not very enlightened either.

I'm not a fan of the guy, to be honest I wish they picked somebody else but to say that his days in the HY had an impact (and by your account a negative one) on him is wrong.
Sorry, I forget that sarcasm doesn't translate well to the written word. I'll requote myself: "I use HY as an example because even though he claims to hate fascism based on his experiences in WWII Germany, in fact his leadership is extraordinarily fascist." And point out that I find it ironic that someone who has gone through great pains to distance themselves from participation in the Nazi regime can be such a fascist and totalitarian leader themselves. Not saying he's a Nazi, nor am I saying his experiences in HY and Germany had any bearing on his views or leadership now, just saying that I find it humerous that he is a de facto fascist at the head of an imperialist church.

FoxyKaye

Apr 19, 2005, 05:46 PM

If you twist a passage from Revelations enough, you can claim to predict the winner of the Super Bowl. You might as well use Nostradomus to predict the stock market.

Uh, oh... Better change my bets on Super Bowl 2006 and my stock portfolio!
;)

[Edit, a couple hours later:] OK, I'm done with this thread - I can't bear to watch the fundamentals of human rights discussed like they're subjective.

nbs2

Apr 19, 2005, 05:47 PM

Those of us who aren't Catholics have a right to voice our opinion of the new pope, right? He's not my moral compass, so I feel comfortable criticizing the church's rate of change.
That's fine. This line of responses grew out of CubaTBird's point about Benedict XVI being older and has nothing to do with people criticizing the RC church. Personally, if you do not profess a faith, I have no problem with being critical (or supportive) of the views of that faiths leadership.

My only concern is with those who profess to be Catholic and are bothered by the comments of the former Cardinal Ratzinger with the view that his previous comments will be defining of his papacy.

Me personally? I would not hesitate to call myself a social conservative and think that his leadership will provide an interesting alternative for those who are not all that pleased with the direction of society today.

iJed

Apr 19, 2005, 05:53 PM

takao

Apr 19, 2005, 05:56 PM

ahhhh nothing as funny as a religious discussions with american participants :rolleyes:

even more funny when it's about the catholic church ... perhaps i'm more sensible because of the local tradition ...

nbs2

Apr 19, 2005, 06:02 PM

The fact that an uncountable number of people in the third world will die due to one mans view on contraception is simply shocking. Aids is out of control and this pope has it in his power to have greater effect than any new drug will.
John Paul II promoted abstinence and look at his success rate. I doubt that Benedict XVI promoting condoms would really be that successful. Besides, as cliche as it is, there is no substitute for abstinence - both from the scientific and moral standpoints.

iJed

Apr 19, 2005, 06:10 PM

mactastic

Apr 19, 2005, 06:14 PM

nbs2

Apr 19, 2005, 06:18 PM

How successful would anyone be promoting something as unnatural as abstinence? Condoms actually have an excellent chance of being used in the real world and the pope promoting this would certainly save thousands of lives. It would also reduce the rate of population growth (and therefore infant death) in much of the catholic world.
As unnatural as abstinence? I would have thought that it be more natural to not have sex than it is to put a piece of latex between the two people. Anyhow, from what I understand many view condoms as lessening the sensitivity and pleasure for the man - this being a significant reason for which condoms are not used.

Also, the RC church, along with many others, believes in abstinence before and fidelity in marriage. To follow this belief would also lessen the rate of AIDS. Why should the RC church promote something that is generally treated as removing the potential consequences of failing to abide by its moral standing?

As for infant mortality rates, I think there is much more to it than the birth rate. reducing the number of pregnancies could just as easily maintain the mortality rate, just reduce the number. Wouldn't it be more effective to work to improve the mortality rate regardless of the birth rate?

zimv20

Apr 19, 2005, 06:26 PM

from what I understand many view condoms as lessening the sensitivity and pleasure for the man
yeah, it makes the experience a 9 instead of a 10. better than a 0, imo.

nbs2

Apr 19, 2005, 06:33 PM

Bull hooey. Abstinence-only kids have been shown to have higher levels of risk for risky sexual behavior than those who get all the info so to speak. As much as social conservatives want it not to be true, abstinence-only education hurts kids.
Fine, the state can teach it in schools or whereever else it would like (so long as the government of the people supports the move). But, why ask the RC church to support it. I thought that most would want church not to be involved with the state. Why should it only get involved when the state needs it to get involved, and on the state's terms?

Going back to my above post - why should the RC church change its moral beliefs to appease people today? If the pope, as its representative, expresses a desire to change it, so be it. But I don't see why the RC church (or any other church) should be condemned for espousing that which it believes is right.

mactastic

Apr 19, 2005, 06:44 PM

Fine, the state can teach it in schools or whereever else it would like (so long as the government of the people supports the move). But, why ask the RC church to support it. I thought that most would want church not to be involved with the state. Why should it only get involved when the state needs it to get involved, and on the state's terms?

We're not talking about the church getting involved with the state. We're talking about the church's accepting responsibility.

Besides, the fundies butting out of decisions about how the state teaches sex-ed WOULD be them NOT getting involved. That's not usually how it happens though, is it?

Going back to my above post - why should the RC church change its moral beliefs to appease people today? If the pope, as its representative, expresses a desire to change it, so be it. But I don't see why the RC church (or any other church) should be condemned for espousing that which it believes is right.

So if the pope decides to go crusading again because he believes it's right, you're cool with that?

I certainly condemn the beliefs of the World Church of the Creator. How about you?

iJed

Apr 19, 2005, 06:46 PM

As for infant mortality rates, I think there is much more to it than the birth rate. reducing the number of pregnancies could just as easily maintain the mortality rate, just reduce the number. Wouldn't it be more effective to work to improve the mortality rate regardless of the birth rate?

Birth control is probably the most effective way to reduce poor quality of life and standards of living. Just look how effective this method has proven to be in China. It is obvious that there are simply not enough resources to continue to feed the exploding population in parts of Africa.

iJed

Apr 19, 2005, 06:54 PM

Also, the RC church, along with many others, believes in abstinence before and fidelity in marriage. To follow this belief would also lessen the rate of AIDS. Why should the RC church promote something that is generally treated as removing the potential consequences of failing to abide by its moral standing?

I seriously doubt many people in reality have much intention of being abstinent be they Catholic or not.

Surely anyone with the level of influence of the pope has a responsibility to try and improve the lives of millions of people in a situation where condoms are currently the best realistic solution to the problem.

nbs2

Apr 19, 2005, 07:03 PM

Birth control is probably the most effective way to reduce poor quality of life and standards of living. Just look how effective this method has proven to be in China. It is obvious that there are simply not enough resources to continue to feed the exploding population in parts of Africa.
China has a major problem looming - single men. Because of the one child policy, many Chinese parents have chosen to abort female fetuses (feti?) because of traditional beliefs that the sons will take care of them in old age while the daughters will care for her husband's parents. However, because of the glut of Chinese men, there is a shortage of females. There is a looming problem of young single men who cannot find wives. Additionally, there is a problem of labor shortages in China. Most of the people that are resultingly unemployed will likely be the single men. What is being created is a breeding ground of young, angry men who have no loyalty to anybody who are angry at the system in place. This is a looming crisis will need to be dealt with.

As for feeding the population in parts of Africa, much of the problem is the need to maintain artificially high prices of food to allow family farms to maintain some form of profitabilty. Under a situation where all could grow all they can and can sell it all, the market would collapse, prices would shoot down, and you would be left with the agri-giants, who themselves would struggle (and result in layoffs). But, we would have enough food to feed the Africans, along with the rest of the world.

nbs2

Apr 19, 2005, 07:06 PM

I seriously doubt many people in reality have much intention of being abstinent be they Catholic or not.

Surely anyone with the level of influence of the pope has a responsibility to try and improve the lives of millions of people in a situation where condoms are currently the best realistic solution to the problem.
To make sure I understand, the pope should have a responsibility to adopt a practice that he views as immoral in order to improve the quality of life for many. Does that mean that much of Europe should adopt Genetically Modified Food b/c it will make it easier to relieve hunger in the Third World?

miloblithe

Apr 19, 2005, 07:07 PM

He's apparently worried about "the dictatorship of relativism."

That's got to be one of the best contradiction in terms I've ever seen.

At least he's 78.

skunk

Apr 19, 2005, 07:19 PM

As unnatural as abstinence? I would have thought that it be more natural to not have sex than it is to put a piece of latex between the two people.It is not "natural" not to have sex. We have sex organs. What are they for, if not sex? The agent of their so-called designer should be aware of that, at least.
Anyhow, from what I understand many view condoms as lessening the sensitivity and pleasure for the man - this being a significant reason for which condoms are not used.Aha! So, do you think the Church is against condoms because they reduce the man's pleasure, too?
Also, the RC church, along with many others, believes in abstinence before and fidelity in marriage. To follow this belief would also lessen the rate of AIDS. Why should the RC church promote something that is generally treated as removing the potential consequences of failing to abide by its moral standing?The fear of God and hellfire aren't enough? Death to the unbelievers!
As for infant mortality rates, I think there is much more to it than the birth rate. reducing the number of pregnancies could just as easily maintain the mortality rate, just reduce the number. Wouldn't it be more effective to work to improve the mortality rate regardless of the birth rate?Reducing the number of pregnancies reduces the demands on family resources, ergo, standards of living, nutrition and care improve. No rocket science there.

IJ Reilly

Apr 19, 2005, 07:22 PM

He's apparently worried about "the dictatorship of relativism."

That's got to be one of the best contradiction in terms I've ever seen.

At least he's 78.

Which is old, relatively.

skunk

Apr 19, 2005, 07:30 PM

To make sure I understand, the pope should have a responsibility to adopt a practice that he views as immoral in order to improve the quality of life for many.Considering his stated views on homosexuals and women, his morality seems entirely relative. Incidentally, when does he become infallible? On accession? Is his infallibility dormant before election? Is it retrospective?
Does that mean that much of Europe should adopt Genetically Modified Food b/c it will make it easier to relieve hunger in the Third World?Non sequitur. GM crops may devastate the planet, a few condoms won't. Why should Europe adopting GM food affect hunger in the Third World?

aloofman

Apr 19, 2005, 07:49 PM

OK, I'm done with this thread - I can't bear to watch the fundamentals of human rights discussed like they're subjective.

Seeing as how the concept of human rights was created by humans, I don't see how they can NOT be subjective.

aloofman

Apr 19, 2005, 07:53 PM

China has a major problem looming - single men. Because of the one child policy, many Chinese parents have chosen to abort female fetuses (feti?) because of traditional beliefs that the sons will take care of them in old age while the daughters will care for her husband's parents. However, because of the glut of Chinese men, there is a shortage of females. There is a looming problem of young single men who cannot find wives. Additionally, there is a problem of labor shortages in China. Most of the people that are resultingly unemployed will likely be the single men. What is being created is a breeding ground of young, angry men who have no loyalty to anybody who are angry at the system in place. This is a looming crisis will need to be dealt with.

There's a traditional method of dealing with a population of aggressive, single men, and it's been very popular over the years: send them off to war.

I kind of think that the China's problems with rural unemployment, state corruption, and an illegitimate banking system will cause unrest before the single guys will.

mpw

Apr 19, 2005, 08:32 PM

John Paul II promoted abstinence and look at his success rate. I doubt that Benedict XVI promoting condoms would really be that successful. Besides, as cliche as it is, there is no substitute for abstinence - both from the scientific and moral standpoints.

Abstinence is all very well as an ideal (not my ideal you understand) but in practice it's never gonna work. News-flash: Sex is great fun. Teenagers, and people of all ages, want to have sex. Some even want it with people the same sex as them, or even both at the same time.

It's a fact that many 'catholic' teenagers will remember that condoms are condemned by their faith while they have a quickie. Some would say one sin was a matter of choice while the other, while still a choice was also an barely controllable urge. Almost as if humans evolved hard-wired to have sex rather than created to make love.

pseudobrit

Apr 19, 2005, 09:17 PM

Aha! So, do you think the Church is against condoms because they reduce the man's pleasure, too?

That is awesome. I'm using that line someday... "but sweetheart, not only do they make God angry, they reduce sensitivity. It's an abomination."

Funny thing is I got real sex education, with contraceptives and abortion, in Catholic School. They steered you certain ways of course, but they didn't withhold information like they do to the public school kids today.

As for the pope, he's just been elected today. Let's see what he does. Hell, I even gave Bush II a chance.

skunk

Apr 19, 2005, 11:02 PM

As for the pope, he's just been elected today. Let's see what he does. Hell, I even gave Bush II a chance.Not a very good prognosis, then...
:(

nbs2

Apr 20, 2005, 10:08 AM

It is not "natural" not to have sex. We have sex organs. What are they for, if not sex? The agent of their so-called designer should be aware of that, at least....
Aha! So, do you think the Church is against condoms because they reduce the man's pleasure, too?....
The fear of God and hellfire aren't enough? Death to the unbelievers!...
Reducing the number of pregnancies reduces the demands on family resources, ergo, standards of living, nutrition and care improve. No rocket science there...
So if the RC church believes that it is natural to wait to have sex until marriage (and stay faithful within), would we ask that they abandon that which they believe natural for the two that they believe to be unnatural (pre/extramarital sex and condoms)?

I never suggested the RC church should not promote condom use because of a loss of sensitivity, just that it is an excuse by men not to use them. In most of these 3rd world societies that apparenty need the intervention of the pope, men wield significant power over women, especially over the biggest risk group (young prostitutes). There are reports of men refusing to wear condoms via threats to the person or simply a threat to go to someone else who won't make him wear it. Either way, even when available, they aren't being worn. Oh, and the one justification that I have yet to hear is "I don't wear them b/c the church says it's wrong" so I doubt people will say "I'll wear them because the church says it's ok."

Death to the unbelievers? Let me ask the reader of this post. Do you have defined morals, or at least something you believe in very strongly - I mean something that you view as fundamental to your being? Now, that belief - do you think humanity would be better if more people espoused that belief? Now, if I told you that a lot of people disagree with you and think that your belief is useless to believe in this world, so you should change your belief to conform with everybody else, would you abandon it? I hope not. Why should the RC church do what you will not do (at least I hope you wouldn't)?

And, reducing the birth rate will not singularily reduce the mortality rate. The system may not be so taxed, but there still must be changes in the system to transfer the benefits will filter to the mothers of the newborn children.

As for those who think that the single, angry, disenfranchised men in China will not be a threat, remember what most of the terrorists in the Middle East have in common. But that's another debate for another day.

As for this thread, it seems as if I approached the topic incorrectly and this has gotten a bit off course. My goal was to simply to get people to lay off of Benedict XVI, to discuss the role of the RC church and papacy in being guides in todays world. Do I agree with the teachings of the RC church? Not totally, but there are beliefs that I do share with them. My greatest respect for it comes from the fact that for all the failures of component individuals, it still tries to do good in the world without deviating from its moral beliefs. But, I seem to have gotten myself into a debate where I only sought a conversation. Ah, such is life.

skunk

Apr 20, 2005, 10:43 AM

So if the RC church believes that it is natural to wait to have sex until marriage (and stay faithful within), would we ask that they abandon that which they believe natural for the two that they believe to be unnatural (pre/extramarital sex and condoms)?While I think that "natural" is a peculiar word to use in this context, I agree that they can hold whatever beliefs they like. I just think it is no more right to forbid the use of condoms than to forbid the mixing of two kinds of cloth. And you don't hear much about that.

I never suggested the RC church should not promote condom use because of a loss of sensitivity, just that it is an excuse by men not to use them. In most of these 3rd world societies that apparenty need the intervention of the pope, men wield significant power over women, especially over the biggest risk group (young prostitutes). There are reports of men refusing to wear condoms via threats to the person or simply a threat to go to someone else who won't make him wear it. Either way, even when available, they aren't being worn. Oh, and the one justification that I have yet to hear is "I don't wear them b/c the church says it's wrong" so I doubt people will say "I'll wear them because the church says it's ok."I'm not for a moment suggesting that the Church should promote condoms, just that it should not proscribe them.

Death to the unbelievers? Let me ask the reader of this post. Do you have defined morals, or at least something you believe in very strongly - I mean something that you view as fundamental to your being? Now, that belief - do you think humanity would be better if more people espoused that belief? Now, if I told you that a lot of people disagree with you and think that your belief is useless to believe in this world, so you should change your belief to conform with everybody else, would you abandon it? I hope not. Why should the RC church do what you will not do (at least I hope you wouldn't)?Somehow, you make it sound as if it's just a political party with added hellfire. Which, in a way, it is....

And, reducing the birth rate will not singularily reduce the mortality rate. The system may not be so taxed, but there still must be changes in the system to transfer the benefits will filter to the mothers of the newborn children.On the contrary, a reduction in birth rate reduces demand at the most local possible level without the need for transfer of benefits from elsewhere.

As for those who think that the single, angry, disenfranchised men in China will not be a threat, remember what most of the terrorists in the Middle East have in common. But that's another debate for another day.Indeed.

As for this thread, it seems as if I approached the topic incorrectly and this has gotten a bit off course. My goal was to simply to get people to lay off of Benedict XVI, to discuss the role of the RC church and papacy in being guides in todays world. Do I agree with the teachings of the RC church? Not totally, but there are beliefs that I do share with them. My greatest respect for it comes from the fact that for all the failures of component individuals, it still tries to do good in the world without deviating from its moral beliefs.That's OK if you share those moral beliefs and their application; and especially OK if you're white, male, and enfranchised.

nbs2

Apr 20, 2005, 11:58 AM

I'm not for a moment suggesting that the Church should promote condoms, just that it should not proscribe them.
Ok, I think the miscommunication gap has shrunk - I had interpreted your comments earlier to mean they should promote the use. Regardless, the RC church is in a corner and cannot cease to proscribe without implicitly promoting.
Somehow, you make it sound as if it's just a political party with added hellfire. Which, in a way, it is....
What is a true political party? Would my definition of a group of people united in a belief about how best a government should be run be acceptable? If so, I think there is much in common between political parties and religion. After all, the Soviets sought to replace religion with the state and the Taliban sought to replace the state with religion. Either extreme, when sought through violence is wrong. (but the church/state divide and how that has played out throughout history is also another discussion)
On the contrary, a reduction in birth rate reduces demand at the most local possible level without the need for transfer of benefits from elsewhere.
I agree. My only concern is that the reduction in demand not be abused by those in power - both on a local and national level. You could reduce demand to almost nothing, but if those with authority/power take/abuse the surplus, the mortality rate will be maintained. Hypo: less babies means less need for food products. food is taken to feed the military as it fights local rebels. net gain to the populace? nothing. That is my concern
That's OK if you share those moral beliefs and their application; and especially OK if you're white, male, and enfranchised.
male? yes. white? far from it.;) enfranchised? i would say yes - i can vote (i'm a citizen and not a felon) - but i'm not sure of what definition you are driving at there. I think in the end, I would say my beliefs stem from the was I was brought up by my parents (who are not white either - but they are immigrants:)).