Pope Benedict, living up to his reputation.

[brap]

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4473001.stm) (my bold).
Pope Benedict XVI has responded firmly to the first challenge of his papacy by condemning a Spanish government bill allowing marriage between homosexuals.

The bill, passed by parliament's Socialist-dominated lower house, also allows gay couples to adopt.

A senior Vatican official described the bill - which is likely to become law within a few months - as iniquitous.

He said Roman Catholic officials should be prepared to lose their jobs rather than co-operate with the law.

The bill would make Spain the first European country to allow homosexual people to marry and adopt children.

Interviewed in the Italian newspaper, Corriere de la Serra, Cardinal Lopez Trujillo said the Church was making an urgent call for freedom of conscience for Roman Catholics and appealing to them to resist the law.

He said every profession linked with implementing homosexual marriages should oppose it, even if it meant losing their jobs.

The cardinal insisted that just because something was made law it did not make it right.

Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero took office a year ago making it clear he intended to remove what he called the church's undeniable advantages and make Spain a secular state.

There are likely to be further tensions with Pope Benedict XVI. Mr Zapatero has made it clear that he intends to streamline divorce law and even to relax the conditions placed on abortion.
Night watchman indeed... the sooner they get a real batsman on the crease, the better.

[iGav]

What a cherry. :rolleyes:

[Don't panic]

why are you surprised? was there any doubt that he represents the most conservative "school" within the catholic church?

[pseudobrit]

why are you surprised? was there any doubt that he represents the most conservative "school" within the catholic church?

One thing that bothers me about the criticism against the Church is that for some reason people outside the Church seem to feel most affronted by its positions.

The Church guides the lives of its members. It does not make the rules for non-Catholics, though cases like this (and the reporting angles intensify the perception) tend to overstep these bounds by encouraging Catholics to affect those around them, Catholic or not.

Benedict XVI does represent a very, very old view within the Church. I hope his legacy is not one of bitter conservatism, but I fear that's where the focus will lie.

John Paul II issued a new Catechism for the first time in 400 years that affirms the faith and clearly and compellingly defines the Church's social positions. You may not agree with everything it says, but you can't fault the Catechism for holes in logic or not being properly researched.

John Paul II took some very profound and powerful positions during his papacy that were extremely progressive and filled with hope and love.

Sadly, the media tend to overlook and forget the many times the Church (especially the Pope) spoke out against war, condemned poverty and corruption and pleaded for peace and justice in our world.

Instead, they focus on the less important but more sensational bits, and the Church ends up looking much more backwards than it truly is.

[jelloshotsrule]

pseudo- as a fellow progressive catholic i hear ya... problem is, most people listen to what the media and their local priests say, and that is often not what "the church" is really teaching. a good example is that in jp2's latest book of thought, he posed the question of what if homosexual marriage is one of the core evils that is taking over... now of course the headline is "pope condemns gay marriage as core evil" or something. and that's what most catholics will see, take as "infallible" (wrongly of course) and put into practice. whereas i might see it and say, well the pope, like any philosopher, is asking questions. he is not claiming to know. he is asking what if....

anyways, my point is just that even though the church may not be all bad from the top down... what the top *appears* like will very much influence what the bottom picks up on and adopts as rule, without actually thinking....

[iGary]

I sure hope he takes the same stance against countries with legal divorces.

[edesignuk]

Grrrr....don't even get me started :rolleyes: :mad:

[pseudobrit]

pseudo- as a fellow progressive catholic i hear ya... problem is, most people listen to what the media and their local priests say, and that is often not what "the church" is really teaching.

In my experience, local priests tend to be fairly progressive with their attitudes, and I think this attitude affects the Church at the local level more than people could know. Homilies have a positive message, not one obsessed with admonitions and condemnations.

The true power of the Church resonates within the individual parishes, not the Vatican.

The Church as I know it -- the small town old German church I grew up in -- does not focus on negative issues, but is warm, accepting and forgiving. It's family. It doesn't judge you or hold disdain for you because you're a sinner (because we're all sinners). Most people don't see this aspect of the Church, least of all those outside it.

And the media could give a crap about the average pastor or how he tends to his congregation, so all people see are the negatives.

[pseudobrit]

I sure hope he takes the same stance against countries with legal divorces.

I feel that acceptance of gays and protection of their civil rights will strengthen the family and the religious institution of marriage.

I also feel that divorce is an abomination and the greatest threat to the family and our future.

The Catholic Church requires one year of counseling before allowing a couple to recieve the sacrament of marriage.

[IJ Reilly]

And the media could give a crap about the average pastor or how he tends to his congregation, so all people see are the negatives.

Honestly, I think your real beef is (or should be) with the church hierarchy. They seem to be the ones who are out of touch with the average pastor or parishioner. When I listen to the views of most American Catholics, and then to the leadership in Rome, they hardly seem to me to be on the same page in many significant respects. Being a liberal member of an inherently conservative faith must be a challenge.

[pseudobrit]

Honestly, I think your real beef is (or should be) with the church hierarchy. They seem to be the ones who are out of touch with the average pastor or parishioner. When I listen to the views of most American Catholics, and then to the leadership in Rome, they hardly seem to me to be on the same page in many significant respects.

But do you listen to the views of the leadership in Rome or do you listen to the reports about views of the leadership in Rome?

[solvs]

One thing that bothers me about the criticism against the Church is that for some reason people outside the Church seem to feel most affronted by its positions.
It does bother me, even though I am not Catholic. I mean, Pro-life protests are one thing, but the reach of the church and the faithful is felt beyond that. If a religious leader is condemning a law like this, even going so far as to tell people to quit their jobs over it, I'd say it's going a little far. There's a big difference between, say, raising objections to a war that's killing a lot of innocent people and people saying gays can't get married because their religion (interpreted by their religious leaders) say so.

When the Catholic church sticks to worrying more about it's own, and only sticking it's nose into others' business when it involves humanitarian causes (even then, sparingly), maybe the rest of us will stop worrying about what the Pope says.

For that, and other reasons, I was kinda hoping it would be the African guy. I knew it was a longshot (well, shot in Hell), but it still would have been very progressive of them. Kinda sad they went with the safe pick (conservative, and old). Believe it or not, the Church (and by extension, it's parish) do affect the rest of us. Here's hoping the good things John Paul started to do will be continued... but so far, we're not off to a very good start.

[Lacero]

All shall bow to our new Emperor.

http://www3.telus.net/poojja/popeatine.jpg
*cue Star Wars emperor theme music*

[brap]

But do you listen to the views of the leadership in Rome or do you listen to the reports about views of the leadership in Rome?Do you listen to the views of the leadership in Washington, or do you listen to the reports about views of the leadership in Washington?

[Blue Velvet]

I also feel that divorce is an abomination and the greatest threat to the family and our future.

Divorce enables many thousands of men and women per year to escape abusive and violent relationships. Men's violence and women's hostility towards their respective partners is just as great a threat to your sanctimonious concept of 'family'.

Staying together 'for the sake of the children' never works.

[mpw]

...Men's violence and women's hostility towards their respective partners is just as great a threat to your sanctimonious concept of 'family'....

Or indeed women's violence etc.

[Blue Velvet]

Or indeed women's violence etc.

While it does exist, it is not the same problem as men's violence in relationships and society and you know it.

"Research shows that nearly 90 percent of battering victims are women and only about ten percent are men... and that women are seriously injured at seven times the rate of men..." (http://thesafetyzone.org/everyone/gelles.html)

[mpw]

While it does exist, it is not the same problem as men's violence in relationships and society and you know it...]

Yes it does exist and where it does exist it IS the same problem, although often there's not the infrastructure of care and readiness of acceptance for the male victim as for the female.

Just doing my bit for equal rights, the problem is violence in society whether dealt by man, woman or child.

[iGav]

although often there's not the infrastructure of care and readiness of acceptance for the male victim as for the female.

I think that's one of the main issues why there seems to be a reluctance by men to report that they are victims of domestic violence, and as such the data and figures for men suffering domestic violence is likely grossly, and massively inaccurate.

[takao]

oh well looks like the first few surprises might be on the way: the austrian derstandard (http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=2024436 ) quoted an italian newspaper "La Repubblica" article in which it is stated that pope is preparing chances on which he worked before as head of the congregation of faith which includes: * re-allowing divorced catholics to the sacrements
* increasing the retirement age of bishop from 75 to 80

i wonder if this is true ...it would be a big step forward and much more could perhaps be expected

[mactastic]

While the idea of a 'nu-cu-lar' family is cited nearly ubiquitously, with the idea of a working father, a stay-at-home mother, and 2.5 children behind a white picket fence put forth as the basic 'unit' of a family, historically this has almost never been the 'norm'.

It seems to me, putting forth this image of the ideal family is just another method devised to keep women 'in their place' so to speak.

[pseudobrit]

Divorce enables many thousands of men and women per year to escape abusive and violent relationships.

You're right. Legal divorce is very important and in no way would I suggest that the law should be otherwise. I would never encourage anyone in an abusive relationship to stay together "for the kids" or any other reason.

I do feel that too many people rush into marriage without knowing what they're doing or getting into, and/or without truly knowing the other person. To me, this is where the problem lies and hence where the solution can be found.

My problem is hypocrisy of the self-righteous "Christian" establishment, who are throwing fits of hate-speech about gay marriage while divorce is the outcome of over half the straight marriages. In their rush to place restrictions on homosexuals' right to marriage, why aren't they revamping the system to restrict heterosexuals, who have proven to be irresponsible with this "traditional establishment?"

Divorce and gay marriage: Jesus explicitly and vehemently condemns one in the gospel; guess which?

[iGary]

I feel that acceptance of gays and protection of their civil rights will strengthen the family and the religious institution of marriage.

I also feel that divorce is an abomination and the greatest threat to the family and our future.

The Catholic Church requires one year of counseling before allowing a couple to recieve the sacrament of marriage.

Now if only the church would take such a firm stance PUBLICLY like that.

Oh, wait, that would be unpopular, I mean gays are easy to pick on. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I DARE the Catholic Church to take a public stance on divorce that is aggressive as its stancve on gay marriage.


It will NEVER happen.

Hypocrisy.

[mactastic]

Not to mention a harsh public stance against pedophilia. You'd think that would be an easy one to come out against, but no.

[iGary]

I mean can you imagine what would happen to the church if he actually started a campaign of any magnitude against divorce? It would tear the whole church down.

But gay marriage? That one's easy.

I'm not even saying I'm for gay marriage, but their hypocrisy is astounding.

Wait, it's a church, not so surprising.

[pseudobrit]

Now if only the church would take such a firm stance PUBLICLY like that.

Seriously, I DARE the Catholic Church to take a public stance on divorce that is aggressive as its stancve on gay marriage.

The Church does take an aggressive stance against divorce, but here in North America it is not as sensational as their stance against gay marriage.

Also, it is almost as widely unpopular as ther Church's stance on contraception. So it goes unreported here.

Meanwhile, last year, here's what then-Cardinal Ratzinger had to say:

ROME, MAY 17, 2004.- The crisis of the family in Europe is endangering the identity of the continent, warns Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith proposed Christian values as the anchor of salvation, in an address at a ceremony organized in Rome by Marcello Pera, president of the Italian Senate.

A few days after the entry of 10 new nations into the European Union, the cardinal said: "Precisely in this hour of its greatest success, Europe seems to have emptied itself in its interior, paralyzing itself in a certain sense by a crisis in its circulatory system," a crisis that endangers its "identity."

"To this interior failing of the spiritual forces is added the fact that also ethnically Europe seems to be undertaking the path of farewell," the cardinal commented in his address last Thursday.

"There is a strange lack of enthusiasm about the future," the dean of the College of Cardinals contended. "Children, who are the future, are seen as a threat to the present; it is thought that they take something away from our lives."

This situation, he stressed, marked the "the decline of the Roman Empire."

The cardinal recalled how Europe -- both East and West -- previously agreed, in the light of biblical faith, on the idea of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Therefore, "Europe would no longer be Europe if this fundamental cell of its social edifice disappears or is essentially altered," he said.

"The Charter of Fundamental Rights [of the European Union] speaks of the right to marriage, but it does not make reference to a specific juridical and moral protection and does not even define it in a more precise way," the cardinal continued.

"And we all know how marriage and the family are threatened, on one hand, because of the emptying of its indissolubility through ever-more easy forms of divorce; on the other, because of a new behavior that is spreading increasingly: a man and woman living together without the juridical form of marriage," he said.

Regarding proposals for the recognition of marriage between homosexuals, Cardinal Ratzinger said: "With this tendency we go outside of the whole moral history of humanity."

"It is not a question of discrimination, but rather a question of what is a human person insofar as man and woman," he said. "We are facing a dissolution of the image of the human being, whose consequences can be extremely grave."

With reference to the religious question, Cardinal Ratzinger emphasized that "in our present-day society, thank God, anyone who dishonors the faith of Israel, its image of God, its great figures, is penalized. Whoever offends the Koran and the fundamental convictions of Islam is penalized."

However, the cardinal continued, "when it is a question of Christ and of what is sacred to Christians, then freedom of opinion appears as the supreme good, and if it is limited it would be akin to threatening or even destroying tolerance and freedom in general."

"But freedom of opinion cannot destroy the honor and dignity of the other; it does not mean freedom to lie or to destroy human rights," he said.

Cardinal Ratzinger added: "Europe needs a new -- and certainly critical and humble -- acceptance of itself, if it really wishes to survive."

Note the fact that gay marriage, while touched on, is hardly the centerpiece of this position.

[iGary]

The Church does take an aggressive stance against divorce, but here in North America it is not as sensational as their stance against gay marriage.

Also, it is almost as widely unpopular as ther Church's stance on contraception. So it goes unreported here.

Meanwhile, last year, here's what then-Cardinal Ratzinger had to say:



Note the fact that gay marriage, while touched on, is hardly the centerpiece of this position.

He wasn't the Pope then.

Let him say it now.

[mactastic]

He could start by refusing communion to divorcees in the same manner that some priests were refusing communion to those who are pro-choice.

I oughta find a bumper sticker for my truck that says "You can't be both divorced AND Catholic".

[mpw]

...Divorce and gay marriage: Jesus explicitly and vehemently condemns one in the gospel; guess which?...


Is it Mark?

[skunk]

:D

[pseudobrit]

I oughta find a bumper sticker for my truck that says "You can't be both divorced AND Catholic".

You can, but then you're a Catholic who lives in a state of sin (if you're remarried, which the Church doesn't recognise as anything less than bigamy) and as such you are unfit to receive communion.

[takao]

You can, but then you're a Catholic who lives in a state of sin (if you're remarried, which the Church doesn't recognise as anything less than bigamy) and as such you are unfit to receive communion.

or of course sombody could for once read posting #20 of this thread ;) that the whole thing might be not worth the discussion anyway because it might change in the near future ;)

[IJ Reilly]

But do you listen to the views of the leadership in Rome or do you listen to the reports about views of the leadership in Rome?

I'm not sure I understand the question. I didn't create the gulf between what American Catholics practice and what Rome requires of them (and let's not pretend it doesn't exist).

[pseudobrit]

I'm not sure I understand the question. I didn't create the gulf between what American Catholics practice and what Rome requires of them (and let's not pretend it doesn't exist).

What I'm saying is that the reports in the media in the US concerning the Church typically distort the reality to focus on the sensational.

For instance, if the Church makes a statement (or separate statments) about marriage including condemnation of divorce, infidelity, gay marriage, contraception and unmarried couples living together, what gets reported here is not what the Church teaches but what's relevant to the current US political climate.

[Blue Velvet]

What I'm saying is that the reports in the media in the US concerning the Church typically distort the reality to focus on the sensational.

And the British media?

Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret. (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1469055,00.html)

[skunk]

That's nice. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[pseudobrit]

I'm disappointed in how they handled the whole thing.

I have a feeling they wanted to avoid a scandal, but this situation is akin to Watergate: in dealing with one scandal, they create another that's bigger still.

It's sad that this happened to these children and sad for the Church because the overwhelming majority of priests are very good men. Now they have the undeserved image of all being child molesters despite the percentage being lower than the general public.

[iGav]

That's nice. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Is it such a surprise though? The Vatican is as corrupt as they come.

[skunk]

Depressingly unsurprising.

[IJ Reilly]

What I'm saying is that the reports in the media in the US concerning the Church typically distort the reality to focus on the sensational.

What I'm saying (and in a round-about way, so are you), is that as a American Catholic, you find that your local church, priest and parish meet your spiritual needs, even as the gulf between parishioners and Rome grows ever wider. No need for media sensationalism to know about and understand this.

[mactastic]

You can, but then you're a Catholic who lives in a state of sin (if you're remarried, which the Church doesn't recognise as anything less than bigamy) and as such you are unfit to receive communion.

Actually I should reword it so it says "You can't be both Catholic AND pro-divorce". It's a counterpart to the ones I've seen with "You can't be both Catholic AND pro-abortion".

It relates to the revolting concept of refusing communion to pro-choice polititians, yet allowing divorced and remarried polititians to receive communion from the very same priests.

[pseudobrit]

Actually I should reword it so it says "You can't be both Catholic AND pro-divorce". It's a counterpart to the ones I've seen with "You can't be both Catholic AND pro-abortion".

It relates to the revolting concept of refusing communion to pro-choice polititians, yet allowing divorced and remarried polititians to receive communion from the very same priests.

I make distinction along legal lines. I don't oppose legal divorce, but I wouldn't expect nor would I want my Church to support sacramental divorce. I don't like abortion, but I don't think the government should be involved in the dispute.

So you could say I'm not pro-divorce nor am I pro-abortion. I'm just not going to force my beliefs and faiths down everyone else's throat.

[IJ Reilly]

Actually, I've never met anyone who was "pro abortion," though I know plenty who are "pro abortion rights." Totally different concepts. The same goes for divorce. I don't know anyone who thinks it should be encouraged.

[mactastic]

Actually, I've never met anyone who was "pro abortion," though I know plenty who are "pro abortion rights." Totally different concepts. The same goes for divorce. I don't know anyone who thinks it should be encouraged.

Indeed. That's part of the offensiveness of the original bumper sticker. It was not lost on me.